AdaJ
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#1
Recently I had my mocks and my school is doing An Inspector Calls, and I had to write an improved essay to make sure I correct my essay. My teacher has marked it but she's a very harsh marker, and the grade she gave me wasn't the grade I wanted (6+), as I am aiming for at least a 7.

Could anyone read through my essay and give me feedback and their opinion on the grade that it is (it may as well be a 6+ but I would like other peoples' opinions)?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: What do you think is the importance of the ending of ‘An Inspector Calls’?

At the end of the play in ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley shows how society is doomed if the younger generation do not correct the mistakes of the older generation.

During the play (the ending), once every secret has been revealed, all the characters begin turning on each other and blaming others. Priestley uses the Birling family dynamic to show how broken it is as a result of individualism; Mr Birling is present as a “hard-headed man of business” who seemingly knows everything that will happen in the future. He speaks very confidently of there not being any wars or talk of it is “fiddlesticks”. In act one Priestley uses dramatic irony of Mr Birling being so “portentous” to make the 1945 audience, people who know the terrible horrors to come (World War I and World War II), dislike him. His character is used throughout the play to show the ignorance of the older generation, who believe that we are not “mixed up like bees in a hive” and who also refused to change. Mr Birling, at the end of the play tries to bribe the Inspector, and even after listening to the Inspector’s speech continues to look for ways out of a “public scandal”. By the end of the play, Priestley cements on the idea that selfishness will not get anyone anywhere (as shown by Mr Birling) and that we must take responsibility for our own actions. Priestley also uses the wife, Mrs Birling, to further emphasise how the Birling family (especially the older generation) seem to prioritise their wealth and status over community.

In Act 3 of ‘An Inspector Calls’, Eric, the Birlings’ son, is blamed by his parents for causing the whole “scandal”, even though his parents had been the ones that started the whole ordeal (Mr Birling by sacking Eva) and had finished it (Mrs Birling by refusing Eva Smith help); Priestley uses this to convey that the older generation has created so many problems and are not fixing them due their stubbornness. This stubbornness is present throughout the end of the play, when Gerald Croft, Sheila’s ex-fiancé proposes that the whole thing was a “hoax”; he blatantly discards all of the Inspector’s words and stops the Birlings from finding salvation.

When the Inspector arrives at the beginning of the play, the stage directions show that the lighting went from “pink and intimate” to “brighter and harder”; the change in lighting connotes how their secluded bubble had been popped, and the pink lighting, used to hide imperfections of the skin, was now gone, and was leaving their character flaws on show for everyone to see. The Inspector interrogates the characters throughout the play as if using a flashlight to get the family to confess and take responsibility. His message only gets through to Sheila and Eric, the children, as they are “impressionable”, but most willing to change. Priestley uses Sheila and Eric as vehicles in the end of the play to portray that the future belongs to the younger people, and that it is up to them to reverse the damage that people like Mr and Mrs Birling have made before it is too late, and people will be “taught in fire, and blood, and anguish”. Here Priestley refers to the First World War in his speech at the end of the play, where millions of young men died fighting for their country, as a result of individualistic people such as Mr Birling, who so strongly believed that there would be no war. Priestley emphasises on the fact that we must all take responsibility for one another. In the Inspector’s final speech, Priestley uses Inspector Google as his own mouthpiece. “We are all members of one body” suggests that although everyone has their differences, we are all part of one human race and we need to work together in order to survive.

Priestley also uses the story of Eva Smith to represent all the working-class people who were unfortunately disadvantaged in life and how they deserve to be treated equally to middle class people. He comments that there are “millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths” in the world that all need help, and so tries to show to the audience that without community, we will not be able to survive; due to individualistic views, the Titanic sunk and killed thousands of people, even though it was supposed to be “absolutely unsinkable”, and WW1 and WW2 killed millions upon millions of people, through people not taking responsibility.

In conclusion, Priestley uses the ending of the play to urge the audience to think more about being inclusive and taking on collectivist views, and to care more about the content of a person’s heart and soul than their status or wealth.
0
reply
Sophiebxx
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 months ago
#2
(Original post by AdaJ)
Recently I had my mocks and my school is doing An Inspector Calls, and I had to write an improved essay to make sure I correct my essay. My teacher has marked it but she's a very harsh marker, and the grade she gave me wasn't the grade I wanted (6+), as I am aiming for at least a 7.

Could anyone read through my essay and give me feedback and their opinion on the grade that it is (it may as well be a 6+ but I would like other peoples' opinions)?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: What do you think is the importance of the ending of ‘An Inspector Calls’?

