Lesson video

Hello there, Mr. Barnsley here.

Great to see you.

Thank you for joining me today as we continue to explore "An Inspector Calls." You're gonna need a copy of the text at the ready for today's lesson because we are gonna be working on developing our analysis.

And we're gonna be doing some writing about "Inspector Calls" today, particularly the character of the Inspector.

I am gonna expect you to come to this lesson with some prior knowledge, some understanding of the character, so please do make sure this isn't the first time you have ever studied "Inspector Calls." Do come with a bit of knowledge, particularly about the character of the Inspector.

All right, if you're ready, then I'm ready.

Let's get started.

Okay, let's have a look at today's outcome.

By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to write a sophisticated and nuanced analytical paragraph about the Inspector and the theme of justice.

So here are five keywords we're gonna be looking out for in today's lesson.

The first is nuance.

You saw this in our outcome.

Nuance means subtle differences and complexities in ideas or arguments that add depth and sophistication to analysis.

So we want nuanced analysis today.

We're not just gonna be giving straightforward, kind of clear but kind of commonly held interpretations.

We're really gonna look for some subtlety here, some complexities.

Interpretations are the way that something is understood or explained.

Morality are principles concerning right and wrong behaviour.

Perspective is a particular attitude or viewpoint towards something.

And to assert means to state or declare something confidently and forcefully.

Keep an eye out for all of these words as they appear in today's lesson.

So, two learning cycles then in today's lesson.

We are gonna be developing language analysis, and then we're gonna be using multiple interpretations in our analysis.

So let's start by thinking about developing language analysis then, shall we? So you're gonna be answering this question in today's lesson, how does Priestley present the Inspector as a figure of justice? So, what does justice look like in "An Inspector Calls"? I think that's a great place for us to start, so I'm gonna hand this over to you to think about this question.

What does justice look like in "An Inspector Calls"? If you have a partner, you can, of course, discuss this with them.

But don't worry if you're working by yourself, you can just think through this independently.

All right, pause the video.

What does justice look like in "An Inspector Calls"? Over to you.

Welcome back.

I'm sure you had many ideas there.

Let's see if they align with some of the ones that I'm gonna put on the screen.

So in the play, justice is presented as legal, okay? So we've got law and courts, and the Inspector is presented as being part of the police force, and obviously the police force's job is to uphold the law, okay? We also talk, you might have thought about moral guilt, sorry, moral justice, so things like guilt, your conscience, the responsibility that you feel.

You might have talked about divine justice, so this higher judgement , punishment after death, this belief in God or a higher being.

So, I think it can be argued that the Inspector can be considered as legal, moral, and divine.

He both enforces and challenges all of these different concepts of justice.

So true or false? The Inspector only enforces legal justice.

Is that true, or is that false? Pause the video, have a think, make your selection, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back, and I hope you said that was false.

Why is that false? Well, we can say that the Inspector goes beyond legal justice, and actually, he really emphasises moral responsibility, and perhaps you might even argue that he suggests divine judgement too.

So Jun, one of our Oak pupils, begins to consider the quotations he might use to answer this question, and he finds this reference to "blood" in Act 3.

That's page 56 if you've got your copy of the text if you want to find the similar quotation.

I really like that Jun has focused here in on one specific word.

You know, he's really zooming in here.

So he begins to annotate his quotation considering the different layers of meaning.

So he talks about how blood could symbolise the lives that are lost due to actions of individuals, the selfishness of characters like the Birlings.

He also talked about how this word blood can evoke imagery of violence and suffering, and it's often associated with divine retribution in biblical contexts.

He also talks about, and I really like this link that he's made, that it suggests that justice is unavoidable.

Once blood is spilled, you know, you can't get that blood back.

And like, once you've committed a crime, legal or moral, justice is unavoidable.

So Jun has got all of these great ideas running around his head, and he's like, "Right, I'm gonna get this down on paper." And this is what he writes: The Inspector tells the Birlings that they will be "taught" in blood, which is a warning they will face consequences.

What do you think? Well, he makes a simple point, okay? Well done, Jun.

You've made a clear point here.

It is clear, but it lacks depth.

It lacks nuance, these subtleties, these complexities.

And we know Jun had some really great ideas when he was thinking about this quote, but he's not translated these kind of subtleties, these complexities, to his writing.

So a more sophisticated answer would explore why the language choice is so significant.

Why has Priestley chosen to use that imagery of blood? And it would comment on those multiple layers of meaning, seeing that we might see different things in that word blood.

We know Jun had those multiple ideas behind it, but he's just not managed to get that down in his writing.

So he's gone back to his annotations, he's looked back at those ideas he already had, and now he's improved his analysis.

Let's see what he said now.

So he writes: Priestley uses the word "blood" to evoke imagery of violence and divine retribution, reinforcing the Inspector's moral authority.

It could further symbolise the lives lost due to selfishness, warning that justice is inescapable.

Priestley uses this powerful language to suggest that ignoring responsibility leads to inevitable suffering, and justice takes many forms from the divine to the moral.

Okay, how has Jun improved his paragraph? Where's the improvements? What can you see? Over to you, pause the video, have a think in pairs or by yourself, and press play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back.

