|
Director: Colin Gregory
Performances: Thursday 20th, Friday 21st and Saturday 22nd October at 8pm at the Henrietta Barnett School Theatre, Central Square, NW11. There was also a matinee performance on Saturday 22nd at 3pm.
The play: An Inspector Calls is a psychological thriller and classic of the 20 th century stage. Ostensibly investigating a girl’s suicide, the mysterious inspector strips away the self-assurance of the other characters as they discover they are all implicated in her death. The play is set in an industrial town in the north midlands in 1912.
Colin Gregoy introduces the October Show: An Inspector Calls
One of Priestley’s best known works, the play has a cast of four men and three women. It was first produced in London in 1946, with Alec Guinness in the cast and Ralph Richardson in the role of the inspector. In the mould of the typical “well made play”, it is set in the home of a prosperous midlands industrialist in 1912, and at first it sight seems to be a conventional detective thriller. But nothing is quite what it seems: at the end no one is sure if the mystery is solved – and the audience are left with more questions than they started with to ponder on the way home.
Priestley was born in Bradford in 1894 and his output over his long life was huge. The Oxford Companion to English Literature describes him with a series of contradictory epithets: “…cosmopolitan Yorkshireman, professional amateur, cultured Philistine, reactionary Radical…” The play, like its author, is hard to define. The National Theatre’s production a few years ago, which ran for some time in the West End, focused on its threads of socialism. (Curiously, it had its first production in Moscow in 1945.) But it cannot be pinned down to 1945 or any other date. Although Priestley is specific about the setting, it has a timeless quality, which is a reason why it still appeals today. Another is that, quite apart from psychology and politics, it’s a jolly good yarn!
John Boynton Priestley was born in Yorkshire in 1894. He knew early on that he wanted to become a writer, but decided against going to university as he thought he would get a better feel for the world around him away from academia. Instead, he became a junior clerk with a local wool firm at the age of 16.
When the First World War broke out, Priestley joined the infantry and only just escaped death on a number of occasions. After the war, he gained a degree from Cambridge University, then moved to London to work as a freelance writer. He wrote successful articles and essays, then published the first of many novels, The Good Companions in 1929. He wrote his first play in 1932 and went on to write 50 more. Much of his writing was ground-breaking and controversial. He included new ideas about possible parallel universes and strong political messages.
During World War 2 he broadcast a massively popular weekly radio programme which was attacked by the Conservatives as being too left-wing - and eventually cancelled by the BBC for being too critical of the Government.
He continued to write into the 1970s, and died in 1984
During the 1930's Priestley became very concerned about the consequences of social inequality in Britain, and in 1942 Priestley and others set up a new political party, the Common Wealth Party which argued for public ownership of land, greater democracy, and a new "morality" in politics. The party merged with the Labour Party in 1945, but Priestley was influential in developing the idea of the Welfare State which began to be put into place at the end of the war.
He believed that further world wars could only be avoided through cooperation and mutual respect between countries, and so became active in the early movement for a United Nations. And as the nuclear arms race between West and East began in the 1950s, he helped to found CND, hoping that Britain would set an example to the world by a moral act of nuclear disarmament.
This was the period of the Russian Revolution, two appalling world wars, the Holocaust and the Atom Bomb.
| Set in 1912. | Written in 1945. |
| World War I would start in 2 years. Birling's optimist view that there would not be a war is completely wrong | World War II ended on 8 May 1945. People were recovering from nearly 6 years of warfare, danger and uncertainty. |
| There were strong distinctions between the upper and lower classes. | Class distinctions had been greatly reduced as a result of two world wars. |
| Women were subservient to men. All a well off women could do was get married; a poor woman was seen as cheap labour. | As a result of the wars, women had earned a more valued place in society. |
| The ruling classes saw no need to change the status quo. | There was a great desire for social change. Immediately after World War 2, Labour's Clement Attlee won a landslide victory over the Conservative Winston Churchill. |
Priestley deliberately set his play in 1912 because the date represented an era when all was very different from the time he was writing. In 1912, rigid class and gender boundaries seemed to ensure that nothing would change. Yet by 1945, most of those class and gender divisions had been breached. Priestley wanted to make the most of these changes. Through this play, he encourages people to seize the opportunity the end of the war had given them to build a better, more caring society.
