MovieChat Forums > An Inspector Calls (1954) Discussion > Were all the family members equally guil...

Were all the family members equally guilty?

posted 11 years ago by MsELLERYqueen2
18 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only one who thought that some of the family members were guiltier than others? The daughter Sheila was definitely 100% guilty in my opinion. I'm glad she learned her lesson in the end.

As for the two young men, I'm not so sure. It does take two to tango, and Eva did let herself get involved with both of them.

The father was too hasty in firing Eva, but at the same time, I understood his concern about the company. At that time, he did what he thought was right. Managers are in tricky positions at times, and they have to do some quick thinking.

I blame the mother the least. Oh, she was judgmental, but she was also under no obligation to offer money to a young woman who came in lying about her situation. Eva could have been a bit more honest without actually giving away the son's identity.

Excellent movie, by the way!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

I wouldn't let the father off that easily. His guilt wasn't in refusing to give the workers a raise, but in vindictively firing Eva as a troublemaker. His son pointed out that she wasn't doing anything different than what the bosses do: they sell their goods for the highest price they can get, and the workers were trying to sell their labour for the highest price THEY could get. So he was a hypocrite, pretending that what she was doing was damaging when he thought nothing of doing it himself.

The mother was callous. She knew that Eva was not only penniless, she was pregnant as well. What was to become of her if nobody assisted her? She knew it could result in death, but she didn't care. And her group was supposed to be a philanthropic association, yet they did less than a casual stranger who'd give a penny to an unknown beggar. She was also a hypocrite; she enjoyed the gratification of heading a benevolent association while actually being hard-hearted and cruel. Not only that, she actively THWARTED the kinder members of her committee who WERE in favour of helping Eva. She's as bad as any of the others.

Actually, now that I think of it, she's probably worse than Sheila. Sheila defended herself weakly by saying that Eva was pretty and she figured that somehow she'd be alright. That even if she lost her job, she'd be able to find another. She figured it was *safe* to indulge in a bit of bad-tempered malice, because no harm would really come of it. Her mother had no such excuse; she knew how desperate things were for Eva and couldn't just assume that she'd easily find some way out of her difficulties, yet she callously threw her on the street, perhaps to starve or die.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

I'm not saying that the mother and the father were right. I don't agree with their actions, and yes, they were both hypocrites. At the same time, I think that the bosses of companies have to do what they feel is best for the company. The sad reality is that they will lay off or fire workers in certain situations, even when the workers are doing the job properly. I wouldn't want to be walking in these workers' shoes, but these things do happen. If those women hadn't been fired and if they decided to strike, there would have been other consequences. It was a no-win situation for the father.

We're told that Eva and a few others were fired from the company, but we aren't told what happens to those other people. Not all of those workers necessarily committed suicide.

The mother was most certainly a hard-hearted hypocrite, but I think that she would have been more helpful to Eva if Eva hadn't lied about her last name. I can see how that would have set the mother on edge. Eva should have stuck with the name "Eva Smith".

I agree that the mother was rude to the other members of that committee. That was uncalled for.

Good point about Sheila, and at least she did learn something in the end. The parents learned nothing.

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

I guess there's one other point we can list against Mr. Birling: he refused to give Eric the extra money he was asking for, which was intended to help Eva. That's a bit more oblique and indirect, but he was definitely involved. I guess the sin in this case is not explicitly against Eva herself, but in being the kind of father he was - the hardnosed, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", don't-waste-my-time kind of father his son couldn't confide in and trust. I doubt it would have made much difference if Eric HAD told him the whole truth, anyway. I don't think he'd have given him money to support a knocked-up working class girl; he'd have thrown all the blame on Eva and said it was HER problem.

But that is pretty much the main theme running through the whole story: it's because we don't know what is going on under the surface, or what will happen the moment we walk away from another person, that these terrible things happen. We take risks with other people's lives and never know what the consequences are, so we're confident in our own integrity and go on doing more and more damage without a twinge of doubt.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

That father didn't seem to have much patience with his son. He seemed to forget that he's the one who raised him in the first place! The son and daughter turned out just as to be expected, given the kinds of parents they had.

But that is pretty much the main theme running through the whole story: it's because we don't know what is going on under the surface, or what will happen the moment we walk away from another person, that these terrible things happen. We take risks with other people's lives and never know what the consequences are, so we're confident in our own integrity and go on doing more and more damage without a twinge of doubt.

You're absolutely right.

Here I should clarify that I don't agree with the mother's and father's actions, but I can sort of see why they acted the way they did. Personally, I try to keep as far away as possible from people like that.

I doubt that I'll ever be in the same position as the parents, but I make sure that I don't behave the way Sheila did in that store. If the service in a store isn't fantastic, I just walk out and forget about it. I would never ask to have a worker fired. Okay, so Eva did smirk a bit in that scene (something she shouldn't have done), and I've come across workers like that myself, but I just figure that it's up to the management to say something to them about it. They should be given warnings rather than immediate dismissal.

