A fairly rare thing; a film version of a play which really works- partly because of the quality of the original play, and partly by using flash-backs as a natural way of introducing more locations. These new scenes are well-written enough to fit seamlessly with Priestley's lines; and Eva Smith is beautifully acted. What makes this movie, though, is the magnificent performance by Alistair Sim in the title role. A great piece of casting- it would have been so easy to have cast some brooding, fierce actor like Basil Rathbone in the part, but Sim's gentle, avuncular, and sad performance is far more compelling, and finally, far more sinister. The only bad thing about the film is the classic fifties close-up and Da Da DAAA! music whenever someone looks at the photograph. I think we got the point already...
71 Reviews
A superior mystery with a twist in the tail.
MIKE-WILSON61 July 2001
This film demonstrates , that when the cast are given such a
wonderful story, the film doesn't need big stars or outlandish
special effects to succeed. Alastair Sim stars as the mysterious
Inspector Goole, who calls upon the wealthy Birling family, to
investigate the death of a local girl, Eva Smith. The audience is led
to believe, that because the dead girl had worked in the Birlings
factory , Mr Birling is the subject of the investigation , but as the
story unravels, it is apparent that the rest of the family are involved
in the girls death. When I first saw this film I was unfamiliar with
Priestley's work, but after the final scene, I was enthralled. The
ending took me completely by surprise. Good supporting cast of
British actors, including a young Bryan Forbes as Eric Birling, but
as in all his films, Alastair Sim stands head and shoulders above
everybody else, and carries the film. I would recommend this
movie to everybody, but don't give away the ending.
wonderful story, the film doesn't need big stars or outlandish
special effects to succeed. Alastair Sim stars as the mysterious
Inspector Goole, who calls upon the wealthy Birling family, to
investigate the death of a local girl, Eva Smith. The audience is led
to believe, that because the dead girl had worked in the Birlings
factory , Mr Birling is the subject of the investigation , but as the
story unravels, it is apparent that the rest of the family are involved
in the girls death. When I first saw this film I was unfamiliar with
Priestley's work, but after the final scene, I was enthralled. The
ending took me completely by surprise. Good supporting cast of
British actors, including a young Bryan Forbes as Eric Birling, but
as in all his films, Alastair Sim stands head and shoulders above
everybody else, and carries the film. I would recommend this
movie to everybody, but don't give away the ending.
A strange visitor interrupts dinner
chris_gaskin1234 October 2005
I've just seen An Inspector Calls for the first time and found it very enjoyable. The ending was a bit of a surprise.
The Birlings, a rich English family are having dinner one evening when a copper calls round to see them and tell them about a girl who has just been found dead. At first, they deny they knew her but each member of the family did know her and had a different connection with her. These include being a former lover and a former employee. Later on, we learn the truth and there is something strange about the Inspector...
The Inspector is played brilliantly by the great Alastair Sim (Scrooge) and the rest of the cast includes Arthur Young and Brian Forbes.
This is a must see, especially for old movie fans. Brilliant.
Rating: 4 stars out of 5.
The Birlings, a rich English family are having dinner one evening when a copper calls round to see them and tell them about a girl who has just been found dead. At first, they deny they knew her but each member of the family did know her and had a different connection with her. These include being a former lover and a former employee. Later on, we learn the truth and there is something strange about the Inspector...
The Inspector is played brilliantly by the great Alastair Sim (Scrooge) and the rest of the cast includes Arthur Young and Brian Forbes.
This is a must see, especially for old movie fans. Brilliant.
Rating: 4 stars out of 5.
Excellent - A unique masterpiece
nicholas.rhodes24 July 2002
This film is one of my top favourites and each successive viewing makes me like it more and more. Perhaps I have a partiality for Priestly as I adored as well "Last Holiday". Whether it is the superb black-and-white photography, the plaintive theme music by Francis Chagrin ( Eva's Theme ), the masterly way in which the plot unfolds as the film progresses, the surprise ending ... all contribute to make this a small masterpiece which is never to be forgotten once seen.
Basically, a wealthy family in the early part of the 20th century are having a little celebration at home when proceedings are interrupted by a rather mysterious police inspector who says he has come to interrogate them about a young lady who has just died through suicide in an infirmery. When the young lady's name is pronounced, this doesn't ring any bells with those present but - this is where the fun starts and you can just see it coming - the inspector proceeds, via flashbacks, to establish a connection between all present and the unfortunate young lady who has passed on ...... The plot is excellently made, and build up to a final climax with brio. They just don't make films like this any more !
The film has now been available for about 18 months ( October 2007 ) on a DVD in the UK only which while sporting an excellent copy of the film, offers no subtitles or other languages and no interesting extras for the viewer. This is a bit of a shame for a film which, to me at least is to be considered as a small masterpiece of British Cinema. The theme music is also now available on a Francis Chagrin CD.
Basically, a wealthy family in the early part of the 20th century are having a little celebration at home when proceedings are interrupted by a rather mysterious police inspector who says he has come to interrogate them about a young lady who has just died through suicide in an infirmery. When the young lady's name is pronounced, this doesn't ring any bells with those present but - this is where the fun starts and you can just see it coming - the inspector proceeds, via flashbacks, to establish a connection between all present and the unfortunate young lady who has passed on ...... The plot is excellently made, and build up to a final climax with brio. They just don't make films like this any more !
The film has now been available for about 18 months ( October 2007 ) on a DVD in the UK only which while sporting an excellent copy of the film, offers no subtitles or other languages and no interesting extras for the viewer. This is a bit of a shame for a film which, to me at least is to be considered as a small masterpiece of British Cinema. The theme music is also now available on a Francis Chagrin CD.
An inspector calls and leaves an indelible mark.
hitchcockthelegend8 August 2008
A toff English family dinner is interrupted by the appearance of Inspector Poole, he announces that a young lady has committed suicide by the ingestion of disinfectant. At first the family is oblivious as to why this concerns them, but as Poole interviews each family member, it's apparent that one thing binds them all to the mystery.
Adapted from the J.B. Priestley stage play, An Inspector Calls is everything that was great about 50s British Cinema. Simple in structure it may be, but the lack of clogging in any form shines brighter than many a lavish production from this particular decade. The films cause is helped immensely by the quality of the writing, Desmond Davis adding further quality to the already great source provided by the talented Priestley. At first the film leads you to believe that it's going to be a one room interrogation piece, but thru a series of flash backs we are taken out of the room to follow this intriguing story to its quite brilliant finale. There are no histrionics from the actors in this piece, all of them are wonderful because they adhere to the necessity of letting the story be the star. Alastair Sim is perfectly cast as Inspector Poole, a large presence with those highly sympathetic eyes, Sim may be playing the main character, yet he's playing second fiddle to the fleshing out of the Birling family deconstruction, it's a wonderful case where the acting glue is holding it all together.
Director Guy Hamilton does a smashing job of making the film permanently edgy, a sense of unease is palpable throughout, and it's only during the final reel that the heart of the film shows its ace card, and even then, the makers have one more trick up their sleeves. Also worth mentioning is the editing from the sadly uncredited Geoffrey Botterill, so many films containing flash back sequences feel intrusive to the flow of a picture, it isn't here, it's spot on. An Inspector Calls is a wonderful mystery piece that is dotted with moments of unease, but all this would go to waste if the pay off was merely a damp squib, it thankfully isn't, and the likes of Rod Serling and Charles Beaumont were surely nodding in approval.
Highly recommended 9/10.
