Hello, welcome, and thank you for joining me for today's English lesson.

My name is Mrs. Butterworth, and I cannot wait to get started on this lesson today.

Because in this lesson, we will be exploring "An Inspector Calls" and we're going to be thinking about narrative voice and subjective truth, some really big interesting ideas to look at "An Inspector Calls" through.

Sound good? Great.

Let's get started.

So in this lesson, you will explain how Priestley uses narrative voice and a fragmented narrative to present subjective truth and bias.

Now let's look at those all important keywords before we delve into the lesson.

These words are bias, fragmented, subjective, narrative, and manipulate.

Now, bias is a personal preference or prejudice that skews judgement or interpretation or events.

So if you are biassed, you are a bit one-sided, your kind of only thinking about your personal preference.

Fragmented means something that is broken into separate parts.

Subjective is based on personal opinions, feelings, or experiences.

So it's the opposite of objective.

If you're being subjective, it's based on your own personal opinions.

Narrative is kind of another word to say a story or account of events.

And then this idea of manipulate.

So we'll be thinking about how the Birlings manipulate their narratives today.

And this is manipulate is to control or influence others, typically in a deceptive or unfair way, to achieve a specific outcome.

So you may want to start thinking about how the Birlings manipulate their narratives.

So the outline of our lesson, it looks like this.

We're going to begin by exploring narrative voice and fragmented structure before moving on to challenging the Inspector as the voice of truth.

So let's begin the lesson.

Subjective truth can be defined in the following ways, how individual perspectives shape competing versions of reality, and that it is influenced by bias, personal experience, and self-interest.

Now, if we think about "An Inspector Calls", it doesn't have a single narrator.

Instead, we hear different characters and different characters' interpretations of what happened.

So it's their version of events, that individual's versions of events.

Now arguably, Priestley uses the character's narration to reveal how those in power construct narratives to suit their interests.

So this shapes perception and also literally controls the truth to maintain their authority.

So we see this happening in "An Inspector Calls" how the characters may try and control the truth to maintain their authority.

They try and manipulate the version of events and manipulate the narrative to maintain their authority, to maintain their status.

Okay, so which of the following best describes subjective truth in "An Inspector Calls"? So you need to pick A, B, or C.

Pause the video and come up with your answer now.

Okay, are we ready? Feeling confident? Okay, well done to everyone that said, B, truth is shaped by individual bias and experiences creating competing versions of events.

So arguably, the character's presentation of events, or their truth, is shaped by class and self-interest.

So I'd like you please to consider the following quotations.

So you'll need a copy of "An Inspector Calls".

So if you don't have this, make sure you go and get one now.

And then once you are ready, you can consider the following quotations.

So you need to find act three, page 51 to 52, where Eric says "yes" to "row", Gerald on act two, page 35 from "the" to "once", Mr. Birling, act one, page 15 from "well" to "them", and then Mrs. Birling act two, page 47, from "that" to "did".

So, you'll need to find those in order to do this next bit.

So once you've looked at those quotations, I'd like you to discuss, please, how do their responses reflect their self-interest, class, and moral awareness? So how do their responses reflect their self-interest, class, and moral awareness? So you'll need to pause the video in a moment to discuss your ideas.

If you are working alone, you may wish to sit quietly and think to yourself, or even jot down some ideas.

So pause the video, get looking at those quotations and thinking about your ideas.

Off you go.

Thank you, everyone.

Let's share some ideas together.

So you may have discussed some of the following.

So you may have thought about how Eric really downplays the reality of his altercation with Eva.

Although he accepts responsibility, he frames his narrative in a more acceptable way.

So he uses quite casual language, like squiffy, to really downplay what actually happened.

And I think and, you know, he uses the word old chap and things like that.

So arguably, Eric still controls his narrative despite accepting responsibility.

There's a sense that he really downplays what really happened to protect himself.

And Gerald.

Now Gerald positions himself as a hero, doesn't he? I always love that even Sheila calls him out on this.

So he really positions as a hero in Eva's narrative.

And he frames himself as doing good rather than exploiting his status and class position, which is what arguably he does in that situation.

He presents himself as a hero rather than the fact that Eva's desperation makes her have the affair with Gerald.

