With reference to the ways Priestley presents reactions to the investigation in the extract and
elsewhere in the play, show that there are differing reactions to the investigation. Whose reaction
surprised you the most? Give reasons for your opinions.
Throughout “An Inspector Calls”, the accused characters are shown to react very
differently to the investigation, especially across the generational divide. Mr Birling, the first
to be interrogated, argues that Eva Smith “had to go”. The assertive language demonstrates
how Mr Birling refuses to accept any personal responsibility for Eva’s demise. Priestley, a
socialist, depicts Mr Birling in this way to illustrate to the audience how the merciless ways
of capitalist society are extremely damaging and harmful, in order to emphasise his point
that humanity ought to take care of each other by adopting a more socialist mindset to his
audience.
Mrs Birling reacts in a similar manner to her husband. In the extract outlined above,
she is described as walking “briskly and self-confidently, quite out of key”. The stage
direction highlights her own arrogance and self-assuredness. This is supported by the
metaphor “quite out of key”, which emphasises how she is detached from the harsh reality of
her own actions. She is shown to the audience to be indifferent to the consequences of her
actions, much like her husband, and feels no guilt.
By contrast, their children react in an entirely different fashion, particularly Sheila,
who undergoes transformative character development. Early in the play, she is presented by
Priestley as vain and spoiled. Upon discovering that Eva Smith had died, she asked if she
was “Pretty?”. The short, sharp sentence and simple adjective exaggerate Sheila’s superficial
mindset and obsession with trivial matters such as physical appearance. Priestley presents
Sheila in this way to expose the vanity of the upper class to his audience in order to
dismantle the perception that the aristocracy were inherently superior to the working class.
This was part of his socialist beliefs, in opposition with the ruling class system of the time.
Later, Sheila also tries to avoid liability in Eva Smith’s death. She laments “Oh-why had
this to happen?”. The use of the rhetorical question forms a passive voice, implying that
Sheila is attempting to absolve herself of blame. This is why her later actions are arguably
the most shocking to the audience. Sheila is recounted as “(cutting in) It’s crazy”. Priestley’s
use of stage direction emphasises Sheila’s haste to prevent her mother from damning
herself any further. This indicates how Sheila recognises that it’s futile to argue against their
involvement in Eva’s death. She implores Mrs Birling to not “try to build up a kind of wall”
between them and Eva Smith. With this metaphor, Sheila echoes the socialist principles of
Priestley and becomes his mouthpiece through defying the concept that a divide should
exist between classes. Sheila’s character development undermines the importance of the
shallow and materialistic possessions she valued at the beginning of the play, demonstrating
to the audience that the pride of the aristocracy is useless. Through this, Priestley expresses
his disapproval of the upper classes and their frivolity.
Eric follows this pattern, expressing genuine remorse for his actions. Often, he is
described as speaking “miserably”. The repetition of the stage direction accentuates Eric’s
genuine distress, which is in stark juxtaposition with the apathy of his parents. Later, Eric
recognises the unimportance of whether or not the Inspector was really a police inspector,
shown by “(bursting out)... this girl’s still dead, isn’t she?”. The rhetorical question reveals his
indifference towards the Inspector, choosing to focus on Eva instead. From this, the
elsewhere in the play, show that there are differing reactions to the investigation. Whose reaction
surprised you the most? Give reasons for your opinions.
Throughout “An Inspector Calls”, the accused characters are shown to react very
differently to the investigation, especially across the generational divide. Mr Birling, the first
to be interrogated, argues that Eva Smith “had to go”. The assertive language demonstrates
how Mr Birling refuses to accept any personal responsibility for Eva’s demise. Priestley, a
socialist, depicts Mr Birling in this way to illustrate to the audience how the merciless ways
of capitalist society are extremely damaging and harmful, in order to emphasise his point
that humanity ought to take care of each other by adopting a more socialist mindset to his
audience.
Mrs Birling reacts in a similar manner to her husband. In the extract outlined above,
she is described as walking “briskly and self-confidently, quite out of key”. The stage
direction highlights her own arrogance and self-assuredness. This is supported by the
metaphor “quite out of key”, which emphasises how she is detached from the harsh reality of
her own actions. She is shown to the audience to be indifferent to the consequences of her
actions, much like her husband, and feels no guilt.
By contrast, their children react in an entirely different fashion, particularly Sheila,
who undergoes transformative character development. Early in the play, she is presented by
Priestley as vain and spoiled. Upon discovering that Eva Smith had died, she asked if she
was “Pretty?”. The short, sharp sentence and simple adjective exaggerate Sheila’s superficial
mindset and obsession with trivial matters such as physical appearance. Priestley presents
Sheila in this way to expose the vanity of the upper class to his audience in order to
dismantle the perception that the aristocracy were inherently superior to the working class.
This was part of his socialist beliefs, in opposition with the ruling class system of the time.
Later, Sheila also tries to avoid liability in Eva Smith’s death. She laments “Oh-why had
this to happen?”. The use of the rhetorical question forms a passive voice, implying that
Sheila is attempting to absolve herself of blame. This is why her later actions are arguably
the most shocking to the audience. Sheila is recounted as “(cutting in) It’s crazy”. Priestley’s
use of stage direction emphasises Sheila’s haste to prevent her mother from damning
herself any further. This indicates how Sheila recognises that it’s futile to argue against their
involvement in Eva’s death. She implores Mrs Birling to not “try to build up a kind of wall”
between them and Eva Smith. With this metaphor, Sheila echoes the socialist principles of
Priestley and becomes his mouthpiece through defying the concept that a divide should
exist between classes. Sheila’s character development undermines the importance of the
shallow and materialistic possessions she valued at the beginning of the play, demonstrating
to the audience that the pride of the aristocracy is useless. Through this, Priestley expresses
his disapproval of the upper classes and their frivolity.
Eric follows this pattern, expressing genuine remorse for his actions. Often, he is
described as speaking “miserably”. The repetition of the stage direction accentuates Eric’s
genuine distress, which is in stark juxtaposition with the apathy of his parents. Later, Eric
recognises the unimportance of whether or not the Inspector was really a police inspector,
shown by “(bursting out)... this girl’s still dead, isn’t she?”. The rhetorical question reveals his
indifference towards the Inspector, choosing to focus on Eva instead. From this, the
