Hello and welcome.

It's Mrs. Butterworth here and I am ready for our English lesson today, and I hope you are too.

Now, in this lesson we will really be interrogating the play "An Inspector Calls" with reference to the morality play tradition.

Now, this may be something you've heard of before or maybe not, but hopefully by the end of the lesson you will have a really good idea and how this links to "An Inspector Calls." So shall we get started? So by the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain how "An Inspector Calls" draws on the morality play tradition.

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

You will notice these popping up throughout the lesson, so this will help your understanding.

The words are virtue, vice, allegorical, hubris, and antagonistic.

Now, virtue and vice kind of go hand in hand.

Now, virtue is behaviour that reflects high moral standards, whereas vice is immoral or wicked behaviour.

So you can see there those opposites there, high moral standards versus immoral or wicked behaviour.

Allegorical is having symbolic or deeper meaning.

We've also got this word hubris, and we're going to be using this word today in relation to Mr. Birling.

Now, I'm sure as we look at the definition, lots of you will be agreeing that this is Mr. Birling in a nutshell.

So hubris is excessive pride or self-confidence, often leading to arrogance and a disregard for others or consequences.

Definitely sounds like Mr. Birling! And then we also get this idea antagonistic, which is opposing or actively resisting something, often in a hostile or combative manner.

So that word of being antagonistic.

So the outline of our lesson looks like this.

So we're going to begin by exploring the conventions of the morality play before moving on to looking at vice characters and the morality play structure.

So let's get started.

So a morality play is a mediaeval drama where abstract concepts like good, evil, and virtue are personified to teach moral lessons.

So it's kind of in its title, isn't it? A morality play.

So it's all about teaching moral lessons.

Now, it emerged in the late Middle Ages, so that's around the 14th to 16th century, evolving from religious mystery plays.

So there's definitely a religious element to these.

They had a didactic purpose to instruct audiences on making virtuous choices and living a moral life, often within a Christian framework.

And they were really focused on the ideas of salvation, sin, repentance, and the afterlife, and they used allegory to guide the audience towards righteousness.

So the characters, the story very often have this allegorical element to it.

Let's just explore some of the conventions of the morality play.

Now, these include allegorical characters, and the characters of morality plays personify and represent concepts like virtue, vice, good deeds, death, knowledge.

So the characters are more symbolic, okay? They are allegorical.

We also have this idea of the everyman protagonist.

Now, the everyman protagonist represents humanity, or let's think of it like they represent the audience.

It's who the audience are being asked to identify with, the everyman protagonist, because this protagonist will face moral dilemmas and consequences.

So hopefully the audience will identify with the everyman protagonist and learn something.

There's also this idea of the justice character.

Now, the justice character ensures moral or divine law is upheld, delivering judgement and restoring order.

Now, some of you might be starting to get some connections here to "An Inspector Calls," you know, that justice character and the Inspector.

Also, they used symbolic settings.

Now, these are very minimal or sometimes abstract settings which represented moral concepts.

So like the characters, the setting also came to represent or symbolise ideas.

And there was a narrator on messenger.

So the narrator or messenger would explain the moral lesson to the audience.

Now, Laura asks this question.

"If Priestley was writing in 1945, how could a theatrical style popular in the 14th to 16th centuries be relevant?" And that's a really good question from Laura.

So, I would like you to think about that question and I would like you to discuss, please, how you might respond to Laura's question.

So you'll need to pause the video to discuss your ideas.

If you're working on your own, you may wish to just think quietly to yourself or even jot down some ideas, but we'll feed back in a moment.

Pause the video and off you go.

Great, some interesting responses to Laura there.

Shall we help her out? Okay, so you may have discussed some of the following.

So when we're thinking about "An Inspector Calls," we can think of it as evolving from past theatrical traditions like the morality play.

So even though the morality play was happening centuries ago, there's this idea that it would lead to "An Inspector Calls," that the kind of theatrical traditions continue to draw on what's happened previously.

And "An Inspector Calls" will still connect to older forms, reflecting historical and cultural ideas.

You know, texts don't happen in a vacuum.

They will be influenced by past things and also things that are happening at the time of their production.

So texts are shaped by past traditions and influence future works, and they don't exist in isolation.

So like I just said, they don't exist in a vacuum.

So arguably, "An Inspector Calls" would then go on to influence other works and so on and so forth.

Okay, so time for a true or false question.

So is the statement true or false? Morality plays are ambiguous in their messages of virtue over vice.

Pause the video to come up with your answer now.

Well done to everyone that said that was false, but you now need to explain why.

Pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Great, some excellent answers.

Shall we share one? Okay, so hopefully you have something similar.

So morality plays were typically didactic and aimed to clearly instruct the audience on the battle between virtue and vice.

So they didn't want any ambiguity in their message.

It was very clear what their message was and what it was trying to achieve.

Now, it could be argued, and I think this is a very interesting argument, that Priestley modernises the form of the morality play through the following conventions.

So allegorical characters.

So for example, if we think about the Inspector, he could represent virtue, whilst the Birlings embody vice.

So there is some similarities there.

The everyman protagonist.

Now, we could argue that Eva Smith could be considered the everyman, symbolising social injustice and moral responsibility.

And that justice character.

Now, Inspector Goole really enforces moral law, and he holds the Birlings accountable and there's this warning of inevitable justice.

So we could argue that the idea of the Inspector Goole as the justice character.

And the symbolic setting.

Now, the single setting of the Birlings' dining room represents the class system, which is questioned throughout the play, and that setting becomes highly symbolic when we start to think about it in relation to the key themes of the play.

And then finally, the narrator or messenger.

And again, we could think of Inspector Goole in this way, because he almost acts as a messenger, doesn't he? Delivering Priestley's lesson on social responsibility to the audience, particularly that last speech where it feels like he's almost talking to us directly.

Now I wanna focus in a little bit more about the everyman protagonist and Eva Smith, because arguably, Priestley subverts the everyman protagonist in his presentation of Eva Smith, and this happens quite effectively.

Now, there's this absence from the stage, and I find this fascinating.

Eva Smith is arguably the centre of the narrative, but she's absent from the stage, which is unlike traditional everyman figures, she never appears, and this makes her symbolic rather than an active character.

And she has this fragmented identity.

So she's not a single relatable character, but a composite of exploited working-class women, challenging the idea of a clear universal protagonist.

So arguably, she links to and symbolises many different things.

Okay, so she's not just this single idea.

She relates the idea of the working class, you know, how women are treated, and all of those sorts of things.

And her lack of agency.

While the everyman typically makes choices that shape their fate, Eva is powerless, with her story told entirely by others, and we see actually that she is at the mercy of other people's decisions too.

So that lack of agency subverts the idea of the everyman protagonist, but in doing so, really makes a point about Eva's situation.

And the audience as everyman.

Priestley shifts responsibility onto the audience, encouraging them to question their own social conscience.

Now I'd like you to discuss, please, why might Priestley have chosen to subvert the everyman protagonist through Eva, and how does it support his political agenda? So I'm going to read that question again.

Why might Priestley have chosen to subvert the everyman protagonist through Eva, and how does it support his political agenda? Lots to think about there.

So when you are ready, pause the video so you can discuss, think about your ideas, or jot something down.

Pause the video and off you go.

Well done, everyone, some really excellent ideas there, and I'm really coming to see how well you know and understand this play, so that is fantastic.

So we have some of our Oak pupils here.

Let's see how they answered.

So Aisha said, "Priestley subverts the everyman using Eva to represent all working-class women.

Her absence forces the audience to reflect on their role in social injustice, making her a more powerful symbol." That's a really great answer, because if we think about the traditional everyman protagonist, it represents humanity, whereas Eva has a bit more of a specific role.

Jacob has said, "By making Eva an absent character, Priestley highlights the dehumanisation of the working class.

This subversion pushes the audience to examine their complicity in the exploitation of others." Lovely answer from Jacob there.

And Alex says, "Eva's lack of agency emphasises the powerless position of the working class.

Her absence deepens her symbolic presence, encouraging the audience to question their responsibility." Some really great answers there.

So I'd like you to just spend a bit of time reading through those answers again, and then I would like you to discuss, please, to what extent do you agree and why? So pause the video to give yourself time to discuss your answer to that question.

Off you go.

Okay, another true or false question for you.

The inspector could be considered as an example of the everyman protagonist, a convention of morality plays.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video and come up with your answer now.

Are we ready? Okay, well done to everyone that said that was false.

We now need to explain our answer and say why that statement is false.

So pause the video so you've got time to come up with your answer.

Off you go.

Okay, so I'm going to share my answer.

Hopefully you have something similar.

So arguably, the Inspector isn't an everyman because he represents moral authority, not an ordinary person.

He guides others towards judgement , while the everyman typically faces personal moral dilemmas.

Okay, so well done to everyone that got something similar.

Okay, our first practise task.

So, I'm going to ask you to consider the following conventions of the morality play.

The justice character who ensures moral or divine law is upheld, delivering judgement and restoring order; and the narrator messenger, who explains the moral lesson to the audience.

And what I would like you to do is answer the following question.

How far does Priestley use or subvert the conventions in his presentation of the Inspector, and how do they support his political agenda? Let's just read through that question together again.

How far does Priestley use or subvert the conventions in his presentation of the Inspector, and how do they support his political agenda? Okay, so we've done lots of work on this already, so think back to your discussions and everything we have looked at, and when you are ready, pause the video and answer that question.

Off you go.

Well done, everyone, some excellent work happening there.

So let's just look at Aisha's response, and you can start thinking about your own work in relation to this too.

So she has said, "Arguably, Priestley subverts the traditional justice character by presenting the Inspector as a social force, not divine.

He judges the Birlings' moral failings based on class inequality rather than religious standards.

As a messenger, he challenges individualism, advocating for collective responsibility, aligning with Priestley's socialist agenda for societal change." A really excellent response there from Aisha.

I think that's really interesting, isn't it? Because Aisha's noted that the Inspector here represents a social force and not divine, but you could almost argue it the other way as well.

And I think that's what makes this text really fascinating, is there are multiple interpretations and multiple ways we can talk about this text.

So getting back to Aisha's response, what I would like you to do is just to read through that again and think about your own answer and just discuss, to what extent do you agree with this and why? Off you go.

Okay, well done, everyone.

We are now onto the second part of our lesson, which is all about vice characters and the morality play structure.

Now, in morality plays, vice characters often embody a specific moral failing.

So I want us to think about the following characters.

So we've got Mr. Birling, Mrs. Birling, Sheila, Eric, and Gerald.

Now, I want you to discuss, so thinking about a specific moral failing, okay, so this could be something like greed or envy, so I want you to think about those sorts of ideas, which moral failing might you assign to each of the characters and why? So like I said, we're thinking about things like greed, selfishness, and all of that kind of stuff.

So which moral failing might you assign to each of the characters and why? So you'll need to pause the video to give yourself time to discuss this.

If you're working on your own, you can think quietly to yourself, or even write down some ideas.

Pause the video and off you go.

That was really great to hear, and I like how some of you have come up with things that I wouldn't have even thought about, so that's great.

So let's look at how some of our Oak pupils answered.

So we have Andeep here, and he says, "Mr. Birling's moral failing could be hubris demonstrated in his opening speeches." Izzy has said that "Sheila's moral failing is envy.

She has Eva fired for being pretty." Lucas has said that "Mrs. Birling's could be pride.

You know, she says she's not ashamed of her treatment of Eva." She's very unlikely to admit any kind of responsibility, isn't she? Jun has said that "Eric's is anger, which leads to his excessive drinking and treatment of Eva where he threatens to start a row." And Sofia says that "Gerald's failing is lust; his affair with Eva exploits her vulnerability." So there's some really great ideas there, isn't there? So I'd like you to think about your own answers and to discuss, please, to what extent do you agree with these answers and why? Pause the video to give yourself time to discuss.

Off you go.

Okay, so vice characters function in morality plays as the following.

So they function as an antagonistic force, so they represent sin or moral failing, and they act as obstacles to the protagonist's moral growth.

Now, temptation, they lure the protagonist away from virtue, showing the consequences of sin.

And this moral contrast, they highlight the difference between good and evil, emphasising moral lessons.

And I always quite like this idea of the Birlings being presented as this kind of evil, villainous force.

Entertainment, and I think this is a really interesting one.

In a morality play, the vice characters are often comedic, they offer comic relief or exaggerated villainy, making the play more engaging.

And I guess if you were a director directing "An Inspector Calls," you could offer moments like this with the Birlings.

And actually sometimes even in reading, some of the things they say, particularly Mr. Birling, can be quite humorous.

Now I'd like you to think, are there specific moments in the play where the Birlings serve similar functions, and why does Priestley choose to present the Birlings in this way? So you might want to think about the stories they tell about Eva.

So if we think about this idea of an antagonistic force and a temptation, what does their involvement mean happens to Eva? If we think of her as the protagonist, how does their involvement in Eva's life perhaps get her away from virtue or present this moral growth? How might they function as that? And then also think about that moral contrast and entertainment as well.

So I'm gonna repeat the questions again.

Are there specific moments in the play where the Birlings serve similar functions, and why does Priestley choose to present the Birlings in this way? So pause the video to give yourself plenty of time to come up with your ideas to that question.

Off you go.

Okay, some really differing responses there, which is great that you all have different ideas with reference to the text.

So well done.

So true or false? Vice characters can function as entertainment in morality plays.

Now, is that true or is that false? Pause the video and come up with your answer.