I haven't read the play, but I heard that, in the play, the son rapes Eva and gets her pregnant that way. The movie should have stuck to the play. It would have really shown what a jerk the son was. Instead, the movie just showed the son as an irresponsible twit.

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

Yikes! Well, that would have put a completely different light on Eric! In the movie, he's weak but not vicious. I even had the impression that he partly wanted the baby Eva was carrying; he sure seemed broken up when he discovered she'd died and the baby too. It seemed as if he was trying, in a half-assed way, to man up and do the right thing. He didn't just abandon her when he found out she was pregnant, he tried to get her money to keep her going. But as you say, considering his upbringing, it's not surprising that when he was thrown into the deep end, morally speaking, he turned out to be not a very good swimmer.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

I was just thinking about one other part of the movie. It's the part where Sheila was complaining about the fact that her boyfriend had cheated on her. Her father immediately took the boyfriend's part, saying something like, "Now I'm not defending him, but a lot of young men..." and then he was cut off by Sheila, who said "No, father". Looks like Eric learned some "morals" from his father. Therefore, his conduct in the movie wasn't the least bit surprising.

Sheila was more like her mother, looking down on the lower classes.

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

[–] Rosabel 10 years ago

Quite right. And yet these were very *conventional* sentiments, especially at the time. I'm sure everyone in the audience watching this play could have finished any number of sentences the characters were saying. Probably heard them, or even said them themselves. I'm sure that was part of Priestley's message. It's not much of a lesson on the failings of society if it doesn't closely resemble society. So things people took for granted, like "Boys will be boys..." "Lower-class people should know their place..." "Honesty is the best policy..." "Straighten up and fly right..." turn out to be truisms people say without ever attaching them to real people in real life. In real life, the answers aren't so simple, and we aren't safe just sticking to the same old script that's been around for generations.

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

Boys will. be boys - girls will be girls.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

Rape isn't mentioned in the play. I agree that Eva should have told the truth- Eric was obviously frightened of his father. Perhaps he should have spoken to Gerald?

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

I had the play as a set text at school. Rape wasn't mentioned.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

I had the play as a set text at school. Rape wasn't mentioned.
Eva - assuming.it was the same girl - should not have given her name as Mrs. Birling. If she'd simply said she'd been made pregnant by a man not in a position to.marry her...

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

My opinions are somewhat the reverse of yours. I blame the father the most. He hurt Eva twice; once as his employee and then again as his son's amour. He treated his son poorly as well and if his son was a wastrel then he needs to look to himself and his wife for their part in that.

Second I blame the mother. She gave into her feelings just as her daughter did, unlike her daughter she tries to use an impoverished moral thought system to justify her actions. She's blind to herself and this affects how she sees others. She sees a log in Eva's eye but a mere trace of a speck in her son's.

Eva could have been a bit more honest without actually giving away the son's identity.

Eva was being bullied to break her own sense of right; presumably this mattered, perhaps it was all she felt remained. Had she said who the father was imagine the response!

At the end the behaviour of the father and mother show how culpable they were in not only Eva's death but in the many they would have affected adversely because of the positions of power they occupy in society. They are most disreputable, not being the least concerned with truth and integirty but reputation and prestige. The only saving grace is their children who are more generous spirited and can see themselves, at least sometimes, for what they are.

The behaviours of Sheila, Eric and Gerald are more understandable and they saw the consequences for the less fortunate when they go awry.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

Thanks for your comments. I'm not making excuses for those parents. I agree with you that they were "not being the least concerned with truth and integrity but reputation and prestige", among other things. I don't really have anything great to say about them.

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

[–] novastar_6 9 years ago

Eva could have been a bit more honest without actually giving away the son's identity.

Could she? She told Mrs. Birling she couldn't tell her the name of the man who got her pregnant, that wasn't good enough for her either, NOTHING was good enough for her. Note how the old bitty at the end of the chair took some pity on Eva and told her to be seated because pregnant women had to keep their feet up as much as possible, even THAT wasn't good enough for Mrs. Birling, a young, homeless, jobless, pregnant girl was a complete waste of her time, I guess she only divides those charity funds for upper class girls who don't need it.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I'm not making excuses for Mrs. Birling. She was quite the piece of work, not anyone I'd like to have in my personal life. Oh, she was quite nasty. But I still think that it was Sheila who really did Eva the most harm. Eva had a second chance at that store, and Sheila had her dismissed for no reason at all. That led to Eva's homelessness, her affairs with the men, etc.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] greenbudgie 9 years ago

I actually liked Sheila. She's the one who kept telling everybody to own up to the Inspector. And she was very understanding to her fiancée when she learned of the affair that he had the deceased woman. None of the family were really guilty. But it is the mother who needed to get off her high horse. I think she is the one whose attitude most needed to change.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

True about Sheila. She was willing to change, but she had been extremely nasty to poor Eva.

Oh yes, that mother was nothing to write home about. Awful woman...but not a murderess. By the time Eva had contact with her, the damage had been done. Eva had no hopes of "making it".

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