Top Grade Analysis of Gerald in An Inspector Calls Mr Salles
Summary
TLDRIn this video, the analysis of Gerald's character from J.B. Priestley's play is explored, focusing on his role in socially conditioning women and his deceitful nature, demonstrated through sophistry. Gerald's actions, including his exploitation of women and his insincere grief for Eva's death, are scrutinized. The video argues that Gerald represents the capitalist exploitation of women in a patriarchal society, and Priestley uses him as a symbol of the upper-class men who profited from both World Wars. The discussion invites viewers to critically assess Gerald's behavior and its societal implications, aiming to inspire moral outrage and a rejection of such capitalist attitudes.
Takeaways
- 😀 The video discusses the character Gerald from J.B. Priestley's play 'An Inspector Calls', focusing on his role and the moral implications of his actions.
- 🔍 Gerald is initially portrayed as not entirely negative, showing some affection for Eva, which aligns with Priestley's own views on infidelity.
- 👀 The video suggests that Gerald's actions are a form of social conditioning, reflecting the patriarchal society's acceptance of male infidelity for financial security.
- 🗣️ The concept of 'sophistry' is introduced, where Gerald argues convincingly for things he doesn't believe in, such as the identity of 'the girl in the photograph'.
- 🏡 Gerald's provision of a flat for Eva is criticized as a form of sexual exploitation, using the guise of helping her while actually serving his own interests.
- 💸 The video argues that Gerald represents capitalist exploitation, particularly of women, and is a symbol of the upper class's disregard for the consequences of their actions.
- 😢 Gerald's apparent grief for Eva's death is questioned, with the video suggesting it's a facade to discredit the inspector's authority.
- 👮♂️ The inspector's leniency towards Gerald is contrasted with Priestley's deeper moral outrage at the systemic exploitation and dishonesty.
- 🔮 The video concludes that Gerald is the true villain of the play, embodying the capitalist attitudes Priestley criticizes and urging audiences to reject.
- 📚 The analysis is intended to help viewers understand the play's themes and achieve high grades in their studies or discussions of 'An Inspector Calls'.
Q & A
What is the conventional view of Gerald presented in the video?
-The conventional view of Gerald is that he is not too bad, as he had some affection for Eva and made her happy for a time, which is a perspective that the inspector also seems to share.
How does the video suggest Gerald's role in socially conditioning Sheila and women in general?
-The video suggests that Gerald plays a role in socially conditioning Sheila and women by accepting infidelity in exchange for financial security and social status, reflecting the patriarchal society's influence.
What is the concept of 'sophistry' as it relates to Gerald's character?
-Sophistry refers to the ability to argue something that one does not believe in but does so convincingly that it sounds true. Gerald is seen as a master of sophistry, particularly in his deceitful arguments about the identity of the girl in the photograph.
How does Gerald's treatment of Eva reflect his deceitfulness?
-Gerald's deceitfulness is shown through his actions with Eva, such as getting her drunk before feeding her, exploiting her vulnerability, and later denying the connection between the girl in the photograph and Eva despite the overwhelming evidence.
What does the video argue about the authenticity of Gerald's grief for Eva's death?
-The video argues that Gerald's grief for Eva's death is fake, as he uses it as a pretense to seek validation and prove the inspector's non-existence, thus avoiding responsibility for his actions.
How does the video interpret Gerald's actions in the context of capitalist sexual exploitation?
-The video interprets Gerald's actions as a representation of capitalist sexual exploitation, where he takes advantage of Eva for his sexual desires without any significant cost to himself, symbolizing the broader exploitation of women in a patriarchal society.
What is the significance of Gerald's reaction to the inspector's departure in the video's analysis?
-Gerald's reaction to the inspector's departure is significant because it reveals his true character and intentions. He uses the opportunity to check the inspector's authenticity rather than genuinely mourning Eva, highlighting his lack of empathy and self-centeredness.
How does the video link Gerald's character to the broader critique of capitalism in the play?
-The video links Gerald's character to the critique of capitalism by suggesting that he represents the capitalist class that profits from the exploitation of others, particularly during times of war, and justifies his actions through sophistry.
What is the video's stance on Priestley's portrayal of Gerald and his actions?
-The video suggests that Priestley portrays Gerald as a villain and a symbol of the kind of capitalist he wants the audience to reject, highlighting the social issues of the time and encouraging a shift towards a more socially responsible perspective.
How does the video analyze the inspector's attitude towards Gerald?
-The video analyzes the inspector's attitude as being less critical of Gerald, possibly reflecting Priestley's own views on infidelity, but also subtly suggesting that the inspector's leniency is a societal view that Priestley is critiquing.