Okay, so that is true, but I now need you to explain why, please, so pause the video to come up with your explanation.

Okay, so here is the answer.

Hopefully you have something similar.

They offer comic relief or exaggerated villainy.

Arguably, the Birlings are presented as exaggerated villains to emphasise Priestley's critique of the upper classes and capitalism.

And again, I really love the idea of the Birlings being presented as exaggerated villains.

I think if I ever become a director, that would be the route I would go in creating this play.

I think I would make them really grotesque and exaggerated to really emphasise Priestley's message.

Now let's think about structure.

So the morality play structure can be plotted like this.

So we have the introduction where the allegorical characters are introduced, which sets the moral conflict, so virtue versus vice for example.

There is then a conflict.

So the protagonist is faced with moral challenges and often represented by temptations or vice characters.

So remember, sometimes those vice characters can act as an antagonistic force.

Then we move towards the climax, where the protagonist's actions leads to a moment of moral reckoning or judgement , and this is where the consequences of their choices become clear.

And then finally, that resolution.

So the play concludes with a moral lesson, typically through divine judgement , illustrating the reward for virtue or punishment for vice.

So, I'd like you to discuss, please, look through that structure and discuss how far could the morality play structure be applied to "An Inspector Calls"? So pause the video to discuss that question, think quietly to yourself, or jot down some ideas.

Off you go.

Okay, great.

So you may have discussed some of the following.

So that introduction.

So if we think about the Birlings, they are also introduced.

So the Birling family is introduced, and this really showcases their wealth and denial of social responsibility.

So if we think about the morality play setting up those allegorical characters and ideas, arguably, "An Inspector Calls" also conforms to that.

And then the conflict.

So we know that Inspector Goole exposes their role in Eva Smith's death, and this is challenging morality and self-interest.

So there's some conflict there.

And then the climax.

So the Birlings face their actions, realising the impact of their behaviour, particularly Eric and Sheila.

So in a morality play, this would be the protagonist.

However, in "An Inspector Calls," it is the Birlings that face this moment of reckoning.

And then that resolution.

If we think about the ending, there is almost a sense of a moral lesson, isn't there, about social responsibility and the consequences of selfishness.

So if we think about it, this has a kind of resolution in terms of the message that Priestley wants to put forward.

Okay, so A, B, C, D.

How does the structure of "An Inspector Calls" align with the conventions of a morality play? So pause the video to give yourself time to come up with your answer.

Off you go.

Okay, has everyone got an answer? Okay, I'm about to reveal the answer now.

Well done everyone who got B.

The Inspector arrives, exposes moral failings, and the characters face judgement and reflection.

Okay, so we're on our second practise task.

So just a little bit more work to do before we reach the end of the lesson.

You've got this.

So I'd like you to write a response to the following question.

If Priestley's aim is to promote socialist ideals and advocate for social change, how does he use and transform the conventions of the morality play to support this? Okay, let's read it through together again.

If Priestley's aim is to promote socialist ideals and advocate for social change, how does he use and transform the conventions of the morality play to support this? Okay, so you're going to write a response to the following question, and make sure you include the following.

Identify key morality play conventions and specific examples from the text; explain how Priestley uses these conventions and link to his intentions; and evaluate the impact of the conventions on the audience's understanding of the play's message.

Now, we have done all of this in the second learning cycle.

You have done great listening, you have discussed your ideas, so you have everything you need to answer this question and I know you can do it.

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.

It was great to see so many of you really drawing on the ideas that you've come up with through discussion and all of that stuff throughout this learning cycle, so well done for doing that.

What I'd like you to do now is I'd like you to reread your response and identify and annotate where you have done the following: where you have mentioned key morality play conventions with clear examples, where you have explained how Priestley uses these conventions and linked to his intentions, and explained how the conventions affect the audience's understanding.

So pause the video to give yourself time to read your response and annotate.

Off you go.

Well done, everyone.

Here we are at the end of the lesson, and I hope you've enjoyed looking at "An Inspector Calls" through a different lens.

So it may not be something that you have thought about before, so hopefully it's really added to your interpretations and understanding of the play.

So let's just go over everything we've learnt today.

We know that morality plays personify virtues and vices to teach moral lessons.

We know that Priestley uses the Inspector as the embodiment of virtue.

Eva Smith represents social injustice, subverting the everyman protagonist.

The Birlings act as vice characters, highlighting moral failings of the upper class.

And the play structure arguably mirrors a morality play, leading to judgement and reflection.

So that's it from me, and I hope to see you all again in another lesson.

See you then, goodbye!.