DramaLondonReviewWest End

An Inspector Calls – Playhouse Theatre, London

Writer: JB Priestley
Director: Stephen Daldry
Reviewer: Stephen Bates

Twenty-four years after Stephen Daldry’s legendary production first opened at the National Theatre, An Inspector Calls calls on London’s West End yet again, having played somewhere across the globe for most of the interim period. This year also marks the 70th Anniversary of the first production in the UK of JB Priestley’s play.

tell-us-block_editedThe drama bridges two eras in 20th Century British social history, looking at stark divisions in the immediate post-Edwardian period from the perspective of a time when the Second World War had ended and fervour for Socialism was sweeping the country. The fact that its premier was in Moscow rather than London gives a pointer to the playwright’s well-known political leanings and he duly rams home unsubtle messages about social responsibility in a writing style that embraces implausible melodrama and heavy-handed preaching.

In a Northern industrial town, members of the Birling family, wealthy factory owners, sit down to dinner. Their head is pompous, blustering Arthur (Clive Francis}, married to snobbish Sybil (Barbara Marten}. They are the upholders of the old social order, but their daughter, Sheila (Carmela Corbett), while inheriting some of their selfishness, holds more enlightened views. The numbers are made up by Gerald (Matthew Douglas), Sheila’s seemingly upstanding fiancé, and Eric (Hamish Riddle), the youngest Birling, who is already a drunkard.

The family’s tranquillity is disturbed when the assiduous Inspector Goole (Liam Brennan) calls. He informs them of the suicide that day of a young town girl and proceeds to reveal how each of the five present played a part in her downfall, exposing their guilt and hypocrisy. Their pleas that their responsibilities rest only with self and family fall on deaf ears as the policeman lectures them on their social duty, at one point turning to the audience as if delivering a Sunday sermon.

By 1992, Priestley had already acquired the tag “old-fashioned” and a conventional production of this moribund piece may have done little to change that perception. However, the manner in which Daldry transformed it into what we see revived here is one of the wonders of modern theatre. He starts by turning the play inside out, absolutely literally. The audience is now placed as if on the street outside the Birling house, peering into the dining room, glowing and warm, as ordinary townsfolk go about their business below them on the cold outside.

Ian MacNeil’s set design is astonishing – a huge Gothic mansion placed against a grey cloudy sky, dominating the stage and opening out to reveal its opulent interior. It is the centrepiece of the production and the director uses it imaginatively. The opening scene is visible through a window and only semi-audible, turning the focus towards the silent people in the street; In accord with Priestley’s themes, Daldry is telling us that the Birlings’ conversation is inconsequential, it is the wider world that really matters. He also adds startling stage effects and touches of grand opera, Stephen Warbeck’s Wagner-inspired music heightening the melodrama.

Plot twists in the final scene feel unnecessary and add nothing to what Priestley has already said, suggesting that, as a parable, the play could have been sharper if shorter than the 105 minutes (with no interval) that it runs here. In contrast to the Birling household, Daldry’s production, well acted in this revival, remains sturdy and dependable, but it masks the suspicion that Priestley’s play itself may now be well in need of a long rest,

 

Runs until 4 February 2016 | Image: Mark Douet

Review Overview

The Reviews Hub Score

Sturdy and dependable

User Rating: 2.65 ( 1 votes)
Tags

The Reviews Hub - London

The Reviews Hub London is under the editorship of John Roberts.The Reviews Hub was set up in 2007. Our mission is to provide the most in-depth, nationwide arts coverage online.

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. I know this story well, it’s a period piece but with a timeless message.
    I found this production to be overly contrived and it didn’t work for me. The connections to 1944 were made in relation to the date the play was written and I guess 99% of the audience (including me) wouldn’t have understood the relevance of their inclusion at the time of watching. I thought they added nothing and detracted from a fine story.

    I also didn’t appreciate the set as it took one’s attention off the dialog and action and the hands on management of it by the actors I found distracting – adjusting the stairs, moving pieces, coming up and down into what was a street and a drawing room etc

    I didn’t understand why the play was using Hitchcock music and not an original score

    Finally I felt the acting leaden and lacking in feeling and expression with too wild a range of emotions expressed in the wrong places. I kept thinking is that how I or someone I knew would react in that situation?

    Overall I was disappointed in the show as I felt it missed opportunities to bring more focus on the reactions to a stranger in their midst and play with how that might play out over an evening. Given many references to the period were removed why not set it in a different period if innovation was required. Please read the book, listen to an audio recording online or look at the film made in 1954 and get a sense of the core strengths of this story.

Back to top button
Close
Close