*Footnote:Alastair Sim is listed on this site as playing Inspector Goole, that is the characters name in the Priestley play, but i can assure everyone that his characters name is definitely Inspector Poole for this film version.
Adapted from the J.B. Priestley stage play, An Inspector Calls is everything that was great about 50s British Cinema. Simple in structure it may be, but the lack of clogging in any form shines brighter than many a lavish production from this particular decade. The films cause is helped immensely by the quality of the writing, Desmond Davis adding further quality to the already great source provided by the talented Priestley. At first the film leads you to believe that it's going to be a one room interrogation piece, but thru a series of flash backs we are taken out of the room to follow this intriguing story to its quite brilliant finale. There are no histrionics from the actors in this piece, all of them are wonderful because they adhere to the necessity of letting the story be the star. Alastair Sim is perfectly cast as Inspector Poole, a large presence with those highly sympathetic eyes, Sim may be playing the main character, yet he's playing second fiddle to the fleshing out of the Birling family deconstruction, it's a wonderful case where the acting glue is holding it all together.
Director Guy Hamilton does a smashing job of making the film permanently edgy, a sense of unease is palpable throughout, and it's only during the final reel that the heart of the film shows its ace card, and even then, the makers have one more trick up their sleeves. Also worth mentioning is the editing from the sadly uncredited Geoffrey Botterill, so many films containing flash back sequences feel intrusive to the flow of a picture, it isn't here, it's spot on. An Inspector Calls is a wonderful mystery piece that is dotted with moments of unease, but all this would go to waste if the pay off was merely a damp squib, it thankfully isn't, and the likes of Rod Serling and Charles Beaumont were surely nodding in approval.
Highly recommended 9/10.
*Footnote:Alastair Sim is listed on this site as playing Inspector Goole, that is the characters name in the Priestley play, but i can assure everyone that his characters name is definitely Inspector Poole for this film version.
Priestley's Morals on Society
fuhgeddaboutit0127 August 2006
JB Priestley usually had a moralising theme to his plays.As a Socialist he wanted to show his audience the social ills in society and prick their conscience.This film, which my son studied for his English GCSE was made into a film in 1954 with Alistair Sim in the title role.To help my son get a better understanding we all went up to the West End to see the play acted by professionals.It has a haunting theme about the social ills in the Edwardian society of 1912 when a girl first loses her job at the factory when asking for higher wages by the father, loses her second job courtesy of the daughter, loses her flat courtesy of the daughter's fiancé, is made pregnant by the son and finally is refused genuine charity by the mother.
My son returned the favour by giving me a DVD version of the film when I expressed a wish to see it, since one sees so few worthy films on TV these days compared to all the modern rubbish shown.There is rather a ghostly denouement to the film and twist which Priestley cleverly writes into the plot.Although Alistair Sim is only on screen for a short time he effortlessly steals your attention.
My son returned the favour by giving me a DVD version of the film when I expressed a wish to see it, since one sees so few worthy films on TV these days compared to all the modern rubbish shown.There is rather a ghostly denouement to the film and twist which Priestley cleverly writes into the plot.Although Alistair Sim is only on screen for a short time he effortlessly steals your attention.
Superb mystery film
jimbo-53-18651122 July 2015
A upper class family are celebrating round a dinner table one evening when they receive a visit from Inspector Poole (Alastair Sim). The inspector informs the family that a young woman that they all know has died. Due to the fact that everyone in the family knows the victim, the Inspector begins to question each member of the family to try to uncover the truth surrounding her death.
An Inspector Calls is a film adaptation of a JB Priestley play and the film does have a very stagy feel about it. However, once Inspector Poole arrives the film never lets up and I was fully wrapped up in the story. Like any mystery film the less you know about it beforehand the better the experience is likely to be for you. The nature of the narrative had me hooked as I was never really sure which direction the film would take me in and how it was going to end - in other words it kept me guessing. The ending is both surprising and thought-provoking.
Aside from a good narrative, the film also benefits from excellent performances from the cast with Sim arguably being the strongest player. The way he interrogates the family and gets information out of them is also top-notch and very clever.
This is a great film and uses a very simple premise and uses it well and to good effect. The running time of 80 minutes keeps everything tight and ensures that this film never outstays his welcome.
An Inspector Calls is a film adaptation of a JB Priestley play and the film does have a very stagy feel about it. However, once Inspector Poole arrives the film never lets up and I was fully wrapped up in the story. Like any mystery film the less you know about it beforehand the better the experience is likely to be for you. The nature of the narrative had me hooked as I was never really sure which direction the film would take me in and how it was going to end - in other words it kept me guessing. The ending is both surprising and thought-provoking.
Aside from a good narrative, the film also benefits from excellent performances from the cast with Sim arguably being the strongest player. The way he interrogates the family and gets information out of them is also top-notch and very clever.
This is a great film and uses a very simple premise and uses it well and to good effect. The running time of 80 minutes keeps everything tight and ensures that this film never outstays his welcome.
Fascinating study of people facing consequences of their actions
ottoflop17 April 2002
I first saw this film when I was ll years old and have never forgotten it. If I had my way, it would be required viewing in every school in the U.S.. The period atmosphere is superb and the acting first rate. A well shaded performance by Jane Wenham who plays the pivotal role. The haunting theme music, I have tried unsuccessfully to obtain.
More questions than answers....
gridoon202421 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Despite appearances, "An Inspector Calls" is not a traditional "whodunit" by any means. It's a strange, enigmatic, socially-conscious mystery, and if you're expecting solid answers, forget it. And it's not exclusively an "Alastair Sim" movie, either; although his presence does dominate the proceedings, most of the rest of the cast is excellent as well, particularly the two younger women, Eileen Moore and Jane Wenham, who are both elegant, beautiful, intelligent, sensitive. It's because of them that this mystery sometimes transforms into a quite moving drama. And the final scene, although open to the viewer's interpretation, is guaranteed to give you a chill! *** out of 4.
Brilliant, whimsical, and unsettling
rollo_tomaso29 May 2001
Alistair Sim is brilliant in the title role. This is a filmed stage play, but in absolutely the best possible connotations of the phrase; it gives the viewer the sense of intimacy and participation one gets from watching live theater. The tale itself basically combines a bit of "Tales From The Unexplained" with Noel Coward and Aesop's Fables with a dash of Hitchcock for good measure. More than that I shall not say except all four of the family members' supporting performances are excellent. When this inspector calls, he is not soon forgotten.
Dramatic showcase for cinema's greatest comedian (spoiler in the second paragraph)
the red duchess31 October 2000
Warning: Spoilers
The detective story is such a concrete, material genre - a physical crime occurs, and a detective solves it by interpreting physical clues. And yet, in another way, the genre is at a remove from the physical - corpses can't speak; the stolen item is an absence, the detective works in the abstract, trying to retrieve that elusive concept, time, the past; concrete clues become abstract, made to fit a theoretical pattern; much evidence depends on witness and testimony - such 'facts' are so tainted with subjectivity, unreliability, self-interest, faulty memory, even falsehood, that the material floats away in a haze of dubious suspicion and speculation. It is this tension in the genre between the material and the abstract that makes 'An Inspector Calls' so compelling.
