Lesson video

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

My name is Mrs. Butterworth and I will be guiding you through the learning.

Now we are going deep into "An Inspector Calls" today.

So we will be considering the play as a political text.

So not only thinking about Priestley's intentions and motivations generally, but really thinking about how these might align with a political agenda.

Sound good? Great, let's get started.

So in this lesson you will explain how "An Inspector Calls" can be interpreted as a political text.

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

Now you may recognise some of these words either from your study of other subjects or even other texts.

So look out for those ones.

So the key words are manifesto, didactic, propaganda, characterization and grotesque.

Now a manifesto is a public declaration of policies or beliefs.

Now a really good example is political parties.

So you very often hear political parties releasing their manifestos, their statement of aims, before elections.

We also have this word didactic.

If something is didactic, it is intended to teach or instruct often in a way that is overly focused on moral lessons.

So if something is didactic, it feels very strongly like it is telling you something and telling you what to do.

Now propaganda is information that is very often biassed.

Now this is used to promote or influence public opinion and you may have explored elements of propaganda looking at World War I and World War II.

Very often we think about propaganda in relation to those.

Then we get characterization, which is a very important dramatic method.

Now this is the way a writer will create and develop and present a character's traits and personalities.

So throughout your study of "An Inspector Calls," you will have explored the characterization of those key characters and then the word grotesque.

I love this word.

Now this is like a distorted or exaggerated portrayal of a character which really creates discomfort or can highlight flaws.

And in this lesson we'll be considering the Birlings as grotesque, which I think is a really great way to explore them.

So the outline of our lesson looks like this.

We're going to begin by exploring the play's political motivations before moving on to considering the Birlings as political villains.

So let's get started with the first part of our lesson.

So we're just gonna look at some key contextual information.

So "An Inspector Calls" was written and first performed in 1945.

So just at the end of World War II.

In the same year, the Labour Party won a landslide victory in the general election.

Now it is claimed that that is one of the biggest swings in political history.

So moving from one political party to another, and this obviously showed a huge shift towards socialist ideals and policies.

Now also what's interesting is the play debuted in Russia and this really resonated with the post-war Russian context.

So particularly with audience's experiences of socialism and social change.

Now considering that contextual information, I'd like you to discuss please.

Do you think the play genuinely changed audience views or was it just reinforcing existing socialist ideas? So you'll need to pause the video to give yourself time to discuss that question.

Off you go.

Thank you for those excellent and perceptive discussions.

It's a really interesting thing to think about, isn't it? Now, very often we think about "An Inspect Calls" and its aims as trying to change the audience's minds or to give the audience a specific message.

However, if we consider the audience as already aligning with socialist ideals, it's asking us to think about who Priestley is wanting the audience to engage with or what he wants the audience to engage with.

Because if they're already convinced that socialism is the way forward, what is the purpose of this play? And I think that can offer some really interesting interpretations and multiple interpretations too.

So "An Inspector Calls" could be interpreted in the following ways.

We consider it.

Could consider it a political manifesto.

So this idea that the play serves to kind of lay out socialist ideas and to really provide a clear statement of those political beliefs and as very didactic in nature.

It could also be interpreted as propaganda.

Now if we think about this idea that propaganda doesn't offer an alternative view and is usually biassed, we could perhaps suggest that "An Inspector Calls" is biassed towards those socialist ideals and how it condemns anything opposing that.

And then the final idea is this idea of persuasive drama.

Now this is a play that presents a strong argument, but encourages engagement and critical thinking.

So it's slightly different to propaganda in that instead of being very one-sided and biassed, it offers that critical engagement.

It's about presenting more of an argument.

So again, "An Inspector Calls" could be interpreted in this way.

Now true or false time.

Propaganda presents a strong argument, but encourages critical thinking and audience engagement.

Is that true or false? I would like your answer now please.

Well done to everyone who noticed that was false, but now you need to say why that statement is false.

So again, I would like you to come up with your answer now please.

Okay, great.

So I'm going to share an answer.

Hopefully you will have come up with something similar.

So propaganda is designed to shape opinions by presenting a one-sided message without offering alternative perspectives.

For the next part of the lesson, you are going to need a copy of "An Inspector Calls." So if you don't have one of those, you may want to pause the video now and go and grab it.

And then you'll need to do the following.

So with your copies of "An Inspector Calls," I would like you please to read from the inspector's final speech, which is act three, page 56 from "your" to the very end, "night," okay? Once you have read that, I would like you to discuss please.

What is the tone of the inspector's language" And would you describe it as didactic or persuasive? I'll just repeat that question again.

What is the tone of the inspector's language? And would you describe it as didactic or persuasive? So you'll need to pause the video to give yourself time to do that reading and then discuss that question.

