An Inspector Calls - Some Surprising Context
Use this for your top grade interpretations of Priestley's purpose
This is Mr Salles Teaches English, a newsletter about the easiest and most rewarding ways to get top grades in GCSE English.
This extract comes from my revision guide: The Mr Salles Guide to An Inspector Calls
The Three Unities
Priestley is following the Greek tradition in sticking to the three unities. The Greeks invented theatre, and invented the idea of Tragedy. The unities come:
“from Aristotle's Poetics, holding that a play should have one unified plot (unity of action) and that all the action should occur within one day (unity of time) and be limited to a single locale (unity of place)” (collinsdictionary.com)
Priestley wants his audience to know they are watching a play which he has crafted. (Did you know a ‘wright’ is a craftsman, a maker? This is why we have the word playwright, not playwrite).
Aristotle wrote about his unities as necessary parts of a tragedy. Priestley is consequently telling us that the story which unfolds is therefore a tragedy. This is highly unusual, because in this tragedy there is only one death – and even that is uncertain, at the end.
However, in this way he shows us that the events are symbolic – Eva’s death, and second death, represent the tragedies of the First and Second World Wars, as you will learn later.
The other tragedy is the fate of the working classes, who have been exploited by the ruling classes. Eva is not just a character, she is a symbol of the millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths: they are victimised as she is.
The Date
Priestley chooses “an evening in Spring, 1912” because it is just before The First World War. It is also essential to him because it places the play during the context of women’s campaign for the vote (suffrage), and the Suffragettes.
1912 is also crucial in that he can begin the play with a tragedy, the sinking of the Titanic in April of 1912. We know that it is just about to happen, when Birling talks about it being “unsinkable”. Priestley isn’t just trying to discredit Birling for his stupidity: the dramatic irony of us knowing the Titanic will sink also invites us to think of the play as a tragedy.
We can also infer that “Spring” is symbolic of rebirth, optimism, and hope. Perhaps he suggests at the beginning of the play that hope is still possible. This is very relevant to his message – the audience can learn from the play and vote for a socialist future, in which men don’t just “look after their own family” but remember their social responsibility: “we are all responsible for each other”.
Symbolic Setting v Realistic Setting
Priestley does not care “if a realistic set is used”, but is very careful to demand what impression needs to be created for his symbolism to work.
The furniture has to reveal that this is a dysfunctional family. It is “heavily comfortable”, which is almost a contradiction, an oxymoron. He then contrasts this with “not cosy and homelike”. We understand that, despite their wealth and luxury, the Birlings are not at home with each other.
Remember, though, that this also represents all the upper classes.
Priestley’s tone suggests that he prefers a setting which is symbolic. One clue to this is that he lists the requirements of the realistic set first, as people do when they wish to then offer a winning counter argument – in this case, the symbolic setting last.
He also lists the difficulties of a realistic set, involving lots of furniture moving, as a way to dissuade the producer from having a realistic set. So, he promotes a symbolic setting:
“Producers who wish to avoid this tricky business, which involves two re-settings of the scene and some very accurate adjustments of the extra flats necessary would be well advised to dispense with an ordinary realistic set if only because the dining-table becomes a nuisance.”
Look at how he juxtaposes “realistic” with “ordinary”, suggesting that a much better theatrical effect involves dispensing with realism. Be realistic if you want to be boring, but symbolic if you want to be interesting, he seems to be saying.
There are real physical details. But they all have symbolic meanings. Let’s see how:
1. “EDNA is just clearing the table”.
It is important that we see the contrast between Edna, the symbol of the working classes, being made to work while the privileged Birlings celebrate idly.
2. The table “has no cloth”.
Why specify this detail? Perhaps it suggests that the Birlings don’t quite understand proper etiquette. Not only should there be a cloth, but it should also be white.
This may suggest that they incorrectly see themselves as having higher status – this will be the reason that Sybil has for turning her charity away from Eva, dismissing her as “girls of that class”.
Perhaps Priestley is suggesting that the white table cloth is just a veneer, just like the respectability of the upper classes. As the Inspector says, he can’t always “tell the difference” between “respectable” and “criminal” when he meets the ruling classes.
Or, perhaps white is too symbolic of goodness and innocence, which does not fit with his view of the Birlings, who are all guilty.