Outlines
🔍 Analyzing Gerald's Character and Role in Conditioning Women
This paragraph introduces the character Gerald and his role in the narrative. Gerald is initially portrayed as not entirely negative, with some affection for Eva, which earns him a relatively lenient judgment from the inspector. However, the paragraph delves deeper into Gerald's actions, suggesting that he is socially conditioning Sheila and women in general. The concept of sophistry is introduced, where Gerald is accused of arguing convincingly for things he doesn't believe in, making them sound true. The paragraph also discusses Gerald's deceit in relation to the girl in the photograph, using his own words to argue against his own claims, and his feigned grief for Eva's death, which is suspected to be insincere. Finally, Gerald's character is linked to capitalist sexual exploitation of women within a patriarchal society, setting the stage for a critical examination of his actions and their societal implications.
💬 Gerald's Sophistry and Exploitation of Eva
The second paragraph focuses on Gerald's use of sophistry to deceive and exploit Eva. It details how Gerald gets Eva drunk to make her more suggestible and then feeds her information that matches what the Birling family knows about her, yet later denies that they are the same person. This is seen as a form of sophistry, where he argues something he knows to be untrue convincingly. The paragraph also discusses how Gerald exploits Eva by installing her in a flat lent to him by a friend, which is described as a 'nice' place for his sexual adventures. The narrative suggests that Eva is aware of her exploitation and saves money in anticipation of the affair's end. Gerald's actions are contrasted with the idea of paying for sex at a bar, implying that his method is a more deceitful form of exploitation. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that Priestley uses Gerald to symbolize the upper-class men who exploit women both sexually and economically.
😤 Gerald's Self-Justification and Priestley's Critique of Capitalism
In this paragraph, Gerald's self-justification and Priestley's critique of capitalism are explored. Gerald claims to be an honorable man who acted out of affection, but his actions are revealed to be premeditated and self-serving. He is shown to be dishonest about his grief over Eva's death, using it as a means to prove the inspector's non-existence and, by extension, to absolve himself and others of responsibility for Eva's fate. The paragraph argues that Gerald is a symbol of the capitalist class that profited from both World Wars, in contrast to the Burling family. Priestley is portrayed as deeply critical of Gerald's behavior, viewing him as the true villain of the play and a representative of the capitalist exploitation that he wants the audience to reject. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that Gerald's actions and the societal conditioning that allows them are the real targets of Priestley's critique.
🏛 The Impact of Gerald's Actions and Priestley's Message
The final paragraph summarizes the impact of Gerald's actions and Priestley's overarching message. It highlights how Gerald's exploitation of Eva and his dishonesty about his grief are paralleled with the exploitation of upper-class men over their wives. The paragraph emphasizes that Gerald's attempt to prove the inspector's non-existence is a form of sophistry, meant to evade responsibility for his actions. It concludes by asserting that Gerald is the true villain of the play, representing the capitalist interests that Priestley wants the audience to reject in favor of a socialist government. The paragraph ends with a call to action for viewers to achieve high grades by understanding the complex themes and character dynamics presented in the video.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Sophistry
💡Patriarchal Society
💡Infidelity
💡Sexual Exploitation
💡Capitalism
💡Inspector
💡Affection
💡Social Conditioning
💡Grief
💡Class Exploitation
Highlights
Gerald's character is analyzed as not being too bad, according to the inspector's view.
Gerald is seen as having some affection for Eva, which makes him less blameworthy.
The inspector's leniency towards Gerald might reflect Priestley's own views on infidelity.
Sheila's words suggest a societal acceptance of infidelity in exchange for financial security.
Gerald's role in socially conditioning Sheila and women is examined.
The concept of sophistry is introduced to describe Gerald's deceitful arguments.
Gerald's words are used to argue that the girl in the photograph must be Eva, despite his claims to the contrary.
Gerald's apparent grief for Eva's death is questioned as being insincere.
Gerald represents the capitalist sexual exploitation of women in a patriarchal society.
Sheila's acceptance of Gerald's honesty reflects the patriarchal society's conditioning.
Gerald's exploitation of Eva is detailed, showing his premeditated actions.
The 'nice little set of rooms' is revealed as a place for Gerald's sexual exploitation.
Eva's saving money indicates her awareness of being sexually exploited.
Gerald's behavior is paralleled with how upper-class men exploit their wives.
Gerald's dishonesty about his grief is exposed through his actions post-inspector's visit.
Gerald's character is a symbol of the capitalist exploitation Priestley criticizes.
The video aims to help viewers understand Priestley's critique of Gerald's character and the societal implications.