Priestley's thesis is patently artificial - five members of a prosperous family (well four, and a future in-law) are all supposed to be linked to the suicide of a working-class woman - but for once theatrical contrivance is justified. Although the film works well enough as a mystery, it is Inspector Poole's role in it that is its motor. Even before the supernatural ending, we realise that we are not dealing with a prosaic officer of the law. The dramatic cuts (with thunderous music) to Poole, the otherworldly lighting that sets him apart from those he interrogates, giving him an almost demonic look, or that of a grim Calvinist prophet, replete with vicar's dress, his omnipotent power and knowledge, whether ordering the family around their own home, judging them, disrupting routine and dangerous assumptions, or the access he has to the life of the dead girl, the way he can connect a woman of various pseudonyms, jobs, lives to one family; his repeated, ungainsayable power to extract the truth, all suggest a supernatural figure, an avenging angel, perhaps, or an embodiment of conscience - after all, the family become aware of their guilt before the crime happens, and, importantly, it is a collective guilt, not just limited to this family, but the ruling classes of England as a whole, two years before blundering into a stupid war, where millions of Eva Smith's class will be slaughtered, while Birling and his like sip sherry and gloat over munitions factories.
Most English mystery stories take place in one setting, but are rarely as claustrophobic as this. The only respite are the flashbacks, but these are mere images of what people are saying, and hence, unsubstantial, abstract. The more the film goes on, the more the home becomes a kind of figure for the mind, propped up by illusions, evasions, prejudices, nagged away at by inexorable conscience.
But this metaphysical dimension co-exists with a canny understanding of class. The film opens as pure Galsworthy, with the vulgar, pretentious middle-class business magnate marrying his finishing school-educated daughter to an aristocrat who is presumably impoverished. The film opens with the hope of a union, but the cracks in this happy cross-class alliance are already clear, the dissipation of the son and heir, the mysterious Victorian double-life of the fiance, showing that sexuality will always undermine the self-confidence of governing elites. The exploitation of the working class is, punningly, linked to sex also, the loss of position and status due to vanity and caprice resulting in a vulnerability to exploitation.
Admittedly, Priestley's ideas are simplistic and rarely subtle, but the concentration on pure plot means less room for the usual execrable attempts at character and atmosphere. Hamilton's direction is serviceable, a little self-mocking; the cast are believable caricatures, but there is still only one real reason to watch 'An Inspector Calls' today, and that is the immortal Alistair Sim, cinema's greatest comedian bar none, bringing a frightening, yet amused and perverse irony to a difficult role to pull off. Genius.
Priestley's thesis is patently artificial - five members of a prosperous family (well four, and a future in-law) are all supposed to be linked to the suicide of a working-class woman - but for once theatrical contrivance is justified. Although the film works well enough as a mystery, it is Inspector Poole's role in it that is its motor. Even before the supernatural ending, we realise that we are not dealing with a prosaic officer of the law. The dramatic cuts (with thunderous music) to Poole, the otherworldly lighting that sets him apart from those he interrogates, giving him an almost demonic look, or that of a grim Calvinist prophet, replete with vicar's dress, his omnipotent power and knowledge, whether ordering the family around their own home, judging them, disrupting routine and dangerous assumptions, or the access he has to the life of the dead girl, the way he can connect a woman of various pseudonyms, jobs, lives to one family; his repeated, ungainsayable power to extract the truth, all suggest a supernatural figure, an avenging angel, perhaps, or an embodiment of conscience - after all, the family become aware of their guilt before the crime happens, and, importantly, it is a collective guilt, not just limited to this family, but the ruling classes of England as a whole, two years before blundering into a stupid war, where millions of Eva Smith's class will be slaughtered, while Birling and his like sip sherry and gloat over munitions factories.
Most English mystery stories take place in one setting, but are rarely as claustrophobic as this. The only respite are the flashbacks, but these are mere images of what people are saying, and hence, unsubstantial, abstract. The more the film goes on, the more the home becomes a kind of figure for the mind, propped up by illusions, evasions, prejudices, nagged away at by inexorable conscience.
But this metaphysical dimension co-exists with a canny understanding of class. The film opens as pure Galsworthy, with the vulgar, pretentious middle-class business magnate marrying his finishing school-educated daughter to an aristocrat who is presumably impoverished. The film opens with the hope of a union, but the cracks in this happy cross-class alliance are already clear, the dissipation of the son and heir, the mysterious Victorian double-life of the fiance, showing that sexuality will always undermine the self-confidence of governing elites. The exploitation of the working class is, punningly, linked to sex also, the loss of position and status due to vanity and caprice resulting in a vulnerability to exploitation.
Admittedly, Priestley's ideas are simplistic and rarely subtle, but the concentration on pure plot means less room for the usual execrable attempts at character and atmosphere. Hamilton's direction is serviceable, a little self-mocking; the cast are believable caricatures, but there is still only one real reason to watch 'An Inspector Calls' today, and that is the immortal Alistair Sim, cinema's greatest comedian bar none, bringing a frightening, yet amused and perverse irony to a difficult role to pull off. Genius.
Inspector Poole, NOT Goole, can be considered our collective conscience.
appealing_talent16 December 2007
I have an excellent copy of this rare and wonderful film and Alastair Sim introduces himself -distinctly- as Inspector Poole, the daughter's fiancé asks a police officer about the Inspector using that name and the police officer repeats the name. Goole is a rather gruesome reference to ghoul, I think, and the benevolent Inspector was not at all depicted as a creepy or menacing man. J.B. Priestley meant this piece to be as much a morality play as a mystery, I believe. The Inspector was supposed to be either an angel on a mission or God himself giving these unconscious people a chance to redeem themselves for their thoughtless and compassionless actions... The performances are uniformly top notch and Alastair Sim's, in particular, rivals his unsurpassed portrayal of Scrooge in the finest version of "A Christmas Carol." I highly recommend this film as a first class lesson in the common foibles of human nature and how we have the ability to achieve salvation if we take responsibility for our faults.
Probably the best version...
Quackle25 February 2005
I probably enjoyed this version of An Inspector Calls the most. There have been so many different sketches, but this one has the atmosphere than none of the others possess. The factors that provide the viewer with the best atmosphere are the fact that the film is in black and white - This makes it old fashioned, which it is meant to be. Also, the use of mirrors around the entire room are very eery, and the brief yet effective music play a part, too.
I strongly recommend watching this, and I'm aware that it is being studied in English lessons, so watch the entire sketch for more knowledge!
I strongly recommend watching this, and I'm aware that it is being studied in English lessons, so watch the entire sketch for more knowledge!
The all knowing policeman
Prismark1018 May 2014
Alastair Sim stars in this morality tale as Inspector Poole who suddenly appears like a spectre in the house of a provincial wealthy family and interrogates them over the death of a local girl which each members of the family have been associated with.
An Inspector Calls is better known as a stage play and here it has been filled out with flashbacks as we find out more about the life of the dead girl and her interactions with the various members of the family.
Although the film is set in 1912 it its themes are still relevant today and especially when you see the division in attitudes with the younger characters in the play and the older characters who are not only more selfish but less remorseful that they pretended to be.
Sim is sly and powerful as the Inspector who brings down the selfish members of this family a peg or two, he keeps you watching. Jane Wenham is likable as Eva the deceased girl who over time crosses paths with the Birling family and not for the better.
An Inspector Calls is better known as a stage play and here it has been filled out with flashbacks as we find out more about the life of the dead girl and her interactions with the various members of the family.
Although the film is set in 1912 it its themes are still relevant today and especially when you see the division in attitudes with the younger characters in the play and the older characters who are not only more selfish but less remorseful that they pretended to be.
Sim is sly and powerful as the Inspector who brings down the selfish members of this family a peg or two, he keeps you watching. Jane Wenham is likable as Eva the deceased girl who over time crosses paths with the Birling family and not for the better.