Which interpretation do you prefer?
3. Etiquette
Priestley specifies that there must be “champagne glasses,” cleared away, “then replacing them with decanter of port” and insists “Port glasses are already on the table.” This does precisely follow Edwardian etiquette. However, it also strongly emphasises the amount of alcohol being consumed. Partly this will be to make it easier to show how much Eric is drinking.
More than this, because it was etiquette, all the upper classes were expected to entertain guests and drink this way. It emphasises how much the ruling classes actually drank, so that we can criticise them for their habit.
It also questions their judgment. How much of Eva’s tragedy is caused by drunkenness? We’ll think about this with Gerald and Eric’s dealings with Eva.
A final implication might be that all upper-class families rely on this ritual at dinner to cover up their lack of family feeling. They simply need the alcohol to get through the meal because they don’t necessarily enjoy each other’s company.
4. “All five are in evening dress of the period, the men in tails and white ties, not dinner-jackets.”
This again emphasises how difficult it must be for them to relax. Dinner jackets are far more comfortable, but Priestley forbids this.
This will force the male characters to appear a bit stiff and, because they won’t want to sit on their “tails”, they will have to adjust them every time they move.
This will look both uncomfortable and a bit like a ritual. In this way Priestley could be showing how class divisions are actually unnatural, and also damage the upper classes. You will see this when we look at the role of women, and when you read about the fate of upper-class sons in The First World War.
Lighting
His instructions for the lighting also show how keen he is for everything to be symbolic:
“The lighting should be pink and intimate until The Inspector arrives and then it should be brighter and harder”.
Notice that the pink lighting is “intimate” which contradicts the impression of the furniture which was “not cosy”. This is a subtle way of indicating that the family is not harmonious. It is an attempt at intimacy, but it can’t work because they are all so busy deceiving themselves or each other.
The idea of deceit is suggested by the word “pink”, which we associate with the phrase ‘rose tinted spectacles’, indicating a desire to choose to see yourself or circumstances in a false light – a positive one.
This is why The Inspector’s arrival is timed with a “brighter” and “harder” light. Not only does this suggest the lighting should be whiter, but it also gives the symbolic reason – The Inspector is going to reveal the hard truth; he is going to make the family see things as they really are, rather than through the rose tinted “pink” light.
Later in the play Sheila will notice that the timing of The Inspector’s arrival is important – “Sheila: (sharply attentive) Is that when The Inspector came, just after father had said that?”. The change in lighting will make it much easier for the audience to remember this moment clearly.
More than that, though, it will suggest that The Inspector has greater, or supernatural, powers. He somehow appears because of Birling’s words, almost as though he is summoned by them, like an incantation to invoke a spirit. This is emphasised by his effect on the lighting, the life of the stage, again implying a supernatural power.
Priestley will link this to his choice of name for The Inspector, “Goole”, which is a homophone for ‘ghoul’ or ghost.
Time and The Future
Calling the Inspector “Goole” taps into his audience’s collective knowledge of A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens. Writers often use deliberate allusions like this to remind the audience of texts they already know. You have already seen this with the communion service, Murder on the Orient Express, and The Bible. No, these allusions are not coincidences, they are ways of telling his audience that his ideas are relevant – they are connected to ideas his audience already know.
A Christmas Carol
This is another didactic text or, if you like, a morality tale. Here the job of the ghosts is to teach the protagonist, Scrooge, the consequences of his behaviour. They are named after time: the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future.
Just like Inspector Goole, their job is to teach a character about the effect that actions in the past have on the present and the future. They also teach that the future can be changed by making a moral change, and choosing to look after your fellow man. In this case, Scrooge has to change his behaviour to all men, but specifically, to Bob Cratchit, his employee. So, we could argue that Inspector Goole is most like Dickens’ “Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come”.
His audience would clearly see the parallel between this and the Birlings’ exploitation of Eva.
Priestley emphasises this by using the same dramatic device as Dickens. Scrooge is given a glimpse of a tragic future for Bob and his family, just as the Birlings are given a tragic future for Eva and her baby. Unlike Scrooge, they ignore the warning, and it appears that this causes Eva to die at the ending of the play.
If you want more free help, subscribe. There’s plenty more where this came from.