pages 33 (from "An exclamation of surprise") to 40 ("We hear the front door slam") on the bBC film, from 32.51-41.55
In order to establish precise issue further - whether Gerald is a morally good or bad character - students were asked to complete the following sheet.
Pages 27-33 (up to, INSPECTOR: "... when did you first get to know her?") |
|
|
Prep was set, and this focused more on the events of the play, particularly on the impact of Goole's interrogation of Birling.
investigating_birling.doc | |
File Size: | 87 kb |
File Type: | doc |
I was delighted by the insight you have shown in your analysis of the text. This was fantastic: well done! A record of your discussions follows:
The Entry of the Inspector
- "He creates at once an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness" - the general effect is to emphasise the intimidating power of the Inspector - but looks closely at the connotations of the separate words: "massiveness" conn. presence, size, girth - he is of intimidating scale; "solidity" conn. density, sturdiness, hardness, giving him a wall-like resilience; "purposefulness" gives the inspector drive, purpose, focus - he is not to be
swayed. All this despite the fact he "need not be a big man" - a tall size is an easy way to gain authority and power - the fact that the Inspector does not have to resort to this seems to intensify his natural, in-built power even more. - "He is a man in his fifties" - this age was seen as perfect as a representation for socialism - the age connotes experience and wisdom - any younger and it suggests naivety and inexperience; any older and it suggests frailty, old age and weakness.
- "dressed in a plan darkish suit" - the Inspector's costume suggests plainness, averageness - he is your everyday man on the street, and therefore many more people can identify with him. "Plain" suggests he doesn't have any of the extravagances that the Capitalists are associated with - he is honest and direct and plain-speaking. Unlike the capitalists in their ball gowns and white tails, the Inspector does not wear a costume; while the capitalists play and perform and deceive, the socialist lives in reality. "Darkish" gives him both a seriousness and a sense of threat from the colour imagery; "darkish" suggests a sense of mystery, that we can't quite pin him down, intensifying his power. "Suit" has connotations of work - linking back to purposefulness.
- repetition of "of course" in the Inspector's speech - intensifies his knowledge and authority - simultaneously patronises (higher status?) Birling
- Interruptions - Inspector has no problems interrupting apparent social superiors.Cutting through massively - stage direction conn. violence and sharpness, intensifying sense of threat.
How the Inspector does his work
- Symbolic prop of "photo" allows Inspector power and control - he dictates who sees it and when - Capitalists, traditional source of power, do not have it any longer. Inspector physically shows this power, turning his backs on the capitalists when he "interposes" himself between Gerald and Eric and the photograph.
- "I see. Sensible really" - admission of the logic and reason of Inspector (and therefore
Socialism by Birling (symbolic of Capitalism). Awareness of the danger of the socialist enemy?
"moves restlessly" - sugg anxiety and nervousness. "You've had enough of that port, Eric" - why do people drink? To escape; to calm nerves. The capitalist family are getting nervous (why? Dramatic tension...) The order from Birling to sober up is the equivalent of telling him to control himself - they cannot afford to keep their eyes off him; they must be on guard, they seem to be saying
Disagreement
- Linguistic (language) power. Look at the long, hesitant, uncertain sentences of Birling. In the speech beginning, "look - there's nothing mysterious...", the sentences are long, uncontrolled - this suggests the weakness and uncertainty and increasing loss of control Birling has over the situation. Look at all the dashes - these create pauses, and these pauses suggest hesitations and discomfort. Compare this to the strength of the Inspector's words: "No, sir. I can't agree with you there." Forceful assertions. Blunt - no equivocation (uncertain language). Short, sharp sentences intensify power.
- Emotional power. Gerald is "smiling" - smug, proud, arrogant. Inspector the opposite - "gravely" - conn. seriousness, judgement maybe - the two sides of the social spectrum, the light and flighty capitalist contrasted to the serious and determined socialist is clear. Look at the change after the Inspector speaks - Gerals is "surprised". Inspector can manipulate and change Capitalist's emotions - such is the extent of his power.
- Dramatic Irony - when the audience knows more than the characters on stage. We know that the Inspector represents socialism, so we are horrified when Birling states the stereotypically selfish capitalist beliefs "if we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody... it would be very awkward, wouldn't it?". The tone of the reply is mocking, almost, possibly
sarcastic - the repetition emphasising that. "Very awkward". For whom?
Frustration Boils Over
- Sentence Structure - again we see Inspector's short sentences ("Yes. Why did you refuse?" - structurally showing power and certainty) compared to the long and uncontrolled sentences of Birling, displaying the gap in power. What was interesting was that here, the Inspector changes strategy - previously, he was full of violence and menace ("cutting in", etc) - but now, he is more polite, calmer, more restained. "It might be, you know" is a lot less aggressive than "It is", for example (he is using the conditional tense here) - immediately it's more calm. He even goes so far as to apologise - "I'm sorry. But you asked me a question" - suggesting sympathy for Birling perhaps. Certainly, we get the sense that he can get what he wants by being both powerful and restrained - it's almost as if he can afford to be, as he has vanquished Birling already.
- Question and (eventual) answer. Interesting structure: Inspector asks the key question - "Why did you refuse?" - Birling refuses and refuses to answer (the term here is prevarication - to talk misleadingly) but eventually, some sentences later in the exchange, he does - "if I'd agreed to this demand for a new rate we'd have added about twelve per cent to our labour costs.Does that satisfy you? So I refused. " It's important - a little victory. This exchange symbolises the doggedness of the Inspector and his inevitable victory over Birling, who can try and try to reject him, but he will fail.
- Immature tone. Look at how Birling talks - "you asked me a question," the Inspector says; "you asked me a question before that," Birling replies. The repetition and the absurdity of the statement makes Birling look to be childish, foolish and immature - another authorial dig at Capitalism by presenting it negatively. This is intensified by the maturity and restraint shown by the Inspector's language. "It's my duty to ask questions," the Inspector continues, "and it's my duty to keep labour costs down," Birling retorts. More repetition - more weakness.The tone is almost of a children's taunt in a playground ("well my dad's bigger than yours...") This childishness interestingly asssociates itself with selfishness and self-obsession - another capitalist criticism.
- ERIC. Only one line at the end, but what a line. "It isn't [a free country] if you can't go and work somewhere else." - Inspector's response - "Quite so." The second generation capitalist, who stands to gain all of his father's wealth and status, rejects his father's opinion and stands against the capitalist perspective. The Inspector hasn't even interrogated Eric and immediately, he seems to be beginning to convert him to socialism. And if Eric, the complete capitalist, can change his mind and see injustice for what it is, then surely all of us, the audience, can.
Having completed this work, students then selected one of their points (from either the section they were working on or from elsewhere in these four sections) to write an analytical PEEE on to evidence their work. To support them with this, a PEEE reminder handout was given, alongside a teacher's example of a PEEE that answers the question, "How does Priestley represent the power of the Inspector?" (a good question was asked about the word, "represent" - what does it actually mean? It basically means, "show").
pages 2-11 (up to "EDNA: .... Inspector Goole). On the BBC film, from the start to 08.28.
AIM: To analyse how Priestley uses dramatic irony and other linguistic devices to develop the characterisation of Mr Birling.
Having read the first ten pages of the play, we realised that the pattern that Priestley's set up in the stage directions (that at first glance, the lives of the Birlings seems fabulous and optimistic; but on closer analysis, there is actually tension and uncertainty everywhere) finds its way through the opening ten pages of the play.
A mix and match task, with analytical extensions, was the first task. The aim is to realise just how frequently Priestley attempts to destabilise the apparently-happy scenario before us - that if you scratch away at the surface, you will discover how corrupt capitalist society is underneath. The documents can be accessed below:
underlying_tension_1-11.doc | |
File Size: | 41 kb |
File Type: | doc |
We then looked much more closely at Birling, and how Priestley created this character, focusing particularly on pp6-7. Take a look at some of these actors who played Birling. What kind of characteristics are the actors trying to put forward about him?
For Priestley, remember, Birling is not real - none of these characters are. However, they stand for something real; these characters are constructions designed for purpose; they exist to fulfil Priestley's authorial intentions. And in a play designed to show the horrors of capitalism and the benefits of socialism in a historical period of potential change, Birling is THE ENEMY.
Birling is a metaphor for capitalism; he represents the wealthy upper-middle classes; worse still, he stands for the ignorance and foolishness of the rich.
Looking at four key excerpts in this section, we examined how Priestley uses dramatic irony and powerful language to show the foolishness and arrogance of capitalism, symbolised by Birling. Through effective characterisation, which we appreciate through analysis, we the reader understand that Birling is nothing more than a pompous, ignorant fool - and if this is what capitalism stands for, then we should do all we can NOT to become such a person.