At the end of the play in ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley shows how society is doomed if the younger generation do not correct the mistakes of the older generation.

During the play (the ending), once every secret has been revealed, all the characters begin turning on each other and blaming others. Priestley uses the Birling family dynamic to show how broken it is as a result of individualism; Mr Birling is present as a “hard-headed man of business” who seemingly knows everything that will happen in the future. He speaks very confidently of there not being any wars or talk of it is “fiddlesticks”. In act one Priestley uses dramatic irony of Mr Birling being so “portentous” to make the 1945 audience, people who know the terrible horrors to come (World War I and World War II), dislike him. His character is used throughout the play to show the ignorance of the older generation, who believe that we are not “mixed up like bees in a hive” and who also refused to change. Mr Birling, at the end of the play tries to bribe the Inspector, and even after listening to the Inspector’s speech continues to look for ways out of a “public scandal”. By the end of the play, Priestley cements on the idea that selfishness will not get anyone anywhere (as shown by Mr Birling) and that we must take responsibility for our own actions. Priestley also uses the wife, Mrs Birling, to further emphasise how the Birling family (especially the older generation) seem to prioritise their wealth and status over community.

In Act 3 of ‘An Inspector Calls’, Eric, the Birlings’ son, is blamed by his parents for causing the whole “scandal”, even though his parents had been the ones that started the whole ordeal (Mr Birling by sacking Eva) and had finished it (Mrs Birling by refusing Eva Smith help); Priestley uses this to convey that the older generation has created so many problems and are not fixing them due their stubbornness. This stubbornness is present throughout the end of the play, when Gerald Croft, Sheila’s ex-fiancé proposes that the whole thing was a “hoax”; he blatantly discards all of the Inspector’s words and stops the Birlings from finding salvation.

When the Inspector arrives at the beginning of the play, the stage directions show that the lighting went from “pink and intimate” to “brighter and harder”; the change in lighting connotes how their secluded bubble had been popped, and the pink lighting, used to hide imperfections of the skin, was now gone, and was leaving their character flaws on show for everyone to see. The Inspector interrogates the characters throughout the play as if using a flashlight to get the family to confess and take responsibility. His message only gets through to Sheila and Eric, the children, as they are “impressionable”, but most willing to change. Priestley uses Sheila and Eric as vehicles in the end of the play to portray that the future belongs to the younger people, and that it is up to them to reverse the damage that people like Mr and Mrs Birling have made before it is too late, and people will be “taught in fire, and blood, and anguish”. Here Priestley refers to the First World War in his speech at the end of the play, where millions of young men died fighting for their country, as a result of individualistic people such as Mr Birling, who so strongly believed that there would be no war. Priestley emphasises on the fact that we must all take responsibility for one another. In the Inspector’s final speech, Priestley uses Inspector Google as his own mouthpiece. “We are all members of one body” suggests that although everyone has their differences, we are all part of one human race and we need to work together in order to survive.

Priestley also uses the story of Eva Smith to represent all the working-class people who were unfortunately disadvantaged in life and how they deserve to be treated equally to middle class people. He comments that there are “millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths” in the world that all need help, and so tries to show to the audience that without community, we will not be able to survive; due to individualistic views, the Titanic sunk and killed thousands of people, even though it was supposed to be “absolutely unsinkable”, and WW1 and WW2 killed millions upon millions of people, through people not taking responsibility.

In conclusion, Priestley uses the ending of the play to urge the audience to think more about being inclusive and taking on collectivist views, and to care more about the content of a person’s heart and soul than their status or wealth.
Hi! It’s looking great so far, but what I would do to improve it is analyse specific words and stage techniques. For example - the use of the name “john Smith” highlights how many of the people in working class situations lacked individual identity because of the name “John Smith” being used to categorise all people who suffered as Eva Smith had.
I would also try to find quotes which you can mention as being a rhetorical question, metaphor or simile. Also try to relate it to how the audience would feel or what emotions Priestley is trying to create e.g Through Priestley addressing all of the “millions” of people as “John Smith” and “Eva Smith” this could make the audience realise how challenging it was for lower class people which could promote sympathy towards not only Eva Smith, but all of the “John Smiths” in society at the time.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (123)
28.28%
No - I have already returned home (58)
13.33%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (86)
19.77%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (40)
9.2%
No - I live at home during term anyway (128)
29.43%

Watched Threads

View All