One call not forgotten
TheLittleSongbird20 August 2017
Being a classic film fan (though do watch films and television of all genres/medium old and new), that 'An Inspector Calls' was based on the classic play with a great story by JB Priestley and had a great actor in Alastair Sim on board were reasons enough to see it.
'An Inspector Calls' thankfully did not disappoint. While the 2015 television adaptation with David Thewlis was also wonderful, this film version from 1954 is the marginally better one. Even if it does open up the deliberately confined setting and atmosphere of the play with the inclusion of flashbacks for cinematic reasons no doubt, which some may feel tones down the claustrophobia. To me it isn't as strong as it is on stage but is present still. As well as changing the Inspector's name from Goole to Poole, some may, and have done, find that it misses the point of the character for reasons that won't be gone into here at the risk of spoiling crucial elements of the story. Didn't have as big a problem with this change though it does take away a little from the character's mysteriousness. But what makes this version of 'An Inspector Calls' so good is how well it succeeds on its own merits.
It is an incredibly atmospheric film first and foremost, it's not the most technically polished film there is but it does look good. The setting do maintain the sense of confinement and claustrophobia and are produced elegantly. The cinematography and lighting are suitably ominous and while not the most polished look beautiful and add hugely to the atmosphere. A big shout out also has to go to the editing, with 'An Inspector Calls' containing to me some of the best editing of any film seen recently by me and of its kind, with its fluid and seamless transitions between present day and the flashbacks. Something that has been done with wildly variable results elsewhere, many films do it well and just as many others executing it rather clumsily.
Regarding the music, much of it is very haunting and adds a lot in giving a sense of constant unease. There are a few instances where it's a touch heavy-handed, my sole complaint of the film but it is not significant enough to bring it down. The script is droll and thought-provoking, never once found it trite, the best lines belong to the Inspector and Sim's delivery has a lot to do with it.
Story goes at a deliberate but efficient and never too slow pace, it is unsettlingly suspenseful and very intriguing. The portrayal and dynamic of the central family were beautifully established, there is a lot of great psychological tension and unease when the family are interrogated and the flashbacks were a great way of opening up the story and solving the potential problem while stage to screen adaptations of being stagy. They allowed us to get to know the victim and care for her plight and also the members of the Birling family and how it all affects them. The final twist, while open to interpretation, really sends a chill down the spine.
The performances are very fine across the board. Didn't have a problem with Bryan Forbes, though he fares better as a director than an actor in a way. 'An Inspector Calls' is compelling from the get go , but gets even better once the inspector shows up and interrogates the Birlings to utterly transfixing effect. Alastair Sim always had a knack for scene-stealing, whether in lead or support, and he does here in a superb performance that perhaps ranks among his best. Loved his witty but serious line delivery and even more so his understated and oh so expressive eyes and face.
Jane Wenham is very touching in her here pathos-filled role. Arthur Young has the right amount of patriarchal authority and crustiness and Olga Lindo brings dignity and class.
Concluding, wonderful and not easy to forget. 10/10 Bethany Cox
'An Inspector Calls' thankfully did not disappoint. While the 2015 television adaptation with David Thewlis was also wonderful, this film version from 1954 is the marginally better one. Even if it does open up the deliberately confined setting and atmosphere of the play with the inclusion of flashbacks for cinematic reasons no doubt, which some may feel tones down the claustrophobia. To me it isn't as strong as it is on stage but is present still. As well as changing the Inspector's name from Goole to Poole, some may, and have done, find that it misses the point of the character for reasons that won't be gone into here at the risk of spoiling crucial elements of the story. Didn't have as big a problem with this change though it does take away a little from the character's mysteriousness. But what makes this version of 'An Inspector Calls' so good is how well it succeeds on its own merits.
It is an incredibly atmospheric film first and foremost, it's not the most technically polished film there is but it does look good. The setting do maintain the sense of confinement and claustrophobia and are produced elegantly. The cinematography and lighting are suitably ominous and while not the most polished look beautiful and add hugely to the atmosphere. A big shout out also has to go to the editing, with 'An Inspector Calls' containing to me some of the best editing of any film seen recently by me and of its kind, with its fluid and seamless transitions between present day and the flashbacks. Something that has been done with wildly variable results elsewhere, many films do it well and just as many others executing it rather clumsily.
Regarding the music, much of it is very haunting and adds a lot in giving a sense of constant unease. There are a few instances where it's a touch heavy-handed, my sole complaint of the film but it is not significant enough to bring it down. The script is droll and thought-provoking, never once found it trite, the best lines belong to the Inspector and Sim's delivery has a lot to do with it.
Story goes at a deliberate but efficient and never too slow pace, it is unsettlingly suspenseful and very intriguing. The portrayal and dynamic of the central family were beautifully established, there is a lot of great psychological tension and unease when the family are interrogated and the flashbacks were a great way of opening up the story and solving the potential problem while stage to screen adaptations of being stagy. They allowed us to get to know the victim and care for her plight and also the members of the Birling family and how it all affects them. The final twist, while open to interpretation, really sends a chill down the spine.
The performances are very fine across the board. Didn't have a problem with Bryan Forbes, though he fares better as a director than an actor in a way. 'An Inspector Calls' is compelling from the get go , but gets even better once the inspector shows up and interrogates the Birlings to utterly transfixing effect. Alastair Sim always had a knack for scene-stealing, whether in lead or support, and he does here in a superb performance that perhaps ranks among his best. Loved his witty but serious line delivery and even more so his understated and oh so expressive eyes and face.
Jane Wenham is very touching in her here pathos-filled role. Arthur Young has the right amount of patriarchal authority and crustiness and Olga Lindo brings dignity and class.
Concluding, wonderful and not easy to forget. 10/10 Bethany Cox
The Last Chance of the Birlings
theowinthrop23 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This was a nice surprise when I saw it in 1977 or so. Alistair Sim had appeared as Inspector Cockerill in GREEN FOR DANGER shortly after World War II, and gave one of his best performances as that droll Scotland Yarder, who just manages to bungle his successful investigation at the conclusion of that film. Here he finally repeated the role of an inspector of the police - Inspecter Goole, who disturbs a pleasant evening at the Birling mansion in some midland industrial town with news that there has been a tragedy involving the death of a young woman, and she seems to be connected to the family.
J. B. Priestly was a highly successful novelist and dramatist of the middle years of the 20th Century. Besides AN INSPECTOR CALLS, he wrote LAST HOLIDAY and the novel (later a television series) LOST EMPIRES. He usually sets his stories (not LAST HOLIDAY) in the Edwardian period. That is the setting of LOST EMPIRES, which follows the London Music Halls in the years before and during World War I, and in this film, set in 1912. As it is set in 1912 it is like Terrance Rattigan's THE SLEEPING PRINCE (filmed as THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL) - a story whose plot line is complicated by the knowledge of the audience that history is headed in a disaster of war that will destroy the world of the characters.
They are quite complacent these Birlings. The father is an industrialist, who has become Lord Mayor of the city. A bluff old codger, he thinks that most of the problems of the world can be covered over by a smile and some cash. His alcoholic son and his daughter and her fiancé seem less cynical, and his wife seems more proper. But each is forced to look at a photograph of the dead girl, shown by the Inspector and suddenly see their sins of pride, lust, cruelty all arising. But in the end when about to admit they did wrong they learn that the Inspector may not be what he said he was. But the conclusion leaves them facing the same crisis that Goole seemed to be on the edge of resolving - and Goole is no longer there to advise them on how to solve it.
Sim, with minimal effort, controlled the film although he was off the screen most of the time. His Goole is a pleasant enough figure - apparently just doing his duty - and not being hard on the Birlings. He is just letting their consciences act out their feelings of contrition. But in the end the contrition (for the older Birlings) was too weak. So something stronger was needed to make them aware of their sins.
J. B. Priestly was a highly successful novelist and dramatist of the middle years of the 20th Century. Besides AN INSPECTOR CALLS, he wrote LAST HOLIDAY and the novel (later a television series) LOST EMPIRES. He usually sets his stories (not LAST HOLIDAY) in the Edwardian period. That is the setting of LOST EMPIRES, which follows the London Music Halls in the years before and during World War I, and in this film, set in 1912. As it is set in 1912 it is like Terrance Rattigan's THE SLEEPING PRINCE (filmed as THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL) - a story whose plot line is complicated by the knowledge of the audience that history is headed in a disaster of war that will destroy the world of the characters.
They are quite complacent these Birlings. The father is an industrialist, who has become Lord Mayor of the city. A bluff old codger, he thinks that most of the problems of the world can be covered over by a smile and some cash. His alcoholic son and his daughter and her fiancé seem less cynical, and his wife seems more proper. But each is forced to look at a photograph of the dead girl, shown by the Inspector and suddenly see their sins of pride, lust, cruelty all arising. But in the end when about to admit they did wrong they learn that the Inspector may not be what he said he was. But the conclusion leaves them facing the same crisis that Goole seemed to be on the edge of resolving - and Goole is no longer there to advise them on how to solve it.
Sim, with minimal effort, controlled the film although he was off the screen most of the time. His Goole is a pleasant enough figure - apparently just doing his duty - and not being hard on the Birlings. He is just letting their consciences act out their feelings of contrition. But in the end the contrition (for the older Birlings) was too weak. So something stronger was needed to make them aware of their sins.
Guy Hamilton's approachable parable is a concise adaptation of J.B. Priestley's acclaimed play, with a slightly different ending to redouble the mysterious revelation
lasttimeisaw25 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
One must appreciate the brevity of AN INSPECTOR CALLS, running a breathless 80 minutes and directed by future 007 helmer Guy Hamilton, the whole story is condensed into one single night in 1912, the Birlings, a silk-stocking British family celebrates the engagement of Sheila (Moore) and Gerald Croft (Worth), with the presence of her parents Arthur (Young) and Sybil (Lindo), and her already tipsy brother Eric (Forbes).
The festivity is precipitately interrupted by the advent of Inspector Poole (Sim), who simply materializes out of thin air in the dining room (instead of coming from the main entrance, which is differed from J.B. Priestley's source play), attendant with an ominous score, which foreshadows something that turns out to be rather surreal. Poole claims that he is investigating an apparent suicidal case of a young woman named Eva Smith (Wenham, first wife of Albert Finney), and in a sequential order, he tactically and competently proves that Arthur, Sheila, Gerald, Sybil and Eric, to different extents, all should be answerable for Eva's despondency and her ultimate demise, but cagily, he only shows the picture of Eva (who later rechristened as Daisy Renton) to one individual a time.
Flashback is concisely interspersed to reveal each of the quintet's respective involvement in Eva's downward spiral, to them, she is a recalcitrant employee, an impudent shop assistant, a low-hanging damsel in distress, an insolent charity seeker and a good-hearted sympathizer who cannot resist boyish charm. Subjugated to iniquity and cruelty (a cocktail of sexual agendas, moral haughtiness, peer jealousy, capitalistic cupidity and lack of empathy), Eva/Daisy represents the countless, down-trodden have-nots whose misfortune is cumulatively (if unintentionally) sealed by bias, selfishness, wantonness of those well-to-do members of the society, this message is bluntly blurted out by Sheila in a later stage, which shows Priestley's lenient stance towards the younger generation's repentance and malleability, at the same time counterpoises the older one's fossilized intractability.
But bewilderment remains, apart from whether Eva/Daisy is the same person, or even if she really exists at all, once Poole's identity is being challenged, and screenwriter Desmond Davis fine-tunes the play's ending by doubling down the mystical impact, not just Poole might be a compassionate soothsayer, also suggested by his entrance and attested by his egress, he might be entirely the figment of the Birlings's consciousness.
Performance wise, the core cast is solid if nothing too spectacular to bowl audience over, mainly thanks to the rote dialogue and narrative development (except that shark-jumping ending), Priestley has good conscience and intention, but his wording, more often than not, feels prosaic and didactic. Among them, Sim's gravitas vehemently holds sway; future director Forbes exudes a disarming facet that might alleviate Eric's cardinal foibles a bit; Lindo's matriarchal Sybil is a grand dame, but all things considered, her moral superiority is the least deplorable attribute in the context (where a lippy Eva doesn't pass muster as a sympathetic beseecher), yet, she has to take the blow for being a mollycoddling mother, a faint whiff of sexism plumes out inadvertently. Last but not the least, it is Wenham's embodiment of Eva's throbbing vulnerability that stands out, a young woman whose self-knowledge and kindness cannot save her from perdition, right from her hearty laughter in the very first scene to a misty-eyed dejection in the very last one, she is the soul of this approachable parable, proselytizing us to heed the collateral damage of our day-to-day comportment.
The festivity is precipitately interrupted by the advent of Inspector Poole (Sim), who simply materializes out of thin air in the dining room (instead of coming from the main entrance, which is differed from J.B. Priestley's source play), attendant with an ominous score, which foreshadows something that turns out to be rather surreal. Poole claims that he is investigating an apparent suicidal case of a young woman named Eva Smith (Wenham, first wife of Albert Finney), and in a sequential order, he tactically and competently proves that Arthur, Sheila, Gerald, Sybil and Eric, to different extents, all should be answerable for Eva's despondency and her ultimate demise, but cagily, he only shows the picture of Eva (who later rechristened as Daisy Renton) to one individual a time.
Flashback is concisely interspersed to reveal each of the quintet's respective involvement in Eva's downward spiral, to them, she is a recalcitrant employee, an impudent shop assistant, a low-hanging damsel in distress, an insolent charity seeker and a good-hearted sympathizer who cannot resist boyish charm. Subjugated to iniquity and cruelty (a cocktail of sexual agendas, moral haughtiness, peer jealousy, capitalistic cupidity and lack of empathy), Eva/Daisy represents the countless, down-trodden have-nots whose misfortune is cumulatively (if unintentionally) sealed by bias, selfishness, wantonness of those well-to-do members of the society, this message is bluntly blurted out by Sheila in a later stage, which shows Priestley's lenient stance towards the younger generation's repentance and malleability, at the same time counterpoises the older one's fossilized intractability.
But bewilderment remains, apart from whether Eva/Daisy is the same person, or even if she really exists at all, once Poole's identity is being challenged, and screenwriter Desmond Davis fine-tunes the play's ending by doubling down the mystical impact, not just Poole might be a compassionate soothsayer, also suggested by his entrance and attested by his egress, he might be entirely the figment of the Birlings's consciousness.
Performance wise, the core cast is solid if nothing too spectacular to bowl audience over, mainly thanks to the rote dialogue and narrative development (except that shark-jumping ending), Priestley has good conscience and intention, but his wording, more often than not, feels prosaic and didactic. Among them, Sim's gravitas vehemently holds sway; future director Forbes exudes a disarming facet that might alleviate Eric's cardinal foibles a bit; Lindo's matriarchal Sybil is a grand dame, but all things considered, her moral superiority is the least deplorable attribute in the context (where a lippy Eva doesn't pass muster as a sympathetic beseecher), yet, she has to take the blow for being a mollycoddling mother, a faint whiff of sexism plumes out inadvertently. Last but not the least, it is Wenham's embodiment of Eva's throbbing vulnerability that stands out, a young woman whose self-knowledge and kindness cannot save her from perdition, right from her hearty laughter in the very first scene to a misty-eyed dejection in the very last one, she is the soul of this approachable parable, proselytizing us to heed the collateral damage of our day-to-day comportment.
A well-to-do British family has their complacency disrupted by the appearance of Inspector Poole.
PaulCurt14 November 1999
This movie is a special favorite of mine. Alistair Sim has never been better; his regretful smile is truly haunting. I particularly enjoy showing this movie to people for the first time, as reactions are never quite the same. What is consistent is that it always gets a reaction! Warning: some female friends count it as a two-Kleenex-box movie...be prepared.
An odd thing...Bryan Forbes, as Eric Birling, resembles American actor John Larroquette remarkably. It doesn't distract from the enjoyment of the movie. Just a curious thing.
An odd thing...Bryan Forbes, as Eric Birling, resembles American actor John Larroquette remarkably. It doesn't distract from the enjoyment of the movie. Just a curious thing.
The always watchable Alistair Sim
splendidchap27 October 2018
This classic JB Priestley play, regularly revived on the stage and filmed numerous times since it was written in 1945, is perfect for a winter's Sunday afternoon on the sofa. This version is the one to see as the central role of the detective is played by the wonderful Alistair Sim.
For British viewers, Eileen Moore, who plays the daughter of the family, was the first wife of George Cole, who has an unbilled cameo as the bus conductor. Alistair Sim had acted as a guardian to Cole when he was a young actor. If you have a feeling you recognise Jane Wenham, who plays Eva Smith, chances are you saw her in 'Porridge', in which she was the Governor's secretary in the hostage episode.
For British viewers, Eileen Moore, who plays the daughter of the family, was the first wife of George Cole, who has an unbilled cameo as the bus conductor. Alistair Sim had acted as a guardian to Cole when he was a young actor. If you have a feeling you recognise Jane Wenham, who plays Eva Smith, chances are you saw her in 'Porridge', in which she was the Governor's secretary in the hostage episode.
I'm not sure if Alfred Hitchcock or Rod Serling called...
AlsExGal24 November 2016
... but this was an excellent British film. I can't really say if it was suspense, thriller, or even fantasy. The beginning has five wealthy people sitting down to dinner with the daughter in the family, Sheila, announcing her engagement to Gerald, who is obviously approved of by the family. The son, Eric, is obviously a cynic. Lots of time is spent having the camera pan over all of the food. The reason why will be obvious later. The father, Mr. Birling, says that the young people are marrying at a time of great prosperity and that war is impossible in 1912, that the world is changing too fast for war (WRONG - won't be the last time either for dear old dad). Then he says that the family must try and stay out of the scandal sheets since he is expecting to be appointed to an important post and with Sheila's upcoming marriage. He really says this last part jokingly, as if anybody in that room could do something scandalous.
And out of nowhere a police inspector appears in the dining room doorway. They even mention why he didn't knock. He says he is there because a young woman has just died of poisoning and he needs to ask them a few questions. He says he is not sure if it is suicide or murder. He goes to each family member in turn and shows them a photo of the girl but does not show the same photo to anybody else. Each person remembers the girl, and each did something - sometimes a very small thing just because that person was having a bad day - that led the dead girl on the road to ruin, ultimately placing her in a situation where she was desperate and felt she had no out but suicide. She was young, pretty, and smart, but she had no real family and no money, putting herself at the whim of the upper classes.
After all of the revelations, Gerald goes outside for a walk to calm down and runs into a policeman he knows where he learns a shocking fact. What did he find out and what comes of it? Watch and find out.
The whole point of the film I think is to show that each of us may be a small pebble on this earth, but in life's pond we can produce big ripples. In concert with other "pebbles" we can start off a chain reaction in a person's life that greatly affects them without really knowing or caring what we did until we are made to care and look at the result of our handiwork.
This film was very suspenseful with lots of twists and turns. Alistair Sim was marvelous as the inspector, unfazed and deliberate throughout. I'd highly recommend it.
And out of nowhere a police inspector appears in the dining room doorway. They even mention why he didn't knock. He says he is there because a young woman has just died of poisoning and he needs to ask them a few questions. He says he is not sure if it is suicide or murder. He goes to each family member in turn and shows them a photo of the girl but does not show the same photo to anybody else. Each person remembers the girl, and each did something - sometimes a very small thing just because that person was having a bad day - that led the dead girl on the road to ruin, ultimately placing her in a situation where she was desperate and felt she had no out but suicide. She was young, pretty, and smart, but she had no real family and no money, putting herself at the whim of the upper classes.
After all of the revelations, Gerald goes outside for a walk to calm down and runs into a policeman he knows where he learns a shocking fact. What did he find out and what comes of it? Watch and find out.
The whole point of the film I think is to show that each of us may be a small pebble on this earth, but in life's pond we can produce big ripples. In concert with other "pebbles" we can start off a chain reaction in a person's life that greatly affects them without really knowing or caring what we did until we are made to care and look at the result of our handiwork.
This film was very suspenseful with lots of twists and turns. Alistair Sim was marvelous as the inspector, unfazed and deliberate throughout. I'd highly recommend it.
After a death there must be judgement
Charlot4727 January 2013
Eschatology is the study of the four last things: death, judgement, heaven and hell. After a death there must be judgement and this will lead to either bliss or damnation. In this film the ghostly Inspector, marvellously played by Alastair Sim, forces a family to face the reality of death, to accept judgement and to choose whether they will repent or stay obdurate.
Set in the microcosm of a well-off English household in 1912, the message applies equally to their class and to the nation which they control. When a single working-class woman undergoes what Eva went through, the society which produces it needs reform. No simple solution is given, however. Instead, the story mutely asks us to decide who is my brother and how far am I his keeper.
Adapted for the screen by Desmond Davis from the stage play by J.B. Priestley, the film opens out the claustrophobic tale by showing Eva's sad descent in a series of flashbacks, which allow the use of more settings and more characters (including a cameo for George Cole as a tram conductor). Making Eva a neat, quiet, unassuming young woman adds greatly to the pathos, evoking our pity for her fate. Good playing by a young Bryan Forbes, who later switched to directing, as the weak son Eric.
Set in the microcosm of a well-off English household in 1912, the message applies equally to their class and to the nation which they control. When a single working-class woman undergoes what Eva went through, the society which produces it needs reform. No simple solution is given, however. Instead, the story mutely asks us to decide who is my brother and how far am I his keeper.
Adapted for the screen by Desmond Davis from the stage play by J.B. Priestley, the film opens out the claustrophobic tale by showing Eva's sad descent in a series of flashbacks, which allow the use of more settings and more characters (including a cameo for George Cole as a tram conductor). Making Eva a neat, quiet, unassuming young woman adds greatly to the pathos, evoking our pity for her fate. Good playing by a young Bryan Forbes, who later switched to directing, as the weak son Eric.
well written and eminently watchable
christopher-underwood21 April 2020
An early Guy Hamilton film but he clearly has it well under control, extending the original play outside at strategic moments and maintaining full interest in what is otherwise a locked room drama. Alastair Sim most likeable in restrained and knowing mood and a young Bryan Forbes does well as the wayward son in this simple yet twisty tale of class prejudice in England. Jane Wenham does well as the girl at the centre of things but she should really have been just a little better looking, for all the attention gained, and a little less well spoken considering her supposed position in the section of society depicted. Having said that, this is well written and eminently watchable.
Excellent.
MichaelJohnMartin18 July 2003
I have just finished watching this film on TV,and I must say,what a pleasant diversion it was for the afternoon,plenty of twists and turns,and the ending was excellent also,top performance must go to Alistair Sim for his protrayal of Inspector Poole,rivetting stuff.
'If we are all responsible for everything that happened to everybody we'd had anything to do with, it would be very awkward, wouldn't it?'
scorfield-5171130 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A solid cinematic adaptation of Priestley's classic play, first performed on a London stage in 1946, made more memorable by a captivating performance from Alistair Sim. Since that premiere performance on the stage by Sir Ralph Richardson, the eponymous, unexpected, and unappreciated visitor to the Birling household has been embodied by many a seasoned thespian, but never so enthralling as by Sim.
This is partly due to the fact that he portrays a much less abrasive figure than customary. His physicality, from towering presence to heavy-lidded, deep-set eyes, and avuncular, searching expression, embellishes his ability to embody more of an inquisitor examining the souls of those present than a mere police officer examining the details of the case.
The original play was set in 1912 and took a scalpel to cut through middle-class hypocrisy to reveal the paucity of morals beneath the veneer of respectability. Indeed, so biting was it's social critique, that it would be staged in Moscow and Leningrad, a full twelve months before any British theatre dared to produce it. Though this feature is largely adapted from the source material, and ably directed by Guy Hamilton, who would later find greater renown in bringing the far more flamboyant 007 to the 'big screen', this production did introduce a couple of aspects which would impact upon its interpretation of Priestley's work.
The first of these concerns the character of the Inspector, stemming from the decision to alter our protagonist's name from 'Inspector Goole' in the play to 'Inspector Poole' here. In doing so, those behind the film have distanced their product from Priestley's clumsier indication of the Inspector's possible spectral nature through his obvious 'play on words' of the character's name. There has been much heated debate over the reason for this change, but the most obvious, and most convincing, is that the audience making such a connection too early would result in a loss of suspense. In this instance the audience are more loosely guided in their interpretation by the question embedded in the film's tagline: 'Is he real or the creature of conscience?'
What is apparent is that there are indications of the otherworldly nature of our main protagonist throughout the film - firstly, as opposed to the play where he is shown in by a maid, here he appears in the dining room from nowhere; then, accompanied by an ominous chord of music, he announces the arrival of the Birlings' son and begs him enter before there is any sign of him; and finally, there is his disappearance from the study when his exit would have had to have been seen by all present.
The second change to the structure of the play is the inclusion of flashback sequences to 'flesh out', and join together, how each member of the Birling family has had some part to play in the course of events leading to the tragic suicide of a young woman, known to them all. As such, we witness the sacking of Eva Smith by Mr Birling for having joined some of her workmates in questioning whether their salary was a liveable wage. She then suffers at the hands of his daughter, Sheila, after the latter complains, in a pique of jealousy, over the lack of courtesy shown to her by Eva in serving her in a department-store.
The social engagement which the Inspector's visit has interrupted is the family celebration of Sheila's engagement to one Gerald Croft. Upon the Inspector's revealing that the young lady changed her name to Daisy Renton, we learn that Croft had taken pity on the impoverished girl, before more callously taking her as his mistress. This revelation, which appears to place at risk the engagement of Sheila to Gerald Croft, amounts to the final fall from grace for Eva Smith. The destitute and pregnant young woman then appears before the committee of a women's charity, headed by Mrs Birling, to apply for financial assistance. Mrs Birling unsympathetically turns down her plea, chiding her for not seeking the support of the baby's father. Finally, the audience learns that the father of the unborn child is the Birling's son, Eric, having forced himself upon Daisy, and having stolen funds from his father's business to support her.
Within the play, there remains greater possibility that the victim is a composite portrait of more than one girl, explaining why the Inspector on stage is so guarded in each unveiling of the photograph. Priestley's tolerance of ambiguity on this point allows for the work to accrue much more of the nature of a parable on social responsibility and a vision of shared humanity. By establishing a narrative thread in direct relation to Eva/Daisy, the film makes clear this is not an allegory and so can avoid Priestley's sermonising tone. This explains the absence within the film of the Inspector's fundamental final speech in which he serves as the instrument for the author's socialist message on morality: 'there are millions...of Eva Smiths and John Smiths left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and a chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives and what we think say and do.'
However what both play and film share, aside from revealing issues of class conflict, is evidence of a generational conflict in that, as opposed to the genuine remorse for their actions displayed by their children, the parents refuse to countenance their own culpability for the girl's fate. Once it becomes clear that there is no Inspector Poole known to the local authorities, Mr and Mrs Birling appear to have their prejudices regalvanised, and so, it is even more satisfyingly foreboding and poignant, with Priestley's penchant for time-shifts in his theatrical work once more apparent, that a phone call to the Birling residence after the Inspector's disappearance relays the news of the recent suicide of a young woman. Priestley was an advocate of J W Dunne's theory of 'serial time' which stated that the past, present, and future were all taking place at one and the same time, and that the perception of time as linear stemmed from human consciousness.
The supporting cast all perform admirably, and, in particular, the flashback sequences serve as the means for Jane Wenham, the future first wife of Albert Finney, to deliver a touching performance as the ill-fated young girl in what was to be her promising debut in ultimately a very short-lived film career. Eileen Moore, the first wife of George Cole, who himself makes an uncredited performance here as a tram conductor, is commendable as Sheila Birling, as is Brian Worth as her intended husband-to-be. In addition, this feature serves to remind us how capable a young actor Bryan Forbes was, before his move to screenwriting and direction. Interestingly, both Hamilton and Forbes would turn down the offer to direct the opening feature in the 007 franchise: 'Dr No'.
Yet, this film exemplifies above all else Sim's under-appreciated versatility as an actor. Released in the same year as Sim's much more treasured incarnation of the headmistress of St Trinians, it is a shame that his appearances in dramatic roles were not as heralded. Given his character's spectral appearance and disappearance, it is perhaps fitting that this film, in which his dramatic talents were so evident, was coincidentally scheduled the night he passed on to whatever lies beyond this existence.
This is partly due to the fact that he portrays a much less abrasive figure than customary. His physicality, from towering presence to heavy-lidded, deep-set eyes, and avuncular, searching expression, embellishes his ability to embody more of an inquisitor examining the souls of those present than a mere police officer examining the details of the case.
The original play was set in 1912 and took a scalpel to cut through middle-class hypocrisy to reveal the paucity of morals beneath the veneer of respectability. Indeed, so biting was it's social critique, that it would be staged in Moscow and Leningrad, a full twelve months before any British theatre dared to produce it. Though this feature is largely adapted from the source material, and ably directed by Guy Hamilton, who would later find greater renown in bringing the far more flamboyant 007 to the 'big screen', this production did introduce a couple of aspects which would impact upon its interpretation of Priestley's work.
The first of these concerns the character of the Inspector, stemming from the decision to alter our protagonist's name from 'Inspector Goole' in the play to 'Inspector Poole' here. In doing so, those behind the film have distanced their product from Priestley's clumsier indication of the Inspector's possible spectral nature through his obvious 'play on words' of the character's name. There has been much heated debate over the reason for this change, but the most obvious, and most convincing, is that the audience making such a connection too early would result in a loss of suspense. In this instance the audience are more loosely guided in their interpretation by the question embedded in the film's tagline: 'Is he real or the creature of conscience?'
What is apparent is that there are indications of the otherworldly nature of our main protagonist throughout the film - firstly, as opposed to the play where he is shown in by a maid, here he appears in the dining room from nowhere; then, accompanied by an ominous chord of music, he announces the arrival of the Birlings' son and begs him enter before there is any sign of him; and finally, there is his disappearance from the study when his exit would have had to have been seen by all present.
The second change to the structure of the play is the inclusion of flashback sequences to 'flesh out', and join together, how each member of the Birling family has had some part to play in the course of events leading to the tragic suicide of a young woman, known to them all. As such, we witness the sacking of Eva Smith by Mr Birling for having joined some of her workmates in questioning whether their salary was a liveable wage. She then suffers at the hands of his daughter, Sheila, after the latter complains, in a pique of jealousy, over the lack of courtesy shown to her by Eva in serving her in a department-store.
The social engagement which the Inspector's visit has interrupted is the family celebration of Sheila's engagement to one Gerald Croft. Upon the Inspector's revealing that the young lady changed her name to Daisy Renton, we learn that Croft had taken pity on the impoverished girl, before more callously taking her as his mistress. This revelation, which appears to place at risk the engagement of Sheila to Gerald Croft, amounts to the final fall from grace for Eva Smith. The destitute and pregnant young woman then appears before the committee of a women's charity, headed by Mrs Birling, to apply for financial assistance. Mrs Birling unsympathetically turns down her plea, chiding her for not seeking the support of the baby's father. Finally, the audience learns that the father of the unborn child is the Birling's son, Eric, having forced himself upon Daisy, and having stolen funds from his father's business to support her.
Within the play, there remains greater possibility that the victim is a composite portrait of more than one girl, explaining why the Inspector on stage is so guarded in each unveiling of the photograph. Priestley's tolerance of ambiguity on this point allows for the work to accrue much more of the nature of a parable on social responsibility and a vision of shared humanity. By establishing a narrative thread in direct relation to Eva/Daisy, the film makes clear this is not an allegory and so can avoid Priestley's sermonising tone. This explains the absence within the film of the Inspector's fundamental final speech in which he serves as the instrument for the author's socialist message on morality: 'there are millions...of Eva Smiths and John Smiths left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and a chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives and what we think say and do.'
However what both play and film share, aside from revealing issues of class conflict, is evidence of a generational conflict in that, as opposed to the genuine remorse for their actions displayed by their children, the parents refuse to countenance their own culpability for the girl's fate. Once it becomes clear that there is no Inspector Poole known to the local authorities, Mr and Mrs Birling appear to have their prejudices regalvanised, and so, it is even more satisfyingly foreboding and poignant, with Priestley's penchant for time-shifts in his theatrical work once more apparent, that a phone call to the Birling residence after the Inspector's disappearance relays the news of the recent suicide of a young woman. Priestley was an advocate of J W Dunne's theory of 'serial time' which stated that the past, present, and future were all taking place at one and the same time, and that the perception of time as linear stemmed from human consciousness.
The supporting cast all perform admirably, and, in particular, the flashback sequences serve as the means for Jane Wenham, the future first wife of Albert Finney, to deliver a touching performance as the ill-fated young girl in what was to be her promising debut in ultimately a very short-lived film career. Eileen Moore, the first wife of George Cole, who himself makes an uncredited performance here as a tram conductor, is commendable as Sheila Birling, as is Brian Worth as her intended husband-to-be. In addition, this feature serves to remind us how capable a young actor Bryan Forbes was, before his move to screenwriting and direction. Interestingly, both Hamilton and Forbes would turn down the offer to direct the opening feature in the 007 franchise: 'Dr No'.
Yet, this film exemplifies above all else Sim's under-appreciated versatility as an actor. Released in the same year as Sim's much more treasured incarnation of the headmistress of St Trinians, it is a shame that his appearances in dramatic roles were not as heralded. Given his character's spectral appearance and disappearance, it is perhaps fitting that this film, in which his dramatic talents were so evident, was coincidentally scheduled the night he passed on to whatever lies beyond this existence.
If you don't' know the play this is okay but a missed opportunity
HEFILM24 March 2006
This plays just fine as a straight forward mystery movie, but the play has more potential than that and as a straight forward mystery without the rich suggestive overtones the plot is admittedly a bit out there. So when you play something straight that isn't straight what you get is this.
Guy Hamilton doesn't add much to the proceedings and the performers mostly go through the motions in a surface way that is totally at odds with the material. There is no building sense of doom or desperation to most of the thing. It's slow and steady. Actually much of the flat footed surface approach I'd put the blame on Hamilton. At his worst he was one of those, "oh this is all just a movie" approach to too much of his output. Part of this made him perfect for Goldfinger but also helped camp up and ultimately start to wreck the Bond films later on. Most of his pre Goldfiner work is, like this film, pretty flat.
The music score is pretty lousy, though there isn't much of it, especially the stupid end credit music that further eats away the tone of the piece.
There are risky elements for the time and had the film been made in America then it would have been a disaster. Sim is quite good but perhaps a bit too laid back, though he has most of the best moments performance wise, it is again a bit of a missed opportunity to have him not rip loose ever. His expression at the end is memorable. The young brother and sister character's probably come off best, though Bryan Forbes drunk act at one point turns into a good Stan Laurel or Charlie Chaplin thing, that isn't really appropriate.
Well photographed and produced, the DVD is spotless. I suppose most or anyone who's heard of this story saw the lat 90's revival which I liked better than this film.
So if you prefer your drawing room mysteries done very dry and very safe you'll love this film and it's good on that level if you can still buy into the things that don't stick perhaps to convention.
But we'll have to wait for a less safe, more dramatic version of the very good source material rather than this film which prefers melodrama.
Guy Hamilton doesn't add much to the proceedings and the performers mostly go through the motions in a surface way that is totally at odds with the material. There is no building sense of doom or desperation to most of the thing. It's slow and steady. Actually much of the flat footed surface approach I'd put the blame on Hamilton. At his worst he was one of those, "oh this is all just a movie" approach to too much of his output. Part of this made him perfect for Goldfinger but also helped camp up and ultimately start to wreck the Bond films later on. Most of his pre Goldfiner work is, like this film, pretty flat.
The music score is pretty lousy, though there isn't much of it, especially the stupid end credit music that further eats away the tone of the piece.
There are risky elements for the time and had the film been made in America then it would have been a disaster. Sim is quite good but perhaps a bit too laid back, though he has most of the best moments performance wise, it is again a bit of a missed opportunity to have him not rip loose ever. His expression at the end is memorable. The young brother and sister character's probably come off best, though Bryan Forbes drunk act at one point turns into a good Stan Laurel or Charlie Chaplin thing, that isn't really appropriate.
Well photographed and produced, the DVD is spotless. I suppose most or anyone who's heard of this story saw the lat 90's revival which I liked better than this film.
So if you prefer your drawing room mysteries done very dry and very safe you'll love this film and it's good on that level if you can still buy into the things that don't stick perhaps to convention.
But we'll have to wait for a less safe, more dramatic version of the very good source material rather than this film which prefers melodrama.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