You can find the lesson's key handouts below. For prep, use your notes from today's lesson to answer the question, "How does Priestley use dramatic irony and language to show Birling as a capitalist fool?". Give 1/2 PEEEs, focusing on 1/2 pieces of evidence. Please upload these in the comments section below. Please also prepare yourself for next lesson: please read pages 11-18 (up to The other four exchange bewildered and perturbed glances), and watch the section of the BBC film from 08.28-16.23.
|
|
Again, your ideas were excellent in the feedback session after your work. In the speech beginning, "She'll make you happy, and I'm sure you'll make her happy", the following ideas were considered:
- semantic field of business - "business", "competing", "costs", "prices" - all seem totally out of place in a scene celebrating a family engagement - all illustrating the selfishness of Birling, who is taking advantage of the situation for his own ends
- "friendly rivals" in business - there seems to be a sense of pretense about these words. They are an oxymoron - a contradiction - they oppose each other, and it's a little bit like Birling is shown to be pretending that their relationship with the Croft family were always friendly - though we suspect not. The contradiction seems to indicate the lack of trust we have in Birling.
- There's also the last line "Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together - for lower costs and higher prices" - there's a horrible irony in that Birling unconsciously touches on the socialist idea of cooperation and community (through "working together") but then re-asserts the selfish capitalist mindset - "lower costs" (for them, the wealthy factory owners) "and higher prices" (for the vast majority of the struggling working classes.)
In the second section, beginning "There's a good deal of silly talk about":
- the adjective "silly" indicates a patronishing tone - that the people speaking are children and immature and foolish - therefore putting himself in the position of knowledgeable adult (highly ironic given what is to come). A similar effect is created when he uses the word "fiddlesticks"!
- "hard-headed businessman" - the adjective "hard-headed" could be seen as positive, with connotations of strength and solidity, as if he's hard as a rock - no doubt exactly how Birling would like to see himself. However, this could be interpreted negatively - with connotations of stubborness, and foolishness, perhaps reflecting his unwillingness to change and his determined hold on capitalistic ideologies.
- Lots of dramatic irony, which all serves to emphasise the foolishness of Birling, how we mustn't trust him, and if we don't trust him, we don't trust capitalism. "You'll be marrying at a very good time" - two years before WW1, this is patently untrue. To emphasise Birling's foolishness, Priestley repeats the same foolish comment - "Yes, a very good time" - and then to really intensify Birling's idiocy, "soon, it'll be an even better time." Even better!? Millions will die - and Birling predicts improvements! His perspective is absurd - and we as an audience are encouraged to look at him with suspicion and disbelief.
In the third section, beginning, "I'm talking as a hard-headed man of business":
- "I say there isn't a chance of war" - terrible dramatic irony. He is so certain as well, with powerful short sentences to emphasise his apparent certainty. He couldn't be more wrong and more untrustworthy.
- The Titanic references are more examples of dramatic irony - the repetition of the weight ("forty-six thousand eight hundred tons") merely intensifies the horror in the audience, reminding them of the sheer size and weight of the vessel that lies at the bottom of the sea. "Unsinkable" (dramatic irony; Birling clearly wrong) "absolutely [intensifier, to emphasise the strength of his incorrect beliefs] unsinkable" (repetition to emphasise the scale of his foolishness). This all serves to make Birling out to be a foolish character that the 1945/2014 audience simply shouldn't sympathise with. Also, there is something about the total obsession Birling has with the Titanic - the awe and amazement he feels - that links into the superficial obsessions of Capitalism. The Titanic was built as a symbol of Britain's wealth and status and power - no wonder the Capitalist Birling felt that this was the most awesome sight he had ever seen. That it is now associated with waste, death and destruction is a metaphor for the selfish and ultimately purposeless desires of British capitalism.
- "silly little war scares" - "silly" again works to patronise the audience and ridicule the seriousness of the war to come; "little" trivialises the millions of deaths, making Birling look both foolish but also heartless.
- "There'll be peace and prosperity and rapid progress everywhere" - three totally incorrect assumptions about the future (more dramatic irony; more Birling, and therefore capitalism, looking foolish and wrong). The alliteration (p) links these all together and emphasises how many things Birling has got completely incorrect. The plosive qualities of the letter "p" do two things - it creates an aggressive effect (with each word, the exploding consonant sound seems to remind the audience of the explosions to come - though Birling is completely unaware of this), and it gives the audience a feel for the aggressive Birling himself, who seems to make even good ideas like "peace and prosperity" sound violent and unappealing.
The fourth section looks at the impact a negative capitalism seems to have on the rest of the family:
- Capitalism seems to split up individuals. The new generation of Capitalists are not seen as whole or complete - both Eric and Sheila are "half"; they are somehow torn apart. Eric is "half shy, half assertive" and this indecision is completely unexpected given his position as firstborn son and heir to the Birling company fortune. This immediately indicates that money and wealth and status does not necessarily lead to personal, moral happiness.
- An alternative interpretation, looking at Sheila's "half serious, half playful" is to indicate how effectively these characters can perform. These emotions are total contradictions, and perhaps - like the lighting - this indicates that the capitalists can deceive and pretend, feeling one emotion ("serious") but performing another ("playful"). There does not seem to be an opportunity to be open and honest in this capitalist family - perhaps the capitalist belief does not allow them to.
- When Sheila and Gerald converse about Gerald's absence, there is an awful lot of repetition of the personal pronoun "you". The effect is significant. Not calling one another by their Christian names does seem to rob the scene of any emotional, or even friendly quality - unexpected given they are engaged to be married. Indeed, the use of "you" is forceful, even aggressive - and indicates the subtle, repressed aggression both may feel about the other (this links in to the "split personality" discussed above).
- Mrs Birling's stage direction also tells us a lot about the relationships within a capitalist set-up. Mrs Birling talks "reproachfully" to her husband - "reproachfully" has connotations of scolding and shame. This is significant for several reasons. This immediately alludes to the clear tensions that exist within the family - Capitalism is associated with fractures and tension. It is surprising that the (higher-class) wife talks in such a way to her husband in front of guests - one would expect her to behave more carefully so as not to give away her true feelings. That this is exposed shows how forceful those negative feelings are, which are associated to Capitalism. Mrs Birling objects to Mr Birling's praise of the cook - "you're not supposed to say such things". How heartless this makes capitalism to be: one cannot praise another for a job well done, one cannot speak of another's work that has been given to benefit you. Capitalists seem intent to ignore and repress others, while only showing themselves for praise and reward.
Having a clear and effective image of the set in your head will really help you engage with the play. The BBC film is obviously one great start point, but there are plenty of different interpretations of Priestley's directions that directors and designers have developed in their own productions. Have a look at some of them in the gallery below.
Some interesting questions for you to consider:
- Which do you like most, and why?
- Do all of these sets respond fully and truthfully to Priestley's stage directions? How do the sets follow his directions; how do they reject them, and add elements of their own imagination?
- If they do add different ideas, do you like them? Why would they do that? How effective are they? Do they develop or interfere with Priestley's aims and intentions?
- What would you do if you were to design a set for this play?
AIM: to explore how the theatrical form contributes to Priestley’s presentation of ideas and themes (cast list and pages 1-2)
Having explored the different conventions (ingredients) of a play-script (AB's copy is at the bottom of the page), we recalled Priestley's main aim in this play:
We know that Priestley’s moral purpose
behind the play An Inspector Calls is
to communicate political propaganda.
He wants to illustrate how we should
adopt a more socialist outlook
instead of our
current, selfish, capitalist ideology.
Before the play begins, through both the characters’ names and the stage directions illustrating the set, Priestley’s propagandistic aims are clear. We examined these in turn:
The class made some great comments. You noted:
- How the name "Arthur" could be a metaphor for power - you linked "Arthur" to
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Hence, there are connotations of royalty, power and strength - exactly how capitalists would see themselves. - Furthermore, the use of the personal possessive pronoun "his" in relation to Arthur's relationship to his family ("his wife", "his daughter", "his son") all suggested the capitalists' sense of ownership - that Arthur owns, possesses all these people, as if they were objects not humans. This suggests the carelessness and lack of sympathy capitalists have towards others.
- How distrustworthy Sybil Birling was, on account of her name - the sibilant "S" and soft "L" of "Sybil" accentuates the slyness and cunning of her character
- How "Birling" itself seems quite an aggressive name - it has a heavy, thudding "B" and sounds like "burly" or "bullying" - perhaps the surname of the capitalists indicates their potential aggressiveness and negativity towards others
- You commented on the lack of a surname for "Edna" - this seems to suggest a lack of importance, a lack of status. Immediately, you get a sense that the wealthy are known properly, but the poor (the "maid") are not really cared about that much.
- You also noted how the socialist hero, "Inspector Goole" is only known by his title, not by his first name. This gives Goole a sense of purpose and a sense of seriousness - he is here to work.
- You pushed this forward well - of all the titles to be given, "Inspector" is important. He could have been PC, or officer, or constable. However, "inspector" gives connotations of investigation, and emphasises his detective-like qualities - he is there to seek out an answer: therefore, we trust him more, perhaps.
- You also questioned his last name - "Goole". It sounds like "ghoul", with haunting qualities. Why would Priestley want to give his socialist hero a name with such fearful, frightening connotations?