So there's an interesting way that Gerald positions himself in that narrative to make himself look like the hero.

And Mr. Birling denies any wrongdoing and actually defends his actions.

So he presents his actions as an inevitable part of business ownership.

So again, he controls that narrative, he controls it to remain true to exactly what he believes and the expectations of a businessman.

And then finally, Mrs. Birling aims to control the narrative by shifting the blame onto Eva, and she justifies her actions.

So she presents a version of events that absolves her of guilt and reinforces her sense of superiority.

So the characters could be considered unreliable narrators in the way they interpret events to serve their interests.

So what we have just discussed, actually, the way they present their version of the truth, it can be questioned, can't it? So this is what makes them arguably unreliable narrators.

So for example, Gerald really rationalises his actions and presents himself as a hero to protect his reputation.

Eric downplays the seriousness of his altercation with Eva to protect himself and others from the seriousness of the situation.

So arguably, Priestley uses unreliable narrators to highlight how personal bias and class shape each character's version of the truth, encouraging the audience to question authority, okay? To question their authority.

By using multiple perspectives, Priestley creates a fragmented narrative that reflects his political agenda.

So if we think about each character, they present a different version of events, and this exposes the subjective nature of truth, okay? And it reveals the bias shaped by class and social position.

So this really helps Priestley make his point that we should be critical of the things happening in order for things to change in society.

And the structure challenges the audience to question whose account is trustworthy.

And again, this reinforces Priestley's socialist messages about the dangers of self-interest and the need for collective responsibility.

Okay, so true or false.

Gerald Croft can be considered an unreliable narrator.

Pause the video to decide whether that statement is true or false.

Well done, everyone that picked true.

But you need to explain why.

So pause the video to come up with your explanation.

Okay, I'm gonna share an answer, and hopefully, you have something similar.

So Gerald can be considered an unreliable narrator as he downplays his actions with Eva.

Arguably, this reflects Priestley's critique of a society that avoids accountability.

So the use of multiple character narration and fragmented narrative can be linked to political theatre traditions.

So I really want us to think about these ideas now in relation to political theatre.

So let's think about Brechtian theatre.

So that fragmented narrative could arguably create alienation, so it distanced the audience and prompts critical engagement with Priestley's socialist message.

And also, the unreliable narrators as well, because we are not being presented with a narrative that is cohesive and truthful.

So it's encouraging us, the audience, to critically engage with what is happening on the stage.

Very typical of Brechtian theatre.

Naturalism.

So the shifting perspectives arguably expose how personal and social circumstances shape truth, reinforcing the complexity of human behaviour.

So if we think about the aims of naturalism, which is to show life as it is, to show the complexities of humans, those shifting perspectives show how humans or individuals behave in those sorts of situations.

So for naturalism, again, seeing that, those different perspectives could also encourage us to engage critically.

And then expressionism.

So if we think about that disjointed narrative, it really reflects the internal conflict, doesn't it? And emotional truth, showing how personal bias distorts perception.

So we can think about these conventions, these theatrical conventions, alongside the fragmented narrative, the multiple character narration, and the unreliable narrators in aligning with these conventions.

So both Brechtian and expressionist theatre expose the theatrical construction of a play.

So it acknowledges that this is a play and it's not trying to pretend to be anything else.

Now arguably, Priestley's use of narrative voice and structure align with this convention.

Because as I have said, unreliable narrators show that the plate isn't presenting an objective reality, but a subjective, constructed view distancing the audience from emotional immersion.

Okay? So it's not, this is the whole truth, it's suggesting that there is a subjective truth that is constructed.

The multiple narratives showing those differing perspectives really emphasise that there is no singular truth.

And again, shows the play's constructed nature rather than an illusion of reality.

And then finally, there's this sense of fragmentation.

So the different perspectives may alienate the audience, making them question the reliability of each character's account and engaging them in critical reflection of the play's political themes.

Okay, so there's been lots to think about in that learning cycle, and I now want us to put that all together to write a response to the following question, how does Priestley use narrative voice and a fragmented structure to explore the idea of subjective truth and the power of class? So in this, you should include specific examples in the play, so identify some specific examples in the play Linking it to narrative voice and fragmented structure.

So we have identified some of those already.

Explain how each character presents their narrative to serve their own interests.

