An Inspector Calls Play - Essay Example

English Literature Essay Introduction An Inspector Calls was written by J.B. Priestely in 1945 and remains one of the most prominent works of 20th century theatre. Even though Priestley was a British playwright the play was originally performed in Russia in two Moscow venues in 1945 as a proper theatre couldn’t be acquired in the Britain. A year later it was first performed in the United Kingdom to great critical acclaim. The play’s first Broadway appearance occurred in 1947 and later the play even gained acceptance in Iran, being performed there in 1948. Today the play is a classic of British literature and represents a portrait of the powerful means by which drama’s power relies upon an audience’s ability to identify with characters and narrative. Similarly, Anton Chekhov’s the Cherry Orchard is a powerful drama that has come to be regarded as one of the playwrights greatest works. First performed at the Moscow Art Theatre 17 January 1904, the play is the last work Chekhov produced. Throughout the play Chekhov explores a number of themes and characters in presenting this powerful drama. This essay examines both J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls and Anton Chekhov’s the Cherry Orchard in terms of the extent that these dramas’ power relies upon an audience’s ability to identify with characters and narrative. Analysis Through An Inspector Calls, Priestly makes great use of the prevailing trends in society to articulate a narrative and characters with which the audience identifies. One of the prevailing means by which Priestely encourages audience identification is through the character of Arthur Birling and Inspector Goole. It seems that Arthur Birling and Inspector Goole function as each other’s foils. Birling represents the traditional conservative approach, whereas Goole is much in line with Priestley’s socialist values. In the first act when chastised for firing Eva because she requested a raise, Birling responds, “Rubbish!” However, Goole criticizes Birling for exploiting Eva, stating without her, “the factories and warehouses wouldn’t know where to look for cheap labor.” In the second act the two have a similar exchange, in which Birling becomes upset at the questioning and states, “I really must object –“ and Goole responds, “It was you who turned the girl out in the first place.” In these instances the audience is able to identify with the narrative as the exchanges represent the competing values and beliefs inherent in post-war British society. The audience’s actual perception of Goole changes throughout the play. When he is first introduced he refuses to drink and appears very much the part of the police inspector steadfastly committed to his duty. As the play progresses and Goole begins to question Gerald and the family the viewer comes to recognizes the inspector’s shrewdness. Without specifically accusing the family members of anything, his direct mode of questioning is effective in getting them to admit to the things they believe they have done wrong to Eva. It’s also clear early on that Goole isn’t a normal inspector as his questions oftentimes have a moral tone, “I’ve thought that it would do us all a bit of good if sometimes we tried to put ourselves in the place of these young women.” After Goole exists and the family confirms that he was a fake, he retrospectively takes on a ghost like quality, symbolized in the name Goole or Ghoul. In addition to the character of Arthur Birling and Inspector Goole, a very powerful element of the play is through the audience ability to identify with Sheila. Perhaps because she can relate most closely with Eva, the audience is able to see the events of the play and experience the underlining events of the narrative through her perspective. At the beginning of the play she objects to being indicted in Eva’s death, “You talk as if we’re responsible –“ However, as the play advances and she hears the confessions of the others, she consistently empathizes with Eva, even criticizing her mother, “Mother, I think it was cruel and vile.” At the end of the play, after Goole exits, she seems to be the only one who has been changed by his message, and she admonishes her family, “You began to learn something. And now you’ve stopped. You’re ready to go on in the same old way.” In addition to the audience’s identification with the characters, the play is constructed in a way that encourages considerable audience identification with the narrative. The seminal monologue of the play is delivered in the third act by Inspector Goole. The speech occurs after the inspector has gotten the Birling family members to confess to their roles in contributing to the suicide of Eva Smith. Eric, the last to be exposed, has just admitted to fathering a child with Eva and then trying to give her stolen money, which she refused, to support the baby. Before the inspector delivers the speech, the family members are engaging in a process of denial and accusation, each indicting the other for the ultimate responsibility of Eva’s suicide. The monologue represents the two primary thematic concerns of the play: individuals need to change and the way society is organized must change. Considering these thematic concerns it should be no surprise Priestley held staunch socialist principals. It’s important to consider the cultural context of the time, as it is through this that the audience is more able to identify with the narrative. While such a somber play might not have been appropriate during 1945 Britain, as the country was affected by a post-war malaise, it’s worth considering that the play’s dark themes are much more in line with the largely pessimistic tone of Russian literature, where the play originally debuted. However, if one considers England’s post-war political trends, it’s clear that the play is assuredly a product of post-war social milieu. The political tone of society has shifted starkly to the left, as returning soldiers sought out unemployment and were no longer content with the conservative government. This resulted in the war-time hero Winston Churchill suddenly opposed by the growing favor of the Labor Party, which Priestley’s Common Wealth Party greatly supported (Britannia.com). England subsequently implemented a number of social programs, which later garnered the country the ‘Welfare State’ term (Britannia.com). Considering the social context of the play in post-war British society, it’s clear that the audience can identify with the narrative on profound level. In these regards, Inspector Goole’s final monologue stands for more than the underlining message of the play, but also represents a definitive statement on the historical social politics of England. While contemporary audiences might object to its overt socialist agenda, when one considers the plight of countless lives that had been adversely affected by the war, the importance of such a sympathetic approach to humanity is clearer. While the speech is technically a monologue directed at the family, its tone seems to reflect a soliloquized plea to the audience to heed its message, “there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness.” It seems as if Priestley himself has