If you are working on your own, you may wish to just jot down some ideas or think quietly to yourself.

But pause the video and off you go.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much for your excellent suggestions.

It's good, isn't it, to think about that idea of being didactic and persuasive because actually we can start to see that text, that speech, operating in both of those ways, can't we? So again, we're really encouraging those multiple interpretations.

So you may have discussed some of the following.

So in terms of didactic, you may have thought about the inspector's authoritative tone and it does feel quite authoritative, doesn't it? And it presents socialism as morally right and inevitable.

And he uses this prophetic warning, doesn't he? He uses the words fire, anguish and blood and they feel really harsh, don't they? And almost violent.

So if we think about this idea of didactic, those words are quite extreme and in term really feed into that idea of it being didactic.

You know, very focused on teaching instruction and being moral.

And in terms of persuasive, we can think about this idea of his use of emotive language.

So this really evokes guilt and fear.

So this is more about making the audience reflect on their actions rather than telling them what to do.

So again, we can think about it in that way.

And he offers that repetition of we, which actually feels really inclusive, doesn't it? So instead of like a direct address, like you need to do this, you need to do that to the audience, the we kind of feels really inclusive and really persuasive and it offers a really compelling appeal to consciousness.

So in this sense, we can interpret that speech as being encouraging change rather than demanding it.

So it's really interesting to look at these two ideas and how we can interpret that final speech in both of these ways.

Okay, so I would like you now to.

You've already read the speech, but you may just want to remind yourself again.

So just look at the final speech from Acts three, page 56 from "you're" to "night." And I want you to really focus on this one idea.

So there is a shift from the use of the singular pronoun you to the plural pronoun we, okay? You'll notice it when you look back at the text.

And I'd like you to discuss please, who is the inspector speaking to? Does this make the speech sound more like a warning or a lecture? And what could this suggest about the play's political motivations? So there's lots for you to think about there and discuss.

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

As I've just said, if you're working on your own, think quietly to yourself or even jot down some ideas, so pause the video and off you go.

Some very lively discussions there, which is always fantastic and I like that a lots of you came up with different interpretations, just really, you know, emphasising the fact that this text is very rich and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

So that's really great.

And exactly what we should be doing.

So we have Andeep and Sofia here, our Oak pupils, and here is how they answered.

So Andeep said, "that the shift from you to we turns the speech from a harsh lecture for the Birlings into a persuasive warning for all.

This makes the play feel like a political manifesto urging real social change." So a really lovely answer there from Andeep.

And then Sofia says, "you condemns the Birlings, but we invite the audience to reflect.

This shift makes the speech less like propaganda and more like persuasive drama." Really interesting point there from Sofia because it's encouraging, not forcing socialist ideas.

So two really great ideas there.

So I'd like you just to reread those and discuss who do you agree with most and why? Maybe look back to the text for some evidence to really elevate your discussions.

But pause video and get discussing.

Okay, so we have a multiple choice question here for you.

So I'm gonna ask the question and then you need to decide whether it is A, B, or C.

How does the shift from you to we affect the tone of the inspector's final speech? So you need to find the best interpretation of these.

Is it A, this.

Is it A, B, or C? Come up with your answer now please.

Okay, who's feeling confident? Lots of you? Feeling confident? Should we look at the answer? Okay great, C.

It could be argued that it shifts from blaming individuals to a wider social warning.

Well done to everyone that got the answer C.

We have reached our first practise task.

So what I would like you to do is I would like you to find evidence from the text that suggests that the play functions as a political manifesto, propaganda, and a persuasive drama.

So you'll need to find evidence for each of those functions.

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

Off you go.

Okay, great.

So now you have that evidence.

What I would like you to do, please, is I would like you to use the sentence starters and your evidence to write a summary of your findings.

So don't forget to include that evidence.

So the play could be considered.

However, there are also moments of.

Arguably the play also functions as.

So you'll definitely need to pause the video for this, make sure you've got whatever you need to complete this task.

And I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

So pause the video and get writing your summaries.

Off you go.

So thank you for your hard work on that task.

So it's really good to start thinking about these different ideas and have them summarised.

So we have Jacob here and his answer, so we're just going to read that through together.

So Jacob completed the task like this.

"The play could be considered a political manifesto because the continued repetition of the word responsibility expresses Priestley's message about social duty, reflecting the rise of socialist ideals.

However, there are moments of propaganda such as the didactic use of fire and blood, which suggests an attempt to create fear and promotes an agenda without offering alternative viewpoints.