I hope you spotted there that Jun has gone so much deeper.

He's talked about the layers of the meaning of blood.

He's got the evoking the imagery of violence, but he's got linking this to divine retribution, the lives that have been lost, the fact that justice is inescapable.

All these great ideas that he had at the beginning we can now see in this layered analysis.

All right, let's check our understanding then.

A sophisticated analytical paragraph will, A, explore why language choices are significant, B, comment on layers of meaning, C, make a simple point.

A, B, or C, what do you think? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you've got some answers.

Welcome back.

I hope you picked A and B there.

Yes, we really want to focus on why language choices are significant, but to take it even further, we want to comment on layers of meaning.

So there may be more than one reason why that language choice was so significant.

We want to avoid just making the simple point, okay? Nothing wrong with simple points.

We want clear, but we then want to go deeper.

All right, over to your first task, and you're gonna do some improving for me.

So I'm gonna provide an analysis from one of our Oak pupils.

They've written: The Inspector suggests that humanity will be taught in "fire" and "anguish," which means bad things will happen if people don't change.

Quite simple.

Clear, simple, but we want to go more detailed here.

So I want you to make sure that you explore why these specific language choices, "fire" and "anguish," are significant.

And I want to see if you can comment on multiple layers of meaning behind each of them.

All right, pause the video, really challenge yourself to develop your language analysis here, and press play when you think you are done.

All right, welcome back.

How did you find that? It's not easy, but I bet you're looking at your work and thinking, "I've pushed myself, I've challenged myself to try and say more about a quote." Okay, one of our Oak pupils, Sam, has given this a go.

Let's have a look at their response and see how they got on.

So she writes: The Inspector's warning of "fire" and "anguish" is deliberately forceful, evoking fear and urgency.

The words create biblical imagery of hell and divine punishment, reinforcing him as a figure of justice.

"Fire" suggests moral reckoning, while "anguish" implies unavoidable suffering.

Priestley uses this to show that justice extends beyond law, urging change through fear of inevitable consequences.

Interestingly, Priestley moves his focus from the Birlings and arguably towards the audience.

Great here, okay? We've got some really nice analysis and this idea that, you know, Priestley is saying: Look, you may be able to avoid legal justice here, but moral reckoning, moral judgement , will, you know, and divine judgement , will get you, okay? So even if you think you've escaped legal justice, you will find justice.

Justice will find you in the end.

All right, let's look at Sam's response then.

What has Sam done? Well, she has explored why the language choices are significant, okay? She's not just said these are the words that he's used.

She's said why they're significant.

And she's commented on those multiple layers of meaning, which is just what we would like to see.

So over to you then to look at the work you've just done.

I want you to annotate and underline your own work.

Identify where you've done the following, explored why the language choices are significant and commented on the multiple layers of meaning behind them.

All right, pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you have reflected on your own work.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's move on to our second learning cycle then.

And in this part of the lesson, we're gonna use multiple interpretations in analysis.

So to elevate your analytical writing, you can explore multiple and alternative critical interpretations.

So, this is acknowledging that we might have slightly different viewpoints and different viewpoints might exist.

Now, in a really good analysis, you're gonna say, "Look, this might be how I feel, but also, people might feel differently to this." So here's the question again, how does Priestley present the Inspector as a figure of justice? And things I would like you to consider, the different presentations of the Inspector and Priestley's exploration of different types of justice.

So, you want to ensure that the nuance and complexity explored throughout your analytical paragraphs.

So you want your topic sentences, those sentences that show the focus of your argument, they assert your perspective on the given theme.

So what do you think about the Inspector? What do you think about justice? But I also want you to challenge ideas instead of just restating them.

Think about multiple perspectives, okay? When you're analysing, dig deeper into those multiple meanings of the quote, like we've just done in the first learning cycle.

And acknowledge and offer alternative interpretations.

This brings complexity.

You're saying: You know, there's no just one single reading.

If every single person read this text, we're not all gonna feel the exact same way about these characters or see the exact same things.

And I want to acknowledge that these characters are complex constructs created by the author.

So, what does it mean when we talk about complexity in analytical paragraphs? Does it mean using lots of complex vocabulary? Does it mean referring and comparing to other literary texts? Or does it mean acknowledging and exploring multiple perspectives? A, B, or C? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you think you've got an answer.

Yeah, well done if you said C.

Of course, you may wish to use some complex vocabulary when you are writing, although I would always argue you want to use the best vocabulary to get the point across that you're trying to say.

I think if you try and deliberately use complex vocabulary 'cause you think it's gonna make you sound intelligent, it's gonna make you sound really, really clever, I think, actually, you can end up tripping yourself up.

So I would always use the most appropriate vocabulary to say what we need to say in the most clear and concise way.

And referring and comparing to other literary texts.

Again, it's not necessary.

It's sometimes a nice thing to do, but it's certainly not necessary.

But if we want to have really complex analytical paragraphs, we want to start exploring these multiple perspectives, so well done if you selected C there.

So, Sofia and Alex have both had a go at writing topic sentences.