You worked well to put forward some examples of this:
- The scene was set in a "dining room". This is a family that has enough money to afford different rooms for different functions which clearly indicates wealth. There is something also about the whole play being set in a dining room, with its connotations of consumption and greed, that reflects on the ease and self-satisfaction of the capitalist Birlings' life.
- You drew attention to the symbolism of a "decanter of port, cigar box and cigarettes". A decanter has connotations of opulence and extravagance (a better looking bottle to keep the port in) - perhaps also superficiality and showiness. The options of smoking "cigar box and cigarettes" suggest the breadth of options, and the luxury and wealth the family have in being able to afford them. "Cigar box" itself also has connotations of celebrations and joy: these are people who clearly can afford the best.
- "all 5 are in evening dress of the period" - much like the setting, this is a family that can afford dress changes for dinner - this signifies their wealth and their love of show.
However, this is not necessarily the case: Priestley also seems to be creating a sense of tension in the opening stage directions, to suggest that all is not well.
Again, you put forward some good ideas to start us off:
- You talked about the table, and how this seems to separate everyone from each
other, indicating that the family are not quite as intimate as they seem - You talked about the furniture being "substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy and
homelike". You were drawn particularly to the latter two words, and how these connoted a lack of comfort, a lack of security, a lack of safety. The Birling residence is a house not a home, and therefore infers a lack of love. (There is more you can say about the first two adjectives as well, to develop their sense of negativity) - The light was then developed further...
We looked at this primarily through how Priestley uses lighting: "The lighting should be pink and intimate until the INSPECTOR arrives, and then it should be brighter and harder."
I don't want to write too much here, as this is your prep. However, what the class did was to follow the S/A (seems/actually) model and zoom in on single words to support their interpretation.
You first looked at the positive elements - how the lighting suggested capitalism really was wonderful. Good work was done considering the positive connnotations of "pink" and "intimate" separately.
Then, you spun the interpretation, and tried to examine how Priestley creates tension by exploring how the same words in the lighting quote can actually be interpreted negatively. We looked at different, negative interpretations of "pink" and "intimate", and then developed this by looking at the change when the (socialist hero) Inspector comes on.
If capitalism is negative, then socialism is seen as overwhelmingly powerful: we looked at the effect the lighting had on the audience, linking it into socialism; we looked at the words "brighter", "harder", exploring connotations and symbolism. In all, we had some 10 different layers of interpretation - this is a very rich quote to mine!
Each member of the set was asked to answer the above question using the quotation about lighting as their evidence, and one other stage direction. The copy of the prep support sheet, the stage directions handout and the lesson ppt can be found here:
|
|
|
|
Please upload your comment as per the prep instructions below. AB has done an example for you. This should be completed on Monday evening.
Additionally, please read pages 1-11 of the play ready for Tuesday's lesson.
See below for Jennie and Annie's analytical responses, which are excellent!
This lesson was designed to practically explore the relationships, advantages and disadvantages of Capitalism and Socialism - the key political relationship that An Inspector Calls focuses on.
Lesson Resources:
appreciating_politics.pptx | |
File Size: | 463 kb |
File Type: | pptx |
Prep: Reflection Questions:
reflection_on_the_4_companies_exercise.doc | |
File Size: | 36 kb |
File Type: | doc |
Use the comments section below: from your experience today, and from your own thinking, which is better in your opinion: Capitalism or Socialism? Explain your reasons why!
The first thing we did was to discuss some moral choices. Priestley's play An Inspector Calls is an idealistic play - one which tries to convince us to be better people.
moral_choices.doc | |
File Size: | 28 kb |
File Type: | doc |
Due to incompletion of prep on the parts of too many of our class, we were unable to proceed with the lesson as planned.
The aim was to clarify the answers to the questions for prep (completing the questions on the
three BBC documentary clips), which you should now self-assess using the answer sheet below.
The aim was to clarify the answers to the questions for prep (completing the questions on the
three BBC documentary clips), which you should now self-assess using the answer sheet below.
context_bbc_questions_answers.doc | |
File Size: | 33 kb |
File Type: | doc |
This was the intended route through the lesson - AIM: to recap the key contextual events of 1912 and 1945.
Prep was set, however, to clarify and sharpen our understanding of the two dates, and this will be taken in in our next lesson.
capitalism_and_socialism_questions_-_the_two_dates.doc | |
File Size: | 35 kb |
File Type: | doc |
If you're interested in some more documents giving information about the context of the time, take a look at the following:
|
|
|
Archives
April 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014