Arguably the play also functions as a persuasive drama as the use of the plural pronoun, we, encourages the audience to reflect critically on their own role in society and consider the consequences of ignoring social responsibility." Well, thank you Jacob.

That is a really great response, isn't it? Because what he has done, he has considered different interpretations and supported with evidence.

And you may also have noticed that Jacob has started to bring in elements of context too.

You know, reflecting the rise of socialist ideals and what it's asking the audience to reflect on.

So he's done a really good job here.

So use this one to look at your own work and then you can self-assess.

So I'd like you to self-assess your work and make sure you have considered the play as a political manifesto, propaganda and persuasive drama, and make sure you have used evidence to support your interpretations.

So pause the video to give yourself time to self-assess, and you may want to spend a few moments making some changes.

Off you go.

So well done everyone.

We have reached the second part of our lesson, so another big push to get us to the end.

You are working brilliantly so far.

Now this next part of the lesson, we are going to consider the Birlings as political villains.

So let's think about how the Birlings are constructed.

So arguably they are constructed to embody the following.

Capitalist values, the old order, the rejection of social responsibility, class inequality.

Now it could be argued, and I like this argument that Priestley uses the traits to construct the Birlings as villains, those in opposition to his political agenda.

And I know I keep saying this, but I do really love this idea of the Birlings as these political villains.

Now look at the following quotations.

So in Act one, Mr. Birling gives one of those famous speeches where he dismisses the war as silly talk and he describes the Titanic as unsinkable and social responsibility as nonsense.

And then Mrs. Birling in Act two, you know, she says she's not ashamed and that she did her duty and she also admits to being prejudice and dismissing Eva as impertinent.

And then in that final act, the Birlings, particularly the older Birlings and Gerald, dismiss the visit as a hoax and are more worried about a scandal and they are amused.

They even describe themselves as finding the whole thing quite funny.

So I'd like you to discuss please.

How does Priestleys characterization of the Birlings present them as villains, okay? So how does that characterization of the Birlings possibly present them as villains? Pause the video so you've got time to discuss your answers.

Think quietly to yourself or jot down some ideas.

Off you go.

So I've got some answers here for you to have a look at.

So you might want to compare to your own discussions.

You may have some similar ideas, you may have something different, but let's just share some of those now.

So we get this idea that Mr. Birling is presented as arrogant with a self-assured belief in capitalism.

So for Priestley, this could make him seem quite villainous.

This arrogance and this self-assured belief.

And Mrs. Birling's refusal to show remorse and lack of empathy towards Eva highlights that indifference to others' suffering.

So again, we can kind of see this kind of villainous behaviour, particularly towards Eva.

And you know, the older Birlings being unrepentant, they're kind of stubborn and they reject some social responsibility.

So again, if we think about Priestley's ideals and what he believes in and looking at socialism as kind of the hero, in this sense, the Birlings are constructed as these political villains.

They're stubborn, they reject social responsibility, they're arrogant, they believe in capitalism.

So we can really argue this idea that the Birlings are presented as villains.

And then finally, Priestley could be suggesting that these traits reflect a villainous role in society, okay? So not just that they are villains, but also that their role in society is villainous.

True or false time.

In Act one, Mr. Birling dismisses the talk of war as nonsense.

Is the answer true or false? I'd like your answer now please.

So this is a bit of a tricky one.

So well done to everyone that noticed that is false.

However, you now need to say why that answer is false.

So come up with your answer now please.

Okay, so the reason that is false is because actually Mr. Birling uses the word silly to refer to war rumours and nonsense to dismiss the idea of social responsibility.

So you can see why it's a bit of a tricky one because he does use the word nonsense, but it's not in reference to war rumours.

So well done to everyone that got that answer right.

So arguably priestly uses the Birlings as villains to reinforce the play's political agenda.

So if we think about this idea of the text as a manifesto, the Birlings are these exaggerated villains who represent capitalist greed.

So their lack of empathy really reinforces Priestley's message that capitalism is harmful and supports socialism.

And now this is a really interesting argument because if we think about the text as propaganda, the Birlings, we could argue really lack nuance and are oversimplified, particularly the older Birlings.

Okay, there is no nuance there and they're oversimplified.

So what this enables Priestley to do is to really vilify them, to really present them as the problem and this strongly promotes his socialist agenda.

Or it could also validate a socialist leaning audience, okay? So depending on who we consider the audience to be, it could be about that promotion of the socialist agenda or it could be about validating an audience who already have those beliefs.

But I think that's a really interesting argument, isn't it? That the Birlings are really oversimplified to kind of present, you know, capitalism and anything against socialism as the villain.

And then finally, persuasive drama.