| Arthur Birling | Andy Farrer |
| Sybil Birling | Barbara Pearlman |
| Sheila Birling | Jemma Hazan |
| Eric Birling | Alon Witztum |
| Gerald Croft | Stiofan Lanigan-O'Keefe |
| Inspector Goole | Anthony Sarankin |
| Edna | Judith Lord |
Gerald Croft and Arthur Birling
Sheila Birling, Gerald Croft and Arthur Birling
Sheila, Arthur and Sybil Birling
Gerlad Croft and Sheila Birling
Sheila Birling and The Inspector
The Inspector and Eric Birling
Arthur Birling, Edna, Gerald Croft and Sybil Birling
Eric, Arthur and Sybil Birling, with Gerald Croft (standing)
Gerald Croft
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
My enjoyment of this production started as I first walked into the Hall. It was looking better than I had ever seen it, and since I was at school there, many hundreds of years ago, I have been in that hall more times than I would like to count. Then I bought a programme, which kept me entertained until the play started. It was well laid out, full of fascinating quotes and information and certainly worth the £1 I paid. Colin Gregory always researches his projects thoroughly and imparts this knowledge beautifully.
The opening set, a bare stage with flats covered in headlines and quotes, most of which were extremely recent, gave me plenty to look it until the lights went down. The cast then entered from the back of the hall, dressed in monk-like robes, bringing the rest of the set with them. This was accompanied by haunting African music. I must admit that the significance of the music was lost on me at first and I found it rather disturbing. Having read the programme notes, the medieval robes made more sense, forecasting the morality tale that was to come. After the show, I managed to put together the elements of Colin’s ideas (I hope) – Priestley’s tale links the past, the global present and (sadly) the future where selfishness, insularity and an element of xenophobia add to the World’s problems.
The cast efficiently set the stage and to my relief, brought net curtains down over the flats. I had been bothered that there was so much to read that it would detract from the action of the play, but I needn’t have worried. The curtains closed on a grey colourless stage and then opened to a wonderful tableau of light and colour, with gorgeous costumes. Then we could see Mary Musker’s set in all its glory, and I congratulate her. Each act opened and closed on similar tableaux which I found very powerful and effective. I think I would have liked the table to be set more at an angle: as it was, it caused some problems with members of the cast being blocked later in the play.
The characters in this fascinating and troubling play are all rather stereotypical. From the bluff industrialist, to the “wild” son, Priestley attacks a type and a society rather than an individual. It would be easy to play these characters straight to their stereotypes, but the cast avoided this and made each one an individual and all too human!
I hardly recognised Andy Farrer, padded and bewhiskered, he looked every inch the rich industrialist. His posture was wonderful and he always took command of the stage. As a southerner, I can’t comment on the accuracy of his accent, but it certainly sounded authentic to me. My only small regret was that the combination of accent and deep-voiced blustering made some of his lines difficult to hear and I missed his usual variety of pitch and tone.
It was great to see so many new faces in this production, and I am sure we will be seeing much more of these welcome additions in productions to come. Barbara Pearlman as Sybil Birling was delightful. One certainly felt that she had spent much of her girlhood walking around with a book on her head, she carried herself so well and used the whole stage comfortably. Even though, on a few occasions, she lost her lines, she never lost her character and took her prompts quickly and well. Every word was clear and she has a lovely voice.
Alon Witztum played the wild young Eric with great sincerity. I was particularly impressed at his ability to play drunk – I hope not from personal experience! As the evening progressed, he subtly became more and more inebriated, without going over the top once. This is not easy, and I have seen many far more experienced actors fall into the trap of overdoing the effects of booze. I also found his relationship with his sister very believable and touching.
Jemma Hazan as Sheila Birling looked absolutely gorgeous. Again she moved beautifully and I was particularly impressed with her stillness when not speaking – she really listened to what was unfolding before her. I would have liked to hear some lower tones, occasionally – I know Sheila spends a great deal of time on the verge of hysteria but I felt much of it was at too high a pitch. I look forward to seeing more of Jemma in future productions.
Stephen Lanigan-O’Keeffe ’s portrayal of her fiancé Gerald Croft was excellent. Again he had great stage presence, and kept in character at all times. Gerald is a more sympathetic character in many ways than the others, and Stephen conveyed this well.
It was lovely to see Judith Lord on stage again, even if it was for such a short time, and she managed to bring character to the maid, where very little is written.
Inspector Goole was played by Anthony Sarankin, another newcomer to GST, in another very interesting performance. The Inspector is a sort of deus ex machina, and as such is less than, or perhaps more than human. Obviously for newcomers to the play, it is important not to make this too obvious as otherwise the supernatural nature of the ending will not come as surprise, but at the same time the Inspector needs to be more of a catalyst for the action than part of the action itself. Anthony managed this difficult combination very well. There were some problems with blocking, particularly during the showdown between Eric and his mother, where Anthony stood in front of the table and I could see nothing of the action behind, but all in all he tackled this difficult role very well.
As always, it would have been nice to see a fuller house – it was barely half full on the Friday night I saw this production but to those members who missed it – you shouldn’t have!