Continuous campaigning finally contributed towards success on the general election of 1945. It was obvious that the devastating events of the Second World War had shared some connections with these fresh, rational ideas about ‘community’. In my views, it was the war in the ‘Home Front’ (back in England) that began to unite people from all classes, ranging from the rich upper class to the extremely poor working classes. Everyone was in the parallel situation of danger, so suddenly; money was no longer effective as power.
In these circumstances, the only option was working together side-by-side concentrating on near equal terms (regardless of past social disparities) for the same purpose. To me, this had been the first sign of a co-operative society in Britain. Even though this was forced together, I think the most relevant factor was that it gave vital experiences for the upper classes, especially: combining with the lower classes during the worst of times to realise the overwhelming advantages working as a society. This was brought to real effect when success finally came in 1945 -the same year as the general election.
In ‘An Inspector Calls’, the author, J. B. Priestley chose to set the play in 1912 for the main purpose of highlighting his main message. This was because the period of 1912 was directly during the ‘Edwardian Era’ (1910 -1914) signifying the period with the most acute class divisions in England history had ever encountered: “With 87% of the country’s wealth in the hands of 5% of its population”. In fact, the worst economic and social events occurred during this short pinnacle of the capitalist dominance. Examples include the ‘Great War’ (First World War: 1914-1918) and the sinking of the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic (1912).
Therefore, because of these negative extremities in function, Priestley wanted a play that could illustrate the damaging effects of the past, and the moral implication -with the need to change for the future. The main message he wanted convey in ‘An Inspector Calls’ is that: “We are all members of one body”. What Priestley means by this is that everyone within any society depends on the efforts of everyone else in his/her society. This suggests also that progress itself is a product of the economy working together in a ‘symbiotic circle’ represented by the connotation of the word “body”; symbolic to the context of a ‘living’ body.
This implies the vivid message that if any of the components were damaged or missing (e. g. the lungs in the body) then the body (relevant to society) will fail, or worse: collapse all together. Priestley’s detective drama distinctively conveys the message that: “we are responsible for each other”. The main moral messages, especially towards the end of the play, vigorously supports the initial idea of a “body” and I think Priestley’s aim tries convey the fact that if his intentions are achieved, we will be getting closer to the goal of a ‘healthier’ society.
We can now see this play served a far greater purpose than simply to entertain the crowds of 1945. Focusing now on the content of the play: I noticed Priestley has created many dramatic devices to serve his message, but one that is recognised as the most central device is the concept of the inspector himself. Therefore, his dramatic entrance (in act one) is of great significance to the entire play.
This is chiefly described in how his presents was presented: by a “Sharp ring of the front door bell”-perfectly timed, to disrupt the climax of ironic references made in Birling in his immensely supercilious capitalist speech regarding how “A man has to look after himself”. His imperiously selfish views were propagated to directly attack Priestley’s beliefs relating to a community. This “nonsense” concept of community also directly contradicts the significant concept of a “body”; so now, it is up to the corrective purpose of the inspector to seriously challenge Birling’s eccentric, stereotypical capitalist ways.
The word “sharp” is used especially effectively to create a sudden, striking moment of suspense -just before the inspector’s surprise entrance: simultaneously halting Birling’s conceited speech. As Priestley has cleverly used the inspector as a mouthpiece of his socialist philosophy, his descriptive appearance is intended to emphasise an omnipotent, all-powerful effect, both for the Birlings’ as well as for the1945 audience. Many of his descriptive connotations distinctly illustrate this design; “he creates at once an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness”.
Therefore, although the inspector “need not be” big in physical stature, but expresses his domination in a more psychological sense. These connotations suggest that he was immense in the manner of his movements, actions and expressions so establishing a manipulative atmosphere of power and control around the Birling family. In play, this is reinforced by the way he speaks: “carefully, weightily and has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person addresses before actually speaks”.
These qualities were vital of the role of the inspector that J. B. Priestley intended. Another effective dramatic device used to highlight the enormous contrasts before and after the inspector’s entrance was the rather perceptive use of lighting techniques. It was: “pink and intimate” before, emphasising the warm, pleasant ‘rose-tinted’ atmosphere- almost as if the Birlings’ celebration was held in a symbolic, restricting world of their own, yet feeling self satisfied in a naturalistic manner until the inspector arrives.
Then the lights become “brighter and harder”: breaking this confinement and revealing cold harshness of the realistic outside world. The metaphorical connotation of “brighter” suggests the inspector is also shedding light onto “harder” situation. The audience is now fully primed for the main action of the play… The inspector’s entrance and exit unifies the play in the way that it entirely satisfies Priestley’s ideas for promoting social change.