If we think of the Birlings as this kind of grotesque vision of capitalism and class inequality, we can consider them kind of one dimensional, okay? And this one dimensional characterization encourages self-reflection from the audience in a less confrontational way.

Because presenting the characters in this grotesque, exaggerated way, the audience starts to perhaps see themselves in the characters and go, "oh, I actually don't want to be like that." So if we think about that word grotesque, meaning to highlight flaws, arguably Priestley cleverly makes the Birlings grotesque to encourage this persuasive.

To encourage this engagement with the text and persuade the audience.

So one critic of the play made this statement, let's read it together.

"So the Birlings' portrayal as clear cut villains, capitalist=bad, socialist=good, may limit the play's ability to genuinely persuade audiences with differing views." So I'd like you to discuss please.

To what extent do you agree with this statement, okay? So you need to pause the video to give yourself time to discuss your ideas, or you may wish to sit quietly by yourself or even write some ideas down.

Pause the video and off you go.

Okay, thank you very much for your answers.

So we have some Oak pupils here, so Lucas and Laura have offered their answers.

So let's read those through.

So Lucas has said that the Birlings are reduced to simplistic grotesque villains embodying capitalist greed.

This clear cut portrayal risks alienating audiences with opposing views, it limits nuanced debate and reinforces Priestley's socialist message without encouraging reflection on complex perspectives.

And that's a really good point from Lucas, isn't it? That potentially, you know, this clear cut idea that capitalism is just bad and socialism is good, may actually put some audiences off and may even.

They may even refuse to engage with the play at all.

It's a really good idea from Lucas there.

And Laura says through the Birlings.

"Though the Birlings are exaggerated, their function as symbolic villains amplifies Priestley's political message.

The lack of nuance in their characters sharpen their contrast between capitalist and socialist ideals, effectively persuading those open to change." So Laura, slightly different to Lucas, actually says this amplified version of the villains really makes it clear cut.

And actually that helps, okay? Because if you add nuance into it, then perhaps that's going to overly complicate what is being presented.

So actually Laura's argument is just as valid too.

So I'd like you now to decide and discuss who do you agree with most and why.

So pause a video to discuss your opinions now.

Okay, thank you everyone for your opinions there.

So question time.

So which words best describe Priestley's characterization of the Birlings as villains? So you'll need to pick A, B, C, or D.

Off you go.

Okay, so hopefully we picked grotesque, arrogant, and selfish.

So I think these words really help us to describe the characterization of the Birlings, particularly my favourite word grotesque.

Okay, so it's over to you now for our second practise task.

So what I would like you to do is I would like you to complete up to three single paragraph outlines to answer the question, how does Priestley use the Birlings to support his political agenda? So you can complete up to three single paragraphs to answer the question.

So remember you'll need a nice topic sentence to introduce your paragraph.

So a sentence to answer the question, some evidence, those supporting details to support your topic sentence.

And then that concluding sentence brings it all together.

What you may wish to do is for the paragraphs, you may wish to focus on one character.

So one of your paragraphs could say focus on Mr. Birling and another one could focus on Mrs. Birling.

That might help you or you could prefer to just focus on the Birlings in general.

It's entirely up to you, but make sure you've got everything you need to complete this task and I'm really looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

So just that final bit of work to do, you are doing brilliantly.

Keep it up and pause the video.

Off you go.

Well done everyone, some excellent work there.

And I've really enjoyed seeing those plans, those single paragraph outlines.

I've really enjoyed seeing those multiple interpretations coming out there, which is fantastic and exactly what we want to do in an elevated response.

And also considering audience perception.

So the idea that perhaps this could alienate some whilst persuading others as well.

So we've been doing so much, that idea of the political agenda as well.

So this is really starting to develop into some really complex thinking around "An Inspector Calls" and how we interpret it.

So well done.

So I just need you to look back at your paragraphs and self-assess.

I want you to make sure you have included a topic sentence that links to the question, relevant supporting details and a concluding sentence that brings your paragraph to a close.

So pause a video just to give yourself time to really look at those paragraphs and make sure you have done everything effectively.

Pause the video, off you go.

Well done everyone, we have done it.

We have reached the end of the lesson and you have done some excellent work.

So let's just remind ourselves of everything we have looked at.

We've considered that "An Inspector Calls" can be interpreted as a political manifesto, propaganda, and a persuasive drama.

We looked at the inspector's language considering it as both didactic and persuasive.

So there's multiple interpretations emerging there, that arguably Priestley's exaggerated portrayal of the Birlings reinforces his socialist message.

But we could also argue that the Birling's lack of nuance may alienate audiences with opposing views limiting more complex reflection.

So again, a very well done and I really cannot wait to do this all again soon.

So I will see you then, goodbye.