Table of ContentsIntroductionHow is Mr. Birling introduced in An Inspector's Call unlike the Inspector?ConclusionIntroductionIn A Call of Inspector, Mr. Birling and the Inspector are complete opposites of each other and are used to support different ideas about the themes of the play. Their importance in terms of societal awareness, consideration for the community and philosophies on political ideas is completely different. Priestley mainly did this in order to make the audience see the right path to a better society while also seeing what the other wrong path looks like in the form of Mr. Birling's character. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayHow is Mr. Birling presented in An Inspector Calls unlike the Inspector?Priestley characterized Mr. Birling and the Inspector in a very different way. Physically, they are similar; the inspector has a “massive feel” and Mr. Birling is a “heavy” man. Mr Birling is, however, described as "heavy", almost as a burden on society, as he is described as "heavy". Playwrights like Priestley were often known for creating characters that audiences were expected to dislike as grotesque; The description of Mr. Birling as “heavy” does just that by making Mr. Birling seem like a burden. Furthermore, Mr. Birling is an “ominous” man, which contrasts with the inspector’s “impression of massiveness.” Since Mrs. Birling is Mr. Birling's "social superior", he feels "inauspicious" and constantly wants to impress. Mr. Birling's constant need to impress is undermined by the Inspector's attitude of "looking closely" and holding power through "there might be some" dialogue. His short, simple sentences show the inspector's control of the situation and Mr. Birling's lack of control of the situation. The ambiguity of “power” shows that he can control the amount of information, without feeling the need to please the Birlings. Additionally, "looking closely at the person" suggests that he will look at things closely and we learn through the play that he sees through images of a "hard-headed, practical businessman" that M . Birling tries to stage. He refers to himself this way twice, which shows how strongly he believes it. This shows how he believes it's a good thing, but "tough" also makes us think he's hard-hearted. He is also not a "practical" man in the real world in terms of social morality, and his claim to be "practical" is refuted when he talks about "lower costs" on the night of his daughter's engagement, using it like a girl. an asset or bargaining chip that can be exchanged through marriage. Priestley highlights this difference through the timing of this play, as seen when Mr. Birling's capitalist speech is interrupted by a "sharp ring" of the doorbell due to the inspector's entrance. This leads the audience to wonder why the inspector's entrance is so "abrupt" and the audience is led to understand that the inspector will expose Mr. Birling's false pretensions of being a "practical" man. The Inspector is Priestley's spokesperson in terms of his political views. ; Mr Birling is the antithesis of Priestley's philosophy. Mr Birling has capitalist beliefs and says “a man must make his own way”. Mr. Birling is an individualist and considers himself a self-made man who "made his own way" into the socially upper class insimply marrying Sybil. This actually makes it seem like his struggle to "blaze his own trail" isn't a struggle at all and the audience doesn't sympathize with his attempt to evoke respect for the fact that he's blazing "his own trail." ". Additionally, it refers to a singular “man,” not “men,” emphasizing that it is up to the individual to take care of themselves. Priestley counters this view by ridiculing Mr. Birling through dramatic techniques like dramatic irony. When he called the Titanic "absolutely unsinkable", the public of 1942 already knew how the Titanic sank, which made them unsympathetic and opposed to Mr Birling's views. His confidence makes him even dumber when he calls her "absolutely" unsinkable and is so sure of his predictions. On the other hand, the Inspector's beliefs are a reflection of Priestley's socialist views on society. The Inspector states that "we will have to share our guilt", emphasizing the need for "sharing" in society. This ties into Priestley's socialist ideas, further emphasizing 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 final lines, which emphasizes the importance of unity and socialism. Furthermore, in the final speech, the inspector states "that they will be taught in fire, blood and anguish." The “they” here are people like Mr Birling who hold capitalist views. Fire, blood and anguish” evokes images of the two wars fought just before the play was written. Many of Priestley's initial audiences would have been directly affected by this, so the images created are both emotional and violent. It could also be linked to the Russian Revolution, in which "angsty" poor workers seized power and exacted "bloody" revenge against the capitalist society that had treated them so badly. “Fire” also paints images 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 replaced with “harder” and “brighter” white lights. These lights are normally used in theater by practitioners as "anti-illusionist" devices to prevent the audience from getting carried away by the play and questioning the main message of the play. 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 contrasting views on responsibility. Mr Birling believes it is his “duty to keep labor costs low” and “cannot accept any responsibility” for problems relating to anyone outside his family. However, this “duty” is not the kind of responsibility Priestley wants the public to take on. This “duty” is to himself and to other businessmen who make money. He is not doing his “duty” to workers like Eva who need a decent wage. Furthermore, Mr Birling cannot “accept any responsibility” when it comes to helping other members of the community despite their class. The fact that he cannot accept “any” responsibility shows that he is unwilling to take on even a small part of the responsibility, thus underscoring his stubborn costs. His bias towards fulfilling his "duty" to keep "labor costs low" demonstrates how capitalists like Mr Birling would choose what they prioritize as their responsibility and “..