Lesson video

Hello there, Mr. Barnsley here.

Great to see you today.

Thank you for joining me as we do some deeper analysis of the character of the inspector in "An Inspector Calls." We're gonna be looking at archetypes today.

I've got a great lesson ahead.

I am gonna be expecting some prior knowledge of "An Inspector Calls." So this shouldn't be the first time that you have read or studied the text.

I'm gonna expect you to have some knowledge of plot and characters.

I also would like you to have a copy of the text in front of you.

So make sure that you do, 'cause I'm gonna be challenging you to find some evidence from the play.

All right, if you are ready to start, I'm ready to start.

So let's dive in.

By end of today's lesson then you will be able to explain how and why Prieseley presents the inspector as a character archetype.

So one of our keywords that we just saw in the outcome is archetype, and that's a typical character situation or symbol that represents kind of these universal human experiences.

There are some other key words that I want us to keep an eye out for.

The first is maverick.

And a maverick is an independent thinker who challenges the norms. They take risks.

They often go against tradition, they often go against authority.

And a rogue.

A rogue is a person who behaves unpredictably.

They often defy rules and conventions.

Two other words we're gonna look out for are relentless and ruthless.

If something or someone is relentless, it's someone who is persistent.

They never give up no matter the difficulty.

And if they are ruthless, it's a person who is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, regardless of the consequences for others.

So let's keep an eye out for these five key terms and try and use them in our own discussions and writing today.

So there are two learning cycles in today's lesson.

At first, we're gonna be looking at the presentation of the inspector as an archetype, and then we're gonna do some deeper analysis of the character of the inspector.

So let's start by thinking about how he's presented in Priestley's play.

So a reminder then that archetypes are character symbols or story patterns that appear repeatedly in literature, film, and mythology.

So writers may use character archetypes.

So these kind of characters that repeatedly appear in literature, film, and mythology to do many things.

So the first might be to explore universal themes and reflect kind of timeless ideas like justice, or power or redemption.

They might use them to challenge or subvert expectations.

So sometimes writers can put interesting twists on these archetypes to kind of create deeper meaning.

And they can often be used to shape audience perception.

They help us guide the readers how we should respond to characters influencing our sympathy, our trust, our scepticism, because we recognise these archetypes from other stories and think, well, this character reminds me of this character and therefore I trusted this character.

So I'm going to trust this new character that I've been introduced to.

And our character archetypes can also become really synonymous with specific genres.

So that means specific genres of texts are more likely to include specific character archetypes.

So for example, when we think of crime and detective fiction, they regularly use the rogue character, the maverick characters, the free thinkers, the people who take risks, they usually use them as inspector archetypes.

So lots of inspectors, lots of detectives we see in crime and detective fiction are these rogues, these mavericks.

So some characteristics that we might expect of this archetype include this, a real commitment to justice and morality.

And sometimes that they'll go above the law to make sure they bring people to justice.

Their willingness to bend or break the rules for the greater good.

There's often a real dominance, a real directness, and this relentless interrogation techniques, they do not give up and they can challenge authority.

Obviously they have authority themselves, but they're willing to challenge people or characters that we might see as having even greater authority of them.

They'll often act alone and they'll often act against traditional methods.

So true or false then.

The maverick or the rogue archetype is recognised by their ability to follow protocol, follow rules meticulously.

Is that true or false? And why? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you've got some ideas.

Of course, that was false.

Why? Well, with their challenges to authority and their willingness to break rules for the greater good, I think it's safe to say that the rogue, the maverick archetypes, they are much more likely to ignore protocol, ignore the rules.

So Prieseley's initial description of the inspector, I think conforms to this dominance and directness that we might expect of the rogue archetype.

He uses this adverb massively in act one, that's page 12.

If you want to find it in your text, in the stage directions to describe the way that the inspector is interrupting the Birlings.

How then do you think this description presents the inspector as a rogue or a maverick? Why don't you pause the video and have a think.

You can look at this specific advert massively, or if you want to look at the stage directions around that.

How is this presenting the inspector as a rogue or a maverick? Pause the video.

Have a think with a partner.

If you've got one, you can discuss this in pairs.

Otherwise you can just think through this independently.

Alright, pause the video, give it a go.

Press play when you've got some ideas.

Alright, I hope you've got lots of ideas here.

Let's have a look at what some of the Oak pupils said then.

Laura said "That the advert massively highlights the inspector's dominance showing him as this disruptive force who challenges authority and refuses to follow social etiquette." This really enforces his role as a rogue outsider.

Jacob said "His forceful interruptions break the Birling's control over the conversation.

This shows him as a maverick, who dictates the interrogation on his own terms." He defies their expectations and the social hierarchy because we know the Birlings are a very powerful family.

Notice here how both pupils have offered a really detailed and perceptive answers.

They're explaining how Prieseley's language choices present him in this way.

