An inspector calls, analysis of end of act two
Looking again at the end of act two, how does Priestley make the ending scene dramatically effective?
At the end of act two, Priestley uses several techniques in order to make the scene dramatically effective. The carefully written script creates an atmosphere of suspense and tension. The techniques Priestly uses in the script are irony and the dismantling of the false sense of security amongst the characters and consequently the audience.
Originally the characters feel secure because they feel that Eva's death had nothing to do with them. In particular Mr and Mrs Birling' s nature is one in which they only believe what they want to, rather than looking at the facts, " I don't believe it. I wont." However as the act continues, as Sheila has previously predicted, the inspector is 'breaking down the walls' that Mrs Birling has set up between her and Eva. This breaking down of the walls, the dismantling of the false sense of security adds to the dramatic tension of the scene.
In dismantling the sense of security, Priestly uses irony. These ironic situations make it more dramatic by creating possibilities of suspense. For example Mrs Birling says, "drunken young idler" when referring to the father of eva's unborn child. The irony is that she does not know that she is accusing her own son and therefore, very quick to pass the blame to somebody she does not know. She states that he is "entirely responsible...should be make an example of... dealt with very severely". It is hypocritical of her to say this for it is obvious that if she knew that it is her own son she is criticising her view would be completely different.
The inspector give Mrs Birling a chance to change her views, by summarising her speech, "No hushing up, eh?" Mrs Birling persists in her blind pompous attitude. I think this same attitude is used not just in this case but in her daily life and is shown to the audience in her behavior toward Eva. It is ironic that Mrs Birling's blindness is not only
At the end of act two, Priestley uses several techniques in order to make the scene dramatically effective. The carefully written script creates an atmosphere of suspense and tension. The techniques Priestly uses in the script are irony and the dismantling of the false sense of security amongst the characters and consequently the audience.
Originally the characters feel secure because they feel that Eva's death had nothing to do with them. In particular Mr and Mrs Birling' s nature is one in which they only believe what they want to, rather than looking at the facts, " I don't believe it. I wont." However as the act continues, as Sheila has previously predicted, the inspector is 'breaking down the walls' that Mrs Birling has set up between her and Eva. This breaking down of the walls, the dismantling of the false sense of security adds to the dramatic tension of the scene.
In dismantling the sense of security, Priestly uses irony. These ironic situations make it more dramatic by creating possibilities of suspense. For example Mrs Birling says, "drunken young idler" when referring to the father of eva's unborn child. The irony is that she does not know that she is accusing her own son and therefore, very quick to pass the blame to somebody she does not know. She states that he is "entirely responsible...should be make an example of... dealt with very severely". It is hypocritical of her to say this for it is obvious that if she knew that it is her own son she is criticising her view would be completely different.
The inspector give Mrs Birling a chance to change her views, by summarising her speech, "No hushing up, eh?" Mrs Birling persists in her blind pompous attitude. I think this same attitude is used not just in this case but in her daily life and is shown to the audience in her behavior toward Eva. It is ironic that Mrs Birling's blindness is not only