taken the place of Inspector Goole and used the occasion to remind society that everyone is, “intertwined with our lives…We are members of one body.” The speech also seems to function on a macro-scale as a comment on the social factors that contributed to the world wars. While the play is set in 1912, it was published immediately after the second war, and the speech seems to be saying that if its message isn’t recognized then man, “will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish;” that is, more wars will arise unless people start caring more about each other. While stage directions throughout the play greatly audience identification with the narrative, a few specific directions are worth noting. One of the most prominent stage directions is the description of the house. Priestley writes, “It is substantial and old-fashioned but not cozy and homelike.” Inherent in this description seems to be an indictment of the Birling’s as traditional, and not accepting of more warm and contemporary values. Later, as Goole is about to give his speech, Priestley’s directions are for him to step to the center. This changes Goole’s speech from merely directed at the family to encompass the entire audience, and subsequently society. In considering Anton Chekhov’s the Cherry Orchard it’s clear that there are a number of elements within the drama where the power relies upon the audience’s ability to identify with the characters and narrative. Throughout the play Chekhov’s attention to characterization is such that he provides a number of instances wherein the reader identifies and at times sympathizes with the characters in the play. Even from the opening scenes, Chekhov establishes these sympathetic levels within his characters. Consider the opening scene, specifically when Lopakhin describes his childhood. In this instance, Lopakhin states, “I remember when I was a boy of fifteen, my father, who is dead--he used to keep a shop in the village here -- hit me on the face with his fist, and my nose bled” (Chekhov). This instance functions to both encourage audience identification with the narrative and the Lopakhin character as a means of more powerfully advancing the dramatic action. In these regards, the background information gives the reader insight into Lopakhin’s childhood that encourages audience sympathy and identification with his plight of being abused as a child. In addition, these elements more actively involve the reader in the narrative of the drama. Consider that it’s indicated that Ranevsky aided Lopakhin after this incident and as a result there is a bond between the two individuals. Indeed, in great part the opening scene functions to establish these character elements that allow for more in-depth audience identification with the characters. In these regards, Chekhov’s furthered exploration of the Ranevsky character allows for these greater elements of audience identification. For instance, Anya states, “Father died six years ago, and a month later my brother Grisha was drowned in the river--such a dear little boy of seven! Mother couldnt bear it; she went away, away, without looking round. ... [Shudders] How I understand her; if only she knew!” (Chekhov). In this example, the audience witnesses a specific instance wherein one character actively states that they identify and empathize with another character because of the character’s background. While Anya is referring to her own particular understanding of Ranevsky, Chekhov’s articulation of the dialogue in this statement is just as effectively experienced from the perspective of the audience. In these regards, the drama is presenting these character and background narrative elements to directly encourage the viewer to empathize and become more actively involved in the play. Ultimately, it’s through character elements such as these that Chekhov develops the drama and adds considerably to its power of articulation. In considering the powerful of Chekhov’s work one of the most pervasive elements of his writing is its articulation of the underlining elements of human kind. In the Cherry Orchard it’s Chekhov’s narrative concern with the attempted preservation of the family’s cherry orchard that has continued resonance even with contemporary audiences. Throughout the play there is a continued narrative emphasis on this aspect, until the play’s conclusion where the estate is purchased and the orchard is to be cut down to make space for rental property. For instance, in act II Chekhov develops this narrative concern as Lopakhin indicates, “Both the cherry orchard and the land must be leased off for villas and at once, immediately--the auction is staring you in the face: Understand!” (Chekhov). It’s this concern that becomes thematic throughout the drama and has led critics to argue that the play, “is the story of how one generation replaces another as the cycle of life moves inexorably forward in time” (Carnicke, pg. 7). While Ranevsky adamantly clings to these past world values, it is the impossibility of retaining them that can be argued as the central message of the play. It is this narrative concern that is a mythic condition of human kind and that creates considerable audience identification. Through this identification the great power of the narrative is achieved as the audience becomes more actively engaged in the drama. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s clear that both J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls and Anton Chekhov’s the Cherry Orchard power relies upon an audience’s ability to identify with the characters and narrative. For Anton Chekhov’s the Cherry Orchard, it’s demonstrated that Chekhov’s attention to character background encourages the viewer to more substantially identify with the drama. Similarly, Chekhov’s use of long-lasting themes of changing generations gives the narrative an enduring quality that makes it relevant for contemporary audiences. It’s this identification with the quest to preserve the cherry orchard that gives the narrative power. In terms of An Inspector Calls, the play’s integration of then current social trends within the thematic concerns of the narrative creates an increased level of audience identification. While the play is definitely a product of the post-war move towards a more socialized agenda, its underlining message is still extremely relevant for today’s audiences. The themes of social and individual change and their necessity for achieving a more balanced world are abundantly evident. One only must consider the globalized effects of global warming, or similar environmental degradation caused by people that is inflected on the lot of humanity. While the world has successfully avoided war, neglecting Goole’s message can still be said to have deleterious consequences. References ‘Biography’ http://www.jbpriestley.co.uk/JBP/Biography.html Carnicke, Marie. Chekhov, Anton. (2010) Views from the Other Shore. New York: Hackett Publishing. Chekhov, Anton. The Cherry Orchard. http://www.enotes.com/cherry-orchard- text/characters ‘History of England: The 20th Century’ http://www.britannia.com/history/nar20hist5.html Priestely, J.B. (1998) An Inspector Calls. New York: Dramatists Play, Inc. Read More