So think about how Gerald presents himself as a hero, and Eric really downplays the altercation.

Explain how the fragmented structure challenges the audience to question the truth.

And finally, link to those theatrical traditions.

Okay, so make sure you have everything you need to complete this task.

And when you are ready, pause the video and get going.

Okay, well done, everyone.

So in a moment, we're going to look at a response from Lucas, one of our Oak pupils.

And when we look at it, I just want you to see if you can identify where Lucas has done the following, where he has identified specific examples from the play, can you identify where he has explained how each character presents their narrative to serve their own interest? Can you identify where he has explained how the fragmented structure challenges the audience to question the truth? And finally, can you identify where Lucas has linked to theatrical traditions? So now let's look at Lucas' response.

We'll read it through together and then I'll give you a moment to identify those things.

So Priestley uses Mr. Birling's biassed narrative to highlight how subjective truth is shaped by class and self interest.

For example, Mr. Birling describes firing Eva Smith as sharp, justifying his harsh treatment of her.

This narrative serves his interest by downplaying his responsibility and framing his actions as necessary.

Mr. Birling's portrayal of events can be seen as exaggerated, aligning with Brechtian theatre techniques.

This encourages the audience to critically reflect on the influence of class and personal bias on truth, prompting them to reconsider their own assumptions about social responsibility and inequality.

Okay, so you'll need a moment, so you'll need a moment just to read through that again, see if you can identify those features.

So pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

Okay, well done.

And now you need to do exactly the same with your own work.

So check through your own work and note where you have identify specific examples from the play, explained how each character presents their narrative to serve their own interests, explained how the fragmented structure challenges the audience to question the truth, and linked to theatrical traditions.

So pause the video just to check through your own work.

Off you go.

Well done, everyone.

We are now at the second part of our lesson, which is all about challenging the Inspector the voice of truth.

Now, I'd like you to consider the following examples from the Inspector's interrogations.

So his use of emotive language.

His description of Eva's suicide in act one, page 11 describes her as being burnt on the inside of being in agony.

So he uses really emotive language to really talk about Eva's suicide and the details of it, the graphic details of it.

The way he interrupts and controls conversations.

So if you think about act two, page 28, the stage directions describe him taking charge massively.

And on page 46, he even becomes really stern, very stern with Mr. Birling, telling him not to yammer and stammer.

And then finally, his use of moral judgement on Act two, page 44 to 45, where he tells Mrs. Birling deliberately that she was terribly wrong and she would go on regretting her actions.

Now I'd like you to think about those following examples and discuss how far do these examples show that the Inspector manipulates the truth to support Priestley's political agenda? Okay, so when you are ready, pause the video to give yourself time to discuss your answers.

Think quietly to yourself or write down some ideas.

Off you go.

Great, thank you, everyone.

So let's just see how Izzy and Laura answered.

As we're reading these, you may want to think about your own answers.

So Izzy has said that the emotive language and control over conversations push a socialist perspective.

So Izzy is really thinking about Priestley's political agenda there.

He framed social responsibility as truth, leading characters to self-incriminate and making the audience question capitalism's morality.

So Izzy's done really well there in linking to Priestley's political agenda.

And then we have Laura, the Inspector withholds details and leads characters towards guilt, shaping a biassed version of events.

His selective revelations and moral rhetoric suggest manipulation rather than objective truth.

So that's a really interesting point from Laura when we consider what a traditional Inspector's role is.

Actually, you know, could it be argued that the Inspector pushes towards this manipulation rather than the objective truth? So I'd like you to take a moment just to reread those again, and to discuss please, to what extent do you agree and why? Pause the video to get discussing that question.

Okay, true or false? So is this statement true or false? Arguably, the Inspector uses moral rhetoric to manipulate the characters.

Pause the video to decide whether that's true or false.

So hopefully, lots of you listening to the last slide, because that is true, but you need to explain why, please.

So again, pause the video to come up with your explanation.

Okay, so here's an example answer.

Hopefully, you have something that closely aligns.

So the Inspector uses moral rhetoric to manipulate characters by framing their actions as morally wrong, pushing them toward self-incrimination and exposing class hypocrisy.

So we've looked at the other characters as this idea of unreliable narrators.

