mr. birling 1

• keywords:

  • Portentous (try and impress), Capitalist, selfish, superficial, insecure.
• We can describe Mr. Birling as capitalism personified, he stands to represent the British social elite.
• Within the stage directions, Birling is depicted as "a heavy-looking, portentous man in his middle fifties".

  • The phrase "heavy-looking" held weight for Priestly's contemporary audience as a generation emerging from a period of rationing and war.

  A plumper frame was synonymous with affluence (wealth) and indulgence.

  • His heaviness is deeply metaphorical both physically and theoretically, it is a physical assertion of the solidity of his status whilst also standing to represent his hedonistic (self-indulgent) and undisciplined tendencies.
• Within the stage directions, Birling is depicted as "a heavy-looking, portentous man in his middle fifties".

  • The adjective "pretentious" is used to expose the superficiality of capitalism.

  It highlights how desperate Birling is to assert and justify his status, showing he can only see value in wealth and status.

  • Priestly advertises capitalism as an ostentatious (designed to impress) affair in order to satirise it.
• Physically too, Birling operates within a realm of this ostentatious (designed to impress) capitalism, his household is;

  • "substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy or homelike"

  This leads the reader to pity the cosmetic nature of Birling's wealth.
• Mr. Birling's household is "substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy or homelike";

  • The unorthodox phrase "heavily comfortable" is almost an oxymoron to present the pseudo-luxury (it seems luxurious, but is it really?) of the social elite as a facade.
• Mr. Birling's household is "substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy or homelike";

  • "Heavy" brings connotations of exhaustion and intensity which juxtaposes the comfort we'd expect from a home.

  Perhaps this is a metaphor to capture the misery in the act of relentlessly upholding an overt radiation of wealth.
• As a "hard-headed practical man of business", Mr. Birling is used as a construct to discredit capitalism through political allusions his contemporary audience would understand.

  • Sir Stanley Baldwin, a Prime minister between the two world wars, accused "hard-faced men" of profiting out of the war.

  Mr. Birling stands to represent these affluent (wealthy) businessmen who callously took advantage of the suffering of war and financial gain.
• Priestly is sure to highlight how Mr. Birling is "rather provincial in his speech", meaning his voice is tainted by a regional accent.

  • This is yet again a superficial trope of how status was established and evaluated in 1912 Britain.
• Mr. Birling is portrayed as unrefined as he carries this emblem of his lower-class social roots; his voice stands as a barrier between him:

  • A member of the Nouveau riche (people who made their own money rather than being born into riches),

  And the likes of Gerald who is an aristocrat (family of Lords/Ladies).
• Mr. Birling's regional accent reinforces why his desire to uphold the appearance of wealth is so relentless as it is constantly subject to the threat of classism.

  • Priestly ridicules Mr. Birling's attempts at this to highlight how foolish Capitalist ideology is.
• "Port" is used as a metonym for wealth, Mr. Birling reveals he has embarked on a rather sycophantic (using flattery to win favour from individuals wielding influence) investigation to copy Gerald's father's taste in port:

  • "Finchley told me it's exactly the same port your father gets from him"
• As affluence is only navigated through these meaningless symbols and objects, Priestly exposes how hollow it is.

  • He also presents Mr. Birling as obsessive in his attempts to assert his status, which likely comes from a place of insecurity.
• Birling is also guilty of social indiscretions; he wants to compliment the chef on the food yet is scolded by his wife who reminds him;

  • "You're not supposed to say such things"

  This social faux pas reveals that despite his attempts, this status does not come naturally and is ultimately a facade, due to the barries to social mobility in 1912 Britain.