IndexIntroductionHow is Mr Birling presented in An Inspector Calls in comparison to the Inspector?ConclusionIntroductionIn An Inspector Calls, Mr Birling and the Inspector are complete opposites from each other and are used to support different ideas about the themes of the work. Their importance in terms of societal awareness, consideration for the community and philosophies on political ideas is completely different. Priestley did this mainly to make the audience see the right path to a better society and at the same time see what the other wrong path looks like in the form of the character of Mr. Birling. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay How is Mr Birling presented in An Inspector Calls in contrast to the Inspector? Priestley characterized Mr Birling and the Inspector very differently. Physically they are similar; the inspector has an “impression of grandeur” and Mr Birling is a “heavy-looking” man. Mr Birling is however described as “heavy looking” almost as a burden to society as he is described as “heavy”. Playwrights such as Priestley were often known for creating characters that audiences were expected to loathe as grotesque; The description of Mr Birling as “heavy-looking” does just that, making Mr Birling seem like a burden. Furthermore, Mr Birling is a “portentous” man, which contrasts with the Inspector's “impression of grandeur”. Since Mrs Birling is Mr Birling's "social superior", he feels "portentous" and constantly wants to impress. Mr Birling's constant need to impress is undermined by the Inspector's attitude of 'watching carefully' and maintaining power through dialogue as 'there might be'. His simple, short sentences show the Inspector's control of the situation and Mr Birling's lack of control. The ambiguity of "power" shows that he can control the amount of information, without feeling the need to please the Birlings. Furthermore, "looking closely at the person" suggests that he will look at things closely and we learn through the play that he sees through the images of being a "practical and stubborn businessman" which Mr Birling tries to portray. He refers to himself this way twice, which shows how strongly he believes it. This shows that he believes it is a good thing, but the term "tough" also makes us think that he is hard-hearted. He is also not a 'practical' man in the real world in terms of social morals, and his claim to be 'practical' is belied when he talks about 'lower costs' on the night of his daughter's engagement, using her as a commodity or exchange that can be bartered through marriage. Priestley highlights this difference through timing in this play, as seen when Mr Birling's capitalist speech is interrupted by a 'shrill ring' of the doorbell due to the inspector's entrance. This leaves the audience wondering why the inspector's entrance is so 'abrupt' and the audience is made to understand that the inspector will expose Mr Birling's false claims of being a 'practical' man. The Inspector is Priestley's mouthpiece in terms of political views; Mr.Birling is the antithesis of Priestley's philosophy. Mr Birling has capitalist beliefs and says “a man must have his own way”. Mr Birling is individualistic and considers himself a self-made man who has "made his way" into the socially upper class simply by marrying Sybil. This actually makes his struggle to "make his own way" not seem like one at allhe struggles and the audience doesn't sympathize with his attempt to evoke respect for him going "his way". Furthermore, it refers to the singular “man,” not “men,” which highlights that it is up to the individual to take care of himself. Priestley goes against this view by mocking Mr Birling through dramatic techniques such as dramatic irony. When he calls the Titanic "utterly unsinkable", the audience of 1942 already knows how the Titanic sank, which makes them dislike and oppose Mr Birling's views. His confidence makes him look even more foolish when he calls her “absolutely” unsinkable and is so sure of his predictions. On the other hand, the Inspector's beliefs reflect Priestley's socialist view of society. The inspector says that “we will have to share our guilt”, underlining the need for “sharing” in society. This links to Priestley's socialist ideas, further highlighting the use of the Inspector as a spokesperson for Priestley's philosophies. There is an emphasis on “we” in the inspector's speech and in the last lines, which portrays the importance of togetherness and socialism. Furthermore, in the final speech, the Inspector states that “they will be taught in fire, in blood and in anguish”. The “they” here are people like Mr Birling with capitalist views. Fire, blood and anguish' brings out images of the two wars fought shortly before the work was written. Many of Priestley's initial audiences would have been directly affected by this, so the images created are emotional as well as violent. This could also be linked to the Russian Revolution, in which “distressed” poor workers took control of the state and exacted “bloody” revenge against the capitalist society that had treated them so badly. “Fire” also draws pictures of hell, showing the enormity of the consequences of capitalist actions. Priestley highlights the differences between the characters' points of view by changing the lighting. As the inspector enters, the lights are changed to “stronger” and “brighter” white lights. These lights are normally used in theater by professionals as "anti-illusory" devices to prevent the audience from getting carried away by the show and instead questioning its main message. In this case, the inspector's actions make the audience think, and therefore more importance is given to his character through the lights. Mr Birling and the Inspector have conflicting views on liability. Mr Birling thinks it is his “duty to keep labor costs low” and “cannot accept any responsibility” for problems involving anyone outside his family. However, this “duty” is not the kind of responsibility that Priestley wants the public to take on. This “duty” is to himself and other businessmen who make money. He is not doing his “duty” towards workers like Eva who need a decent wage. Mr Birling also cannot “accept any responsibility” when it comes to helping others in the community despite their class. The fact that he cannot accept “any” responsibility shows that he is unwilling to take on even a little, highlighting its stubborn costs. His bias towards fulfilling his “duty” to keep “labour costs” low adequately shows how capitalists like Mr Birling would choose what they like as their responsibility and “duty”. The Inspector instead considers everyone "members of one body". While Mr Birling views responsibility as something he can 'accept' or reject, the Inspector has a more serious and obligatory view on taking responsibility as he defines everyone as 'members'.