Sofia wrote that "Priestley shows the Inspector as a figure of justice because he punishes the Birlings for their actions." Clear, concise, simple? Let's have a look at what Alex said.

Alex said, "Priestley presents the Inspector as a complex figure of justice, suggesting that justice is not merely about legal punishment, but also about moral responsibility and societal consequences." Have you spotted a difference between the two? Well, Sofia's made a simple comment about the theme.

She's linked it to the Inspector.

There's nothing wrong with this, but if we want to push this further, if we want to elevate this, we want to do some of the things that Alex is doing here.

So Alex has used a topic sentence that is just a more sophisticated idea.

He's really asserted his perspective.

He's asserted a viewpoint that Priestley presents the Inspector as a complex figure of justice, okay? You know, Sofia says he is a figure of justice.

He represents justice.

Alex has said he's a complex figure.

Actually, there's different sides to him.

So we can see that Alex is really asserting this perspective.

He's also started to offer those multiple interpretations.

He's not just an Inspector who represents legal kind of justice, but he also represents moral responsibility and societal consequences too.

So we're starting to get this multi-layered kind of version of the Inspector, which shows kind of a deeper understanding.

So, Sofia draughts part of her analysis.

She said, "The Inspector represents moral justice, emphasising Priestley's message." Let's help Sofia here develop this point further so it demonstrates some of that complexity we're looking for and it offers those alternative interpretations.

What advice would you give Sofia here? Okay, if you've got a partner, you can discuss this with them, share some ideas, or you can just think through this independently if you're working by yourself.

Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you have got some ideas.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you've got lots of ideas there and were really starting to think about how Sofia could improve her work.

Some of the things you might have discussed then.

You might have told her she should talk about the Inspector's moral justice and how this challenges the idea of legal justice, suggesting that true justice transcends law because there are people who commit moral crimes who are never punished by law.

So, really to say, you know, that the law is the be-all and end-all suggests that actually, it's okay that some people never face justice, whereas moral justice transcends, seems to kind of be more punishing than the law.

You could also have talked about how, alternatively, the Inspector may manipulate characters for social change, so not solely for moral righteousness, okay? So that he's not just working to do the right thing, he's also thinking kind of one step beyond about social change.

Could talk about the Inspector's omniscience and how it symbols divine authority, yet may also be a dramatic technique.

So, this omniscience, we could just say, "Well, it's a dramatic technique.

It helps kind of move the plot forward.

It helps kind of the characters confess." But we could say, "Alternatively, it could represent that he's almost this divine authority and we're seeing a third level of justice, so from legal to moral to divine." And we could say that Priestley is being critical of both the legal and possibly even the moral justice system.

He's pushing us as the audience to question both, okay? So there's loads of different interpretations here, which kind of takes us further than the Inspector just being this figure of justice.

So true or false then? A sophisticated topic sentence will both assert a perspective and offer multiple interpretations.

What do you think? Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and press play when you've got an idea.

Well done if you said that was true.

Why? Well, challenging and offering multiple interpretations from the outset makes sure you've got this nuance in your argument, this complexity in your argument, and makes sure you'll explore it throughout your analytical paragraphs.

So over to you then to write an analytical paragraph.

You know the question we're gonna be answering.

How does Priestley present the Inspector as a figure of justice? Things I want you to include in your paragraph.

A topic sentence that presents your perspective but also starts to introduce multiple interpretations.

You don't have to tell me everything about them, but just acknowledge that they are gonna exist.

Think about what we did in learning cycle one, language analysis that explores the significance of the choices and digs into layers of meaning.

And also think about that complexity in your exploration.

Acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations that the Inspector does not just represent one idea of justice.

All right, over to you.

We've done some really great work so far.

I think you've got some really interesting ideas that you can put in this piece of work.

I know you can do a great job here.

Pause the video.

Good luck.

Welcome back.

How did you find that? I hope you've got a piece of work in front of you that you are really, really proud of.

You should do because you've done some brilliant work today.

All right, before we finish today's lesson, we're gonna finish with a moment of self-assessment.

So I would like you to reread your work and ask yourself: Have I included a topic sentence that presents my perspective and introduces multiple interpretations? Have I included language analysis that explores the significance of the choices and digs into layers of meanings? Have I included complexity in my exploration and acknowledged multiple interpretations? Pause the video, reread, and if you need to, make improvements to your work now.

Press play when you are done.

Right, that's it.

We've reached the end of today's lesson.

You have done a fantastic job today.

I am really, really proud of you.

On the screen, you can see a summary of today's learning.

Let's quickly go through it so you can feel really confident before you move on to your next lesson.

Today, we've learned that Priestley presents the Inspector as a multifaceted figure of justice.

He encompasses legal, moral, and divine elements of justice.

We know that analysis of quotations should be layered.

We should consider methods and multiple interpretations.

We know that complexity in analysis involves acknowledging alternative interpretations, considering multiple meanings.

We've also learned that a strong topic sentence presents your perspective while introducing different viewpoints or interpretations as well.

Great work today.

I hope you are really proud of the work that you have done.

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

Bye-bye for now.