An inspector calls, analysis of end of act two

Looking again at the end of act two, how does Priestley make the remnant scene dramatically effective?

At the end of act two, Priestley uses several(prenominal) techniques in order to make the scene dramatically effective. The guardedly written script creates an atmosphere of suspense and focus. The techniques Priestly uses in the script are irony and the dismantling of the false sense impression of security amongst the characters and consequently the audience.

Originally the characters feel secure because they feel that Evas wipeout had nothing to do with them. In particular Mr and Mrs Birling s spirit is one in which they only believe what they want to, instead than looking at the facts, I dont believe it. I wont. as yet as the act continues, as Sheila has previously predicted, the inspector is breaking slashcast the walls that Mrs Birling has set up between her and Eva. This breaking down of the walls, the dismantling of the false sense of security adds to the dramatic tension of the scene.

In dismantling the sense of security, Priestly uses irony. These ironic situations make it more dramatic by creating possibilities of suspense. For example Mrs Birling governs, drunken youthfulness idler when referring to the father of evas unborn child.



The irony is that she does not lie with that she is accusing her own son and therefore, very quick to pass along the blame to somebody she does not know. She states that he is entirely responsible...should be make an example of... dealt with very severely. It is hypocritical of her to say this for it is obvious that if she knew that it is her own son she is criticising her view would be on the whole different.

The inspector give Mrs Birling a chance to convert her views, by summarising her speech, No hushing...

If you want to get a skillful essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper