In what ways does Priestley make the relationship between Sheila Birling and Gerald Croft such an important part of the play?
Write about:
- How Sheila responds to Gerald.
- How Priestley presents Sheila and Gerald by the ways he writes.
5+
Before the inspector arrives, Priestley makes clear that all of the Birlings are celebrating the engagement of Sheila and Gerald. In the opening stage directions, Priestley demonstrates that the Birlings are delighted with Sheila and Gerald’s engagement by describing them as ‘pleased with themselves’. Sybil and Arthur are particularly ‘pleased’ not only because Sheila is engaged to a wealthy gentleman, who is socially superior to her own family, but also because Arthur thinks it will help his business. Priestley therefore uses Sheila and Gerald’s engagement to reveal that Arthur and Sybil are mostly thinking about money and status, rather than their daughter’s happiness. Perhaps Priestley is criticising middle and upper class families in 1912 for only caring about how much money they had. Through Sheila’s character, Priestley also reveals that many women in 1912 did not have the same power or status as men, so were expected to marry someone who could take care of them.
During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley uses Gerald and Sheila’s actions to demonstrate that wealthy people misused their power. When the inspector questions Sheila, Priestley makes clear Sheila was very selfish by having her admit that she had Eva Smith fired due to jealousy. Sheila was able to have Eva Smith fired because her parents spent a lot of money at Milwards Department store. It is clear, therefore, that Sheila misused her parents’ money and status. When the inspector questions Gerald, Priestley exposes the treatment of many working class women by middle and upper class men. Priestley has Gerald say that he ‘felt sorry’ for Eva Smith, which is why he first gave her money and accommodation. Although Gerald initially felt sorry for Eva Smith, he allowed their relationship to develop into an affair, having no intention of marrying her. It is clear through Gerald’s actions that it was quite normal for wealthy men in 1912 to have extra marital affairs with working class women, and to use working class women as prostitutes. Priestley uses this treatment of Eva Smith by Sheila and Gerald not only to criticise the actions of wealthy people but also to reveal the very difficult lives that many working class people led. Priestley hoped his 1945 audience would see how badly working class people were treated and want to take more responsibility for others around them.
After the inspector leaves, Priestley uses the contrast between Gerald and Sheila to show that wealthy people needed to learn from their mistakes. Whereas Sheila accepts responsibility for her actions and learns from her mistakes, Gerald does not. Priestley demonstrates that Sheila accepts full responsibility by having her say ‘I started it’. In other words, Sheila is admitting that her actions triggered the chain of events that led to Eva Smith’s death. In contrast, Priestley makes clear Gerald has not learned by having him say to Sheila ‘everything’s alright now, Sheila. What about this ring?’.It is clear from these words that Gerald thinks he and Sheila can forget everything that happened and go back to the way things were. Gerald only says this after finding out the inspector isn’t real, which demonstrates that he only cared when he thought there would be a public scandal that ruined his reputation. It seems he didn’t really care about what he did to Eva Smith. Through presenting the characters in this way, Priestley gives a clear message to his 1945 audience about how they should and shouldn’t act. He hopes his audience will learn from Sheila’s actions and that younger people, like Sheila, will take more responsibility for the working classes. He also hopes that his audience will criticise Gerald for not learning from their mistakes.
7+
‘An Inspector Calls’ is about the need for all in society to take great responsibility, both for those they are entrusted to look after, and for the consequences of their actions. Through Sheila and Gerald’s relationship, Priestley exposes the maltreatment of working class women and reveals the gender inequality that infiltrated all male-female relationships in England in 1912.
Priestley's portrayal of Gerald and Sheila’s relationship is used to explore the way wealthy men treated women. Before the inspector arrives, Priestley hints that there is tension between Sheila and Gerald as Sheila begins to tease Gerald about his whereabouts last summer. By hinting that Gerald was absent from Sheila last summer, Priestley implies to the audience that Gerald was having an affair. Priestley could have chosen to hint at the affair before having Gerald explicitly reveal it to Sheila to criticise the fact that many wealthy men had affairs and tried to hide them. Priestley uses Gerald to challenge the way wealthy, upper class men believed they could use their power and wealth to behave immorally and irresponsibly while still appearing desirable. Priestley also explores this irresponsible behaviour from upper class men through Gerald’s affair with Eva. Despite having good intentions towards Eva because he felt ‘sorry’ for her, Gerald still uses her desperate need for money and food to his own advantage. Although he knows that he is committed to Sheila, Gerald still irresponsibly lets his situation with Eva Smith develop into an affair, knowing that it could never end in a relationship. Through Gerald’s actions, Priestley suggests wealthy men had different behavioural codes to women and used the power they had over women for their own gains.
Priestley uses Gerald and Sheila’s relationship to challenge the gender inequality present in society at the time. Just before the inspector questions Gerald, he reveals to Sheila that he did have an affair last summer. Despite revealing to Sheila only seconds before that he has cheated on her, he still expects her to lie for him and ‘keep it’ from the inspector. Priestley makes clear to the audience that Gerald is desperate to keep the affair from the inspector and they can assume this is because he does not want his reputation destroyed. By having Gerald selfishly ask Sheila to lie for him, Priestley implies that in his desperation to protect himself, Gerald insensitively ignores the feelings of his fiance. Priestley could be criticising the fact that many wealthy men had affairs and tried to hide them in society. Priestley might also be suggesting that Gerald assumes Sheila would be willing to lie for him because he has the most power in the relationship. After the inspector leaves, Gerald also assumes that Sheila will be willing to submit to his demands when he states that ‘everythings all right now’ and asks her ‘what about this ring?’ Priestley makes clear that Gerald is irresponsible because he is happy to forget everything that has happened and progress with his engagement to Sheila. Priestley implies that Gerald assumes Sheila will be happy to accept him because he is a desirable man of a higher class than Sheila. Again, Priestley insinuates that Gerald has no regard for Sheila’s own emotions. Perhaps Priestley wanted to use Gerald to suggest that wealthy men will not learn from their mistakes because they believe they are entitled to treat women in this way.
Through Sheila and Gerald’s relationships, Priestley challenges the gender stereotypes in England in 1912. Before the inspector arrives, Sheila is told by her mother that she should expect men to be preoccupied with work and not always around their wives. Priestley immediately makes clear that women were expected to be subservient. However, Sheila states that she cannot get used to this which reveals she is beginning to challenge the gender stereotypes in England at the time. Not only this, Priestley has Sheila voice her own opinions during the play, contrasting the stereotypical idea that all women should be passive. At the end of the play, Priestley has Sheila state ‘I guess we are all nice people now’. While this contrasts the viewpoint her parents share, it also contradicts the view that Gerald holds. Gerald is also willing to happily forget everything that has happened and is unwilling to learn from his mistakes. By having Sheila sarcastically challenge the view that they no longer have to be responsible, Priestley has Sheila stand against her fiance as well. Perhaps Priestley wanted to demonstrate that women should be allowed to voice their opinions and should not be expected to be submissive and passive.