And actually, if we think about the Inspector, we can also interpret him as an unreliable narrator, which I think is a really interesting thing to think about because we very often think of the Inspector as the voice of truth.

But arguably, we could argue that he is also an unreliable narrator because his existence is uncertain, his identity is never confirmed, he selectively reveals information to manipulate characters, and he uses that moral rhetoric to push a socialist message.

So that agenda that he has, or Priestley's agenda, could arguably make him seem like an unreliable narrator.

And he controls the narrative rather than presenting objective truth.

So again, that use of emotive language isn't really about presenting the facts.

It becomes quite biassed.

It becomes quite manipulative.

So Priestley presents the Inspector as an unreliable narrator because it conforms to political theatre conventions emphasising the play's constructed nature and theatricality.

Like if we think about the play, if the Inspector acted as a traditional Inspector, would it have the same effect? Particularly thinking about a political agenda.

So if we think about those political theatre conventions, arguably, the Inspector needs to be unreliable.

He needs to be exaggerated in order to emphasise that constructed nature, that theatricality, and link to that political agenda.

Priestley presents the Inspector as an unreliable narrator because it prioritises the delivery of Priestley's social message over an objective truth.

So arguably, Priestley isn't aiming for a truthful depiction of an interrogation or the girl's suicide, it's about his socialist message, and that's the most important thing.

And he presents the Inspector as an unreliable narrator presenting morality as absolute.

So he ignores nuance or alternative perspectives.

So the Inspector has to push his agenda, has to push Priestley's agenda because the message is about morality and there is a message.

Okay, so A, B, C, or D, which of the following statements best explains why the Inspector can be interpreted as an unreliable narrator? So pause the video and decide whether your answer is A, B, C, or D.

Off you go.

Are we ready for an answer? So well done, everyone that got D, his identity and existence are uncertain.

So Priestley reveals the power of subjective truth for the following reasons.

So to show how truth is shaped or can be shaped by power and self-interest, to force the audience to engage critically rather than accept a single version of events, and if you think about that critical engagement, if we were looking at the series of events objectively with an objective truth, the truth is that arguably, none of the Birlings have actually committed a crime.

So we have to look at the power of subjective truth in order to force the audience to engage critically.

Priestley needs the audience to see what the Birlings has done, what the Birlings have done as a crime.

And this reinforces his message that truth can be manipulated to maintain power while socialism seeks collective responsibility.

Okay, so your second and final practise task.

Are we ready? Great.

So I would like you please to read the following open statements.

So we have two.

The first is through the Inspector's presentation, Priestley urges the audience to question authority and critically assess the constructed nature of power.

Second one is the Inspector's role as an unreliable narrator conforms to conventions of political theatre in how it emphasises the play's constructed nature.

So what I would like you to do is I'd like you to use those statements and carry them on.

So finish the paragraphs, use those statements to start the paragraph and then finish them.

So you'll need to use evidence from the text, keywords and concepts such as subjective truth, unreliable narration, and manipulation, and an explanation of how these ideas relate to Priestley's critique of class and social responsibility.

So remember, we have discussed this.

We have looked at this in detail.

We just need to put it into a lovely response.

So make sure you have everything you need to complete this task.

So when you are ready, pause the video, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Off you go.

Well done, everyone.

I have been really impressed with how you have grappled with those big ideas and really able to put them into some really cohesive paragraphs.

Well done.

So I'd just like you please to check through your work and underline and label where you have used evidence from the text, used those key words such as subjective truth, unreliable narration, and manipulation, and then explained how these ideas relate to Priestley's critique of class and social responsibility.

So pause the video to give yourself time to check through your work.

Off you go.

Excellent stuff, everyone.

And this marks the end of our lesson.

So we know that Priestley uses multiple narrators to show how truth is subjective.

The fragmented narrative encourages the audience to question the reliability of each account.

Arguably, Priestley uses multiple narratives to create, to critique, to critique class inequality and the lack of moral introspection.

The Inspector could be interpreted as an unreliable narrator in how he controls the narrative and the use of multiple character narration and a fragmented narrative can be linked to political theatre traditions.

So a very well done, everyone, and I hope to see you again for another English lesson very soon.

I'll see you then.

Goodbye.