Transcripts
hello and welcome to another quick ish
video aiming to get you the very top
grades with Gerald it is incredibly easy
because there's so much to argue about
and as soon as you start talking about
more than one interpretation you are
automatically moving into grade 7 and
above so we're going to start with the
conventional view of Gerald that he's
actually not too bad as the inspector
says he at least had some affection for
her meaning Eva and made her happy for a
time so Gerald gets off quite lightly
from the inspectors blame but we're
going to look at Gerald's role in
socially conditioning a Sheila and women
then we're going to look at this idea of
a sophistry the idea of being able to
argue something you don't believe in but
because you argue it so well it sounds
true so he's actually incredibly
deceitful we're going to look at all the
reasons the girl in the photograph must
have been either and we're going to use
Gerald's own words to prove it even
though he's the one who suggests that
they're not the same girl then we're
going to look at the apparent grief that
he shows and for Eva's death which is a
fake and then finally we're going to
look at how he represents the capitalist
sexual exploitation of women in a
patriarchal society and you will
understand all of that over the next 12
minutes so the inspector isn't
particularly critical of Gerald and that
sounds like Priestley isn't now this is
possibly I've written he himself I mean
Priestley himself was openly unfaithful
in his marriage and so he didn't
disapprove of Gerald having an affair
you know having sex outside marriage was
not a big deal to Priestley he believed
that that was the right way to behave
so that explains why the inspector is
reasonably complimentary of Gerald
because he represents Priestley's views
but something deeper is going on here
so now let's look at Sheila's words and
so she says to Gerald
and now at least you've been honest and
I believe what you told us about the way
you helped her at first just out of pity
so it seems that she Lo is also the
voice of the inspector and also
therefore the voice of Priestley is also
forgiving of Gerald therefore we
shouldn't be too critical of him but I
think Priestley also invites our moral
outrage about this Sheila in this
quotation is prepared to accept this
honesty because the patriarchal society
that means a society ruled by men in the
interests of men has conditioned her to
accept infidelity that is having affairs
a condition der to accept infidelity in
return for the financial security and
social status of marriage so rich women
from powerful families are still treated
as in some ways objects that their
husbands possess and the trade-off for
these women is well it's better to be
the object of a rich husband who you can
at least influence than it is to be the
property of your father
and your parents and this is the
position that Sheila has and to a bigger
extent Eva has they will accept quite
appalling behavior from men because it's
better than the alternative and I think
priestly is actually morally outraged at
this so when the inspector seems to
forgive Gerald a little bit that's
giving society's view about his behavior
towards Eva but actually he's very very
disgusted about the way that Gerald lies
about his affair and I'll show you what
I mean now so this word sophistry
remember was being able to argue
something that you know is untrue but to
do it in such a brilliant way that it
sounds true and we see Gerald's
deceptions as a four
of sophistry so when he first meets Eva
he gets her drunk before he feeds her
now he can clearly see that she's down
on her luck and therefore considering
prostitution and therefore short of
money and obviously she's going to be
hungry in order to make this for her
terrible decision and to start looking
for male company in exchange for money
but Gerald exploits that he takes her
off and pretends to care for her or
cares for her a little bit but he makes
sure he gets her drunk first because
this will make her more suggestible she
then tells him so many details which
match exactly what the burling's already
know about her but once the inspectors
gone he still pretends that they are all
different girls and the reason he does
that is to say well if we all did
something to different girls doesn't
really matter
and obviously Eric and Sheila don't
accept that the inspector wouldn't
accept that although he's not on stage
Priestley wouldn't accept that he wants
us to be really critical of Gerald's and
sophisticated argument that it doesn't
really matter because of course it does
so quite apart from her appearance which
is brown haired brown eyed attractive
and young all these things also exactly
match what we know from the burnings and
what Eva told Gerald so that she'd lost
both parents that she came originally
from somewhere outside Brumley in the
countryside that she'd had a job in one
of the works here and that she'd had to
leave after a strike and she said
something about a verse shop - now I've
put the because that is mill words not a
shop the exact shop so you know it would
be an extraordinary coincidence wouldn't
it far beyond what we'd be expected to
believe that this girl was in fact made
up of loads of different girls when
everything about her fits exactly
everybody else knows so general
suggestion that it could be different
photos of different girls is sophistry
yes in theory that could be possible but
in actual fact no the probability is
just too great now let's go back to his
words all the inspectors words that say
Gerald treated Eva with some kindness
well in some ways he did but he said he
never meant to have a mistress and he
never meant to have an affair but let's
look at the evidence he installs her in
a flat which is lent to him by his
friend and look at his words it happened
that a friend of mine had gone off to
Canada for six months and had let me
have the key of a nice little set of
rooms now look at the word nice here as
in or I could put that to some nice use
it would be really convenient or what
for Gerald's got somewhere to live well
obviously in order to have a sexual
adventure in order to install a woman
there rent free a very little cost and
have her available whenever he wanted
her so now we can see that these rooms
are actually all about sexual
exploitation so let's consider a
different meeting with Eva in the palace
bar where he decided that actually he
was going to pay for sex well every time
he wanted sex he then have to pay for it
compare that to the nice little set of
rooms where he can install her for
nothing for free it doesn't cost him a
thing and he persuades her that he's
making this grand gesture to help her
out obviously she's grateful and then he
can have sex with her when he wants and
not make it seem like a grubby monetary
exchange but of course it is a grubby
monetary exchange because as soon as his
friend comes back from Canada
he doesn't pay for her to go to another
apartment oh no he just boots her out he
does it in a way that makes him feel
less bad about himself so he says he'd
given her an allow
which is obviously less than he'd have
to play at the palace bar and she'd
lived very economically and what I'd
allowed her so she'd saved
why was she saving well she knew that
she was being sexually exploited she
knew this relationship wouldn't last
she knew what Gerald was up to and
therefore she had to save money for when
the affair would end even with this and
his parting gift to her she can only
fund two months stay in the
bed-and-breakfast at the seaside and
then all her money runs out this is much
less than he would have had to have paid
to rent a flat in Bromley to put her up
in now Priestley does this to symbolize
how Gerald is like all upper-class men
not just that they're happy to pay for
sex but also that they see any
relationship as a way for them to
exploit women in economic ways so even a
wife Sheila is going to be exploited in
the same way she will have to put up
with his infidelities he's having
affairs she will have to put up with his
way of treating her in some ways as a
possession because that's all that
society allows and Priestley's raged
about this self-justification where
Gerald can say that actually he's an
honourable human being and that he's
doing it out of affection and care when
obviously he isn't he's premeditated
this and he's just kicked her out as
soon as it's become inconvenient to pay
for her in any meaningful way now he
makes a great show of his emotions when
he goes out he says the inspectors do
you not mind if I leave as I seem to
have been affected from more by this you
know I've only just taken in the EVAs
dead well the inspector lets him go but
what does he do well he says that he
found a sergeant that he knew well is
his complete rubbish and sergeants
didn't go out pounding the beat they
would stay at
police station so what's Gerald
obviously done he's actually gone
straight to a police station and to
speak to a sergeant to find out if the
inspector is real he suspects all along
that the inspector isn't real because of
how rude the inspector was to him and
he's used to being treated as a man of
status coming from an upper-class family
so he pretends to be upset by the death
in order to prove that the inspector
isn't real and to expose him and
therefore to claim that what they did to
Eva didn't make any difference because
it's not real inspector well obviously
as Sheila points out doesn't matter that
he wasn't a real inspector and even Eric
says he inspected us all right
meaning and it doesn't matter that he
wasn't a real inspector we all did what
we did but Gerald wants to pretend that
what they did to Eva has no consequence
of the inspector is not real there's a
word for that hopefully you remember it
there it is it's sophistry presenting
something as though it's true when you
know it's not so why is Priestley
potentially so angry with Gerald well
I'm going to argue that he is a much
greater symbol of capitalism and the
burling's Gerald if you think about it
is the real face of capitalism in 1945
because in 1912 when the play takes
place and he's over 30 years old he's
going to be old enough to escape the
first world war in 1914 he's not gonna
be made to enlist and also he's probably
going to be used for the war effort
running his father's textile company
Crofts limited and so he will be needed
at home to make sure that all these
soldiers have their uniforms that will
be the business so obviously he'll be
able to show he's supporting the war
effort and also he'll be able to show
that he's a bit old to be going off to
fight so he is the exact kind of
capitalist who has exploited the country
between the two world wars an awful lot
of businesses
Kame incredibly rich off the back of
them the war jeralds business would have
been one of them along with the
burling's but here's the key thing he
would still be running that business
during the second world war so he is the
kind of capitalist who is profiting from
both world wars whereas the the Burling
parents and the Croft parents certainly
won't be running the business and
probably dead by 1945 so the capitalism
that Priestley is attacking in the play
is Gerald and Gerald is the person who
says one thing but actually believes
something else he is the person who
Priestley wants us to reject and he is
therefore the symbol of the kind of
capitalists who've made a profit out of
the blood of young men that is the fire
and blood and anguish that the inspector
was talking about so this is quite a
difficult argument but I hope you've
managed to follow it
although the inspector doesn't seem to
blame gerald once the inspector goes
Gerald's next actions show Priestley's
real view that we are socially
conditioned to accept this kind of
appalling behavior from upper-class men
but actually the way they justify it is
a form of sophistry he proves that by
making Gerald himself describe so many
details about Eva to prove that they
must be the same girl he lets us know
that there was a huge element of
premeditation in him taking on this flat
and therefore installing a woman in it
in order to sexually exploit her he
draws this parallel between the way eva
is exploited and the way