They're making links between the language choices and these archetypes.

So is there anything else you could add further to your initial answers? Why don't you take a moment now to read Laura and Jacob's ideas and think, can I use any of these ideas to develop the discussions I was having? I might even want to take a moment now to make a few notes if there's any great ideas on the screen that I like and might want to use in future.

Alright, pause the video and just take a moment to reflect on your own discussions in comparison to the oat pupils.

Okay, welcome back.

We are now gonna move on to our first task and we're gonna focus on some of the stage directions in act one.

So you're gonna be, if you're using the Heinemann version of this text, you're gonna want to be on page 11, and you're gonna look from where it starts with "The to "speaking," okay? So that's the section we're gonna be focusing on today.

And I want you to answer the following question.

How do Priestley's initial descriptions of the inspector present him as the rogue or the maverick archetype? Things I would like you to consider.

I want you to make sure you're using relevant quotations.

So find evidence from the text to support your arguments.

And remember we want to make that link between the language and the archetype.

So explain how those language choices construct the inspector in this way, because we always want to remember that the characters are a construct.

They have been deliberately crafted by the author.

So Priestly has deliberately constructed the inspector in this way.

He has deliberately tried to create this rogue maverick archetype through his language choices.

I want you to explain how those language choices present the inspector in this way.

Alright, pause the video, give yourself plenty of time to do this activity and remember to press play when you are done.

All right, welcome back, before we move on, we're gonna take a moment to look at some model examples so we can compare our work and share some of the ideas that we might have had.

So Jun, one of our Oak pupils answered this question and he said, "Prieseley's description of the inspector suggests an unpredictability that is associated with the maverick archetype.

He's described as 'disconcerting' and with a 'hard' look." Alright, let's think about Jun's answer then.

Well, he has answered the question, he has thought about what archetype is at play here and he has used some relevant quotations.

So these two one word quotations disconcerting and hard.

However, Jun hasn't really explained how these language choices construct the inspector.

He's not made that link between the language choices and the archetype.

So what could Jun have done further? How could he have expanded his answer? Why don't you pause video, have a think about this in pairs or by yourself and press play when you've got some ideas.

Okay, let's see if Jun's developed answer is similar to some of the ideas you might have had.

So Jun says, "Prieseley's descriptions of the inspector suggest an unpredictability that is associated with the maverick archetype." Good, okay, we're keeping that, we like that.

"He's described as disconcerting, which suggests an ability to unnerve and destabilise while his hard look conveys his piercing scrutiny, reinforcing his role as an unrelenting and unpredictable force.

So much better here.

So yes, he's answered the question.

Yes, he's got relevant quotations, but now he's started to explain how these language choices link to the idea or the way that the inspector's been constructed as a maverick.

Great job Jun.

I hope you had something similar.

Why don't you take a moment now to pause your video and self-assess your own work.

Check that you have answered the question, check that you have included relevant quotations and check that you have explained how those language choices construct the inspector.

Alright, pause the video, reflect on your work and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

It's now time for us to do some analysis of the inspector as an archetype.

So arguably the archetype, rogue or maverick inspector aligns with Prieseley's own agenda in writing "An Inspector Calls." What does that mean? Well, we see that Prieseley uses the inspector to do some of the following, to relentlessly and ruthlessly pursue the truth and expose moral corruption.

He doesn't stop, he doesn't care.

You know, which of the characters' reputations get damaged.

He's determined to find out the truth and expose this moral corruption we see at the heart of the Birling family.

He challenges authority.

We know the Birling's are really a powerful family, but he's not afraid to confront them and he drives this moral agenda.

He's driven by morality, his sense of morality.

And this reflects Prieseley's own desire for social justice.

We know this is something that Prieseley was really passionate for.

He saw his play as a vehicle for encouraging kind of social justice.

He also defies the status quo by revealing uncomfortable realities about class and power.

He's calling for a more just, a more equitable society.

I want you to now read the following examples.

I want you to look at act two, particularly page 28, and the stage directions which describe the inspector taking charge massively.

I also want you to look at page 46, where he becomes very stern with Mr. Birling, telling him not to yammer and stammer.

I also want you to look in act two at page 44,45, where he tells Mrs. Birling deliberately that she was terribly wrong and she would go on regretting her actions.

How did these quotations conform to this idea of the character archetype? And how do you think, let's dig even deeper, do some deeper analysis here.

How do they reflect Prieseley's agenda to expose moral corruption and confront the powerful? Alright, I want you to take a bit of time kind of wading through these questions here because we're moving from analysing the archetype to taking it further and linking it to Prieseley's agenda, Prieseley's message.

So I want you to give yourself plenty of time to do this.

If you've got a partner, by all means feel free to work in pairs, but don't worry if you're working by yourself, this is definitely a discussion task that you can do independently by thinking through yourself.

You want to make sure you've got a copy of the text to hand as well.

Alright, pause the video, give this a go and press play when you've got some ideas.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's have a look at some of the things that you might have said.

Two of Oak peoples have done this and we can compare their thoughts to yours.

So Lucas said "That the inspector's relentless interruptions and control reflect the maverick archetype." He's challenging authority, he's asserting his dominance In the investigation.

Sophia said, "Prieseley uses the inspector's ruthless moral judgement to confront the Birling's power and hypocrisy." He's pushing them and the audience to recognise the consequences of their actions and the need for societal change.

Do you agree with Lucas and Sophia? Do they have similar ideas to what you were discussing or thinking about? Why? Why not? Take a moment just to reflect on the discussions you were having, and of course if there's any ideas that you've seen on the screen that you really like, you can also jot them down.

Alright, pause the video, take a moment to reflect and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, quick check for understanding then, in act two the inspector tells Mr. Birling not to, A, interrupt, B, stammer or C, shout.

A, B, or C, pause the video, make your choice and press play when you think you've got the answer, Welcome back and well done If you said B, stammer.

So arguably the characters confess after they have been very carefully manipulated by the inspector.

This links to the inspector's overarching agenda to reveal moral corruption rather than adhering to protocol and solving a crime.

So let's have a look at some of these examples of manipulation.

They include things like using the photograph, which may not really be Eva, that's what Gerald says in Act three.

And I think this is so powerful, his use of emotive and really graphic language to describe Eva's death.

For example, her insides being burnt out.

This is from act two.

So how do you think the inspectors use of the photograph manipulate the characters into revealing their guilt? In what ways does this inspector's emotive language about Eva's death really influence the character's confessions and Prieseley's critique of moral corruption? Why don't you pause the video, have a little bit of a think here, in pairs or by yourself, but really start to think about now how the inspector is manipulating the characters to reveal their guilt.

Alright, pause the video, have a think, and press play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back.

I'm sure lots of you when you think about the photograph, were thinking about, actually he's putting the image of Eva in front of this family.

You know, she's not just some nameless, faceless person that they can easily forget about.

He forces them all to look at her and really consider their crimes against her.

That's really emotionally manipulative.

And this link to him manipulating their emotions with the language.

You know, their crimes seem so severe, their moral crimes seem so severe because this language is so devastating to hear, so brutal.

So we can definitely argue that there is manipulation at play here and whether you would say that a detective should be manipulating his characters, you know, it's not breaking the law, maybe bending the rules.

We can see definitely more examples of this maverick archetype.

Alright, we're gonna move on to our final task in today's lesson then.

And you are gonna write a paragraph answering the following question.

How does Prieseley imagine the maverick or the rogue character archetype to expose moral corruption? You can use these sentence starters to help you.

You can use them to inspire you.

You can use them exactly as they are, or just as inspiration.

So through the inspector's relentless questioning Prieseley exposes.

Priestly presents the inspector as a challenge to authority, which allows him to.

The inspector's refusal to follow typical procedures emphasises.

And through his manipulation, the inspector forces the characters to confront.

Alright, over to you now to bring all of our learning together.

And I really want to show your understanding of the inspector as an archetype.

Don't forget to use quotations as evidence linking Prieseley's language choices to what you are saying about the inspector as an archetype.

And also don't forget to link your thoughts, your arguments to Prieseley's wider messages.

We're always wanting to make links back to a writer's intentions.

Alright, over to you.

Pause the video, give this a go and press play when you think you're done.

Welcome back.

How was it? I hope you're really proud of the piece of work you've done.

I really like it when you can pull all of your learning together and create something that will act as something you can always revisit and remind yourself of the learning that you have covered in today's lesson.

Also, special shout out to anyone who check their spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

That is what we love to see.

Alright, before we finish today's lesson, I would like you to self-assess your work by answering the following questions.

Have you identified the dramatic methods Prieseley uses to convey his ideas? Have you supported your points with relevant evidence or quotations from the text? And have you linked your analysis to the writer's intention and key themes? Alright, pause the video, take a moment to reflect, and press play when you are done.

Okay, that's it, we have reached the end of today's lesson and what fantastic work you have done today.

On the screen as a summary of everything we've covered.

I want us to go through that so we feel really confident before we move on to our next lesson.

So we've learned that Priestly reimagines the maverick detective to expose moral corruption, not necessarily to solve the crime.

The inspector embodies the rogue archetype.

He's committed to justice beyond the law, and he's unafraid to challenge authority.

Prieseley reshapes his archetype to serve his political message on class and responsibility.

Using archetypes doesn't limit originality, but it does help explore universal themes in new ways.

And the inspector's interrogation style reflects the maverick archetype in its authoritative and relentless style.

Great work today.

You've done a fantastic job.

I really hope to see you in one of our lessons again in the future.

See you all soon.

Bye-bye.