Hey, I'm quite scared for this exam on monday, could you do me a massive favour and mark my AIC essay? All feedback would be massively appreciated!
How is Mr Birling presented over the course of the play? How does this reflect Priestley’s ideas?
At the beginning of the play, Mr Birling is introduced as a model of capitalist success, being described as a ‘prosperous’ manufacturer.Here we see that Birling must have made a lot of money. The general aim of capitalism is to make money and so Birling, with his ‘good furniture’, is presented to the audience as a representation of capitalist success. As Birling has done well out of it, the audience now imagines Birling to be a supporter of capitalism, an impression Priestly creates with his stage directions before any lines are spoken.
Once the audience has birling associated with capitalism, Priestly then uses birling to show the ignorant and short-sighted nature of the capitalist elite. Birling describes in a speech that all this talk of war and conflict is ‘fiddlesticks’. He even predicts that in 1940 his children will be having a party ‘like this’. A watching audience in 1946 or later knows that birling is dead wrong about all of this, which makes the audience see him as stupid and overconfident. He also seems pompous when he overrides his sons (correct) suggestion about the possibility of war, demanding Eric ‘let him finish’ without giving him a chance to be heard. This makes it seem like birling is close minded and will not listen to sense. This is clever from Priestly because it mirrors later in the play when birling ignores the socialist ideas of the inspector, and dismisses him as a ‘crank’. The audience has already seen how birling ignores sense, so the socialist suggestions of the inspector seem as correct as Eric’s suspicions of war.
Birling is also presented as a bad father. His first act in the play is to ‘push the port’ towards Eric. As we know later Eric has a drinking problem, Priestly may be suggesting it is partly birling’s fault that his son turned to drink, as he is literally ‘pushing’ alcohol onto him. In addition to this, Birling appears more excited about his daughter’s marriage as a business prospect than a happy life for his daughter, as he clearly relishes the idea of ‘lower costs and higher prices’. This makes him seem indifferent to the wants and needs of his daughter, and furthers the idea of him being a bad father. Since Mr. Birling is there to represent the capitalist ruling elite who hold all the power, this shows that the elite are uncaring and have no business having so much power over so many people. If Birling can’t even properly care for his two children, why should he and others like him have the power over thousands of their workers? This aids priestly negative portrayal of capitalism.
Further on in the novel, Priestley’s presents Birling as wilfully obtuse and stubborn. After admitting he threw Eva Smith out for organising a strike, Birling states he cannot ‘accept’ any responsibility. This word, ‘accept’, makes it sound as if he realises he might be responsible, but just won’t admit it. The word ‘accept’ makes it seem as if (the responsibility) is there, but birling just won’t admit to it. Priestly may be doing this to show birling unable to come to terms with the error of his ways, much like later in the play when he acts ‘amused’ when he thinks he has gotten away with his actions. Mr Birling’s refusal to admit wrongdoing is symbolic of the upper classes refusing to recognise the shortcomings of capitalism and the need for change.
However, Priestly may be trying to represent the guilt of Mr Birling. Perhaps Mr birling does feel responsible, and to ‘accept ’responsibility would be too great a burden on his soul. He does, at the end of the play, stare ‘guiltily’ like the rest of the characters. What priestly maybe suggesting is how capitalism, through its evil, does just as much damage to people like birling as people like Eva, which helps to show the audience Priestley’s message that everyone would be better off with a socialist system.
Birling is also shown to be unable to make a proper rebuff against the inspector, ‘trying’ to protest but being immediately interrupted and told not to ‘stammer and yammer’. As the inspector represents Socialism and conscience, and Birling represents capitalism, Priestly may be showing how in an argument, capitalism has no strong argument against socialism and can only weakly ‘stammer’. Birling’s ineffectuality contrasts with his earlier bombast and descriptions of himself as a ‘hardheaded businessman’. As his son Eric put it, at no point did Birling tell the inspector that it’s ‘every man for himself’.
Overall, Birling shows a very negative look at the capitalist lifestyle and the consequences it has for the self, the family, and your fellow man. Birling is a scathing criticism of capitalism by Priestly and a contrast to the good, honest values of Socialism.