In this 1947 book ‘Theatre Outlook’, JB Priestley wrote: ‘In a good theatrical production
we are offered a piece of life so shaped and coloured and contrived that everything in
it, down to the smallest detail, is significant.’ He continues: ‘The shape and colour of a
room, the way the light falls through a window, the choice of furnishings, the very relation
between a chair and a stool, all mean something.’
So in this video we’re going to analyse the character of Mr Birling, starting by looking
at one of those small details: the use of port.
In the play’s first line of dialogue, Mr Birling says: ‘Giving us the port, Edna?
That’s right... You ought to like this port, Gerald. As a matter of fact, Finchley told
me it's exactly the same port your father gets from him’. The drinking of port is
significant due to its cost. It is something that was associated with the wealthy in society:
the price alone would have been prohibitive and therefore out of reach for the working
class – and let’s not forget the characters have been drinking champagne before the play
begins.
In her fascinating book ‘Drinking in Victorian and Edwardian Britain’, Thora Hands states:
‘The domestic context of alcohol consumption was governed by rules of social etiquette,
which both demonstrated and reinforced social class and gender values. Within middle- and
upper-class homes, purchasing, serving and consuming good quality wines and spirits were
key ways to demonstrate levels of cultural capital and good taste’.
Instantly, the audience sees Mr Birling as someone who wishes to show off to others,
and Priestley uses the name dropping of ‘Finchley’ to illustrate how Birling is keen to impress
his future son-in-law. It’s important to note that, in speaking to Gerald, the son
of upper-class Lord and Lady Croft, Birling is actually speaking to his social superior.
This imbalance of power has reduced him to name-dropping in an attempt to endear himself
to a family whose social position is one to which he personally aspires. Birling himself
has moved from working class to middle class through the success of his business. That’s
why he occasionally has to be told how to behave socially by Mrs Birling, his ‘social
superior’ as the stage directions put it.
Early in Act One, Priestley surprises the audience when Birling delivers a speech to
his family during the engagement meal that does not – as you would have thought – focus
on his love for his daughter or his fondness of his future son-in-law. Instead, his speech
centres around his opinions on the economic future of the country and the failings of
neighbouring nations. This speech is an excellent example of Priestley presenting Mr Birling
as a flawed, misled and pompous man. He refers to himself twice in very similar ways, first
as a ‘hard-headed business man’ and then moments later as a ‘hard-headed, practical
man of business’. This deliberate repetition on Priestley’s part emphasises how Mr Birling’s
self-perception is entirely built upon how he sees himself in terms of work and money.
Mr Birling’s priorities are not with people or family, but with how much wealth he can
accumulate. This results in a lack of empathy for those he exploits in order to grow his
fortune. As he himself puts it, ‘a man has to make his own way – has to look after
himself’.
Mr Birling can be seen to represent the ideology of capitalism – a system where business
is privately owned for the sole purpose of making profit. Of course, to make this profit,
business owners have to ‘keep labour costs down’ as Birling explains. As we go on to
learn, Birling’s capitalist agenda will be one of the causes of Eva Smith’s death.
Birling’s viewpoint will be directly contrasted by the message soon to be delivered by Inspector
Goole, who Birling himself will dismiss as being ‘Probably a Socialist’.
Priestley uses an almost ridiculous amount of dramatic irony to criticise the character
of Mr Birling. Dramatic irony is where the audience knows something the character on
stage does not. Given that the play was set in 1912 but first performed in 1945, the audience
knows that much of what Mr Birling asserts in the play’s opening moments is simply
incorrect. His confidence that ‘The Germans don’t want war’, for example, is doubly
wrong, given that not one, but two world wars would in fact take place in the coming years.
Like many others in the early 1900s, Mr Birling claims the idea of war is ‘nonsense’ and
‘fiddlesticks’. His dismissive tone reveals how confident he is in his ideas. His error
filled predictions about war, economic growth, and the Titanic being ‘absolutely unsinkable’
do not simply make the character seem ill informed and ridiculous. No, the errors about
war, the economy and the Titanic mean that, when we hear Mr Birling’s views on the treatment
of his own employees and on business, we consider his opinions on these matters to be just as
incorrect. Priestley’s effective use of dramatic irony here means Mr. Birling’s
opinions are instantly devalued. Structurally, these examples of dramatic irony occur so
early on in the play – even before the arrival of the inspector – to make it very clear
that Mr Birling and everything he stands for is wrong.
Initial impressions of Mr Birling are not good, but that can be also said of other characters
(for example, see my video on Sheila). However, what is so noticeable about Mr Birling is
how he ends the play in the same manner in which he started. For example, near the end
of the play, Birling discovers that his son, Eric, is an alcoholic who has stolen money
from the office and impregnated Eva Smith. It might therefore be surprising to the audience
that the majority of his dialogue with Eric focuses solely on recovering his lost money.
Eric’s slight against him and the impact upon his business causes Mr Birling consternation
– not the death of his grandchild or the alcoholism of his son.
Priestley employs contrast between the older and younger generations to make a point about
capitalism and socialism. Unlike his children, Mr. Birling fails to accept responsibility
for the death of Eva Smith, telling Eric ‘There’s every excuse for what both your mother and
I did’. Birling fails to learn the inspector (and Priestley’s) lesson of social responsibility,
reinforcing the inspector’s earlier comments about how it is the ‘young ones’ are ‘more
impressionable’. Priestley is criticising the behaviour of the older generation, implying
that they are fixed in their ways. In contrast, the younger generation of the Birling family
are open to new socialist ideas.