The impact of the inspectors final Essay Example For Students

The impact of the inspectors final Essay Discuss the impact of the inspectors final speech exit and explore why it is made more dramatic given the social and historical context of the play.  Why do you think the inspector has called?  An Inspector calls is a play set in 1912. J.B. Priestley wrote it in 1945. Nineteen-Forty-Five was the year that brought with it the end of Second World War. Six long years in which 55 million lives were lost including 6 million Jews. This was a hard time of austerity, in which everybody would just have to do without, and all food was rationed. During the Second World War the first ever atomic bomb was dropped by the Americans, onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We will write a custom essay on The impact of the inspectors final specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Each bomb killed 70,000 civilians instantly; many more were to later die of radiation poisoning. This was a devastating time for all, if one thing positive came from the war it was the Welfare State being proposed. The Welfare State was social security from cradle to grave, a comforting thought. However, the end of the war marked a change. By this time many people were so downtrodden and terrified that there optimism probably carried them a bit too far, with many predicting a peaceful and loving world. A belief also shared later by the Hippies in the 1960s. Apart from this joint optimism, the social classes were divided. There was the lower/working class, which contained the social group, considered to occupy the lowest position in a hierarchical society, typically composed of manual workers and their families. Then there were the middle classes, which were the section of society between the poor and the wealthy, including business and professional people and skilled workers. This class had both an upper and lower part to it, the upper middle class contained mostly, wealthy executives, usually factory owners and the lower middle class contained the sort of people who were teachers and still living comfortably. The Upper class were the highest social class, or the people in it, this class contained the aristocracy and the very wealthy, all the people who were considered upper class had a title, like Lady or Lord. J.B. Priestley, whose full name is John Boynton Priestley, was born on the 13th September 1894, in Bradford. At the age of 20 Priestley, who having grown up into his fathers circle of socialist friends, had now found himself joining in with their political arguments. Socialists believe in socialism. Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualise a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to the control of the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This belief is promoted more these days in the form of the Labour Party than the Conservatives. Socialists tend to believe that with the conservatives in charge that the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. The Inspectors speech is written as a piece of oratory, a speech rather than a conversation with the Birlings. The Inspector is not only addressing the Birlings with his speech but also as it seems is addressing the audience in which J.B. Priestley puts forward his own Socialist views. The inspector tells the Birlings and the audience that Eva Smith is one person, and this has only been about one person, but Eva Smith symbolises the working class people who are a victim of the harsh social system. These people have been badly treated by their employers and others, like the Birlings, who are in a higher social class and a perfect position to help the less fortunate. .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a , .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .postImageUrl , .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a , .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:hover , .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:visited , .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:active { border:0!important; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:active , .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u4391674c6996886ea601459ca26d781a:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Was Malvolio's Treatment Justified EssayThe Inspector is saying that although this one unfortunate member of society has died, there are a lot more out there by saying that there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths. A group of three is used here to emphasize the amount of unfortunate being still out there. Groups of three are a common technique used to persuade people into doing things I think here The Inspector is trying to persuade the Birlings to look at the enormity of underprivileged citizens out there, just begging for their help. Another group of three used in the Inspectors speech is with what we think and say and do. I believe that by using this grouping of three, the Inspector is trying to make the Birlings and the audience realise that no action of anyone ever goes unnoticed and that for every action of one person there is an opposite and equal reaction. It is as if Newtons Third law of motion applies to how the society is. Towards the end of the speech, the Inspector says If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught in fire and blood and anguish this group of three creates a very unpleasant image in ones head and makes one ponder, what will this torture include? Is it possibly a piece of dramatic irony in which with audience knows it is referring to World War One, to which the Birlings remain blissfully unaware. Therefore, I personally believe that this is the most memorable and dramatic quote of the speech.

Compare the different film versions of Romeo and Juliet Essays

Compare the different film versions of Romeo and Juliet Essays Compare the different film versions of Romeo and Juliet Paper Compare the different film versions of Romeo and Juliet Paper Essay Topic: Romeo and Juliet Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet have been adapted in many different ways by different people. Romeo and Juliet is a film that gripped the world, no matter what age or what language you spoke. Many directors from around the world made there own version of the film in many different languages. In this essay I will compare the different version of the love story. The versions that I will compare are Baz Luhrmanns, Zeffirellis and West Side Story directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise. Baz Luhrmanns (1996), Franco Zeffirellis (1968) and West Side Story have quite a lot in common but also a few differences at the same time. The similarities and differences varied through language dialects, clothing, weaponry, and the impressions different people had from different parts of Shakespeares original story. The Zeferelli version and the original play by William Shakespeare show some variations between storylines. There are also far smaller differences between extremely similar stories with the single huge difference of modernisation, as seen between the Luhrman version of Romeo and Juliet, as well as the play. The original Romeo and Juliet was set around the time when the play was written, and was not written to become one of the greatest plays of all time. Instead, the goal was more toward making a popular play that could make some money, be funny, and evoke a huge amount of feeling. This story focused around the love of Romeo and Juliet that they had during the time of the renaissance. The love shown in this play is known to be immortal, but many aspects of the play are from the time that they were made. An example of this is the language of this play, which is old English (Shakespearean). Also, another aspect that comes from the time the play was made was the clothing, which is exactly as the styles were in the Middle Ages. And a third example is the use of swords in the battle. The Zeferelli version of Romeo and Juliet was very similar to the play, because the dress, language, and weaponry were all the same. The only major difference between these two versions was the interpretation of a few events, such as the battle between Tybalt and Mercutio. In this battle, Tybalt was seen as merely fooling around, instead of in an angry rage as the play displayed. Even though the Luhrman version of Romeo and Juliet had essentially the same lines and storyline as the play, although a few lines were edited out, and there were many other substantial differences. First, this movie was set during the modern day, with everything except the language modernised and has the MTV generation feel to it. Next, the movie was about two major gangs battling against on another, while the play focused around two relatively normal aristocratic families from their time. Also, another difference between the two versions is the weaponry. In Luhrmans version of Romeo and Juliet, 9mm swords, which is a gun instead of the actual swords that were used in the play. Although these two plays were quite different, there was another movie, A West Side Story, which was more similar to the original play. A West Side Story is quite similar to the story of Romeo and Juliet. In A West Side Story, two gangs are feuding during modern times. Both gangs are fighting over a piece of territory. Also, two people from separate gangs fall in love, and one of them dies. Each of these events occurs in Romeo and Juliet in at least one of the versions, demonstrating the incredible similarity between these stories. Each version of Romeo and Juliet, as well as A West Side Story, had many similarities and differences as I have shown. Although they were all quite similar, each was unique in at least one way. The Zeferelli version showed the battle between Tybalt and Mercutio as friendly, unlike the other versions. Two examples of uniqueness in A West Side Story were that one of the two lovers survived, and the feud was between white Americans and Puerto Ricans. The original play was unique due to the fact that this was the first version upon which all other versions were based. The Luhrman version was unique due to the fact that this movie was the most modern and fast paced of all the stories, and is the one that related to us the most closely due to how modern the storyline was. The original themes in each of these both similar but terrific stories are comparable, although varied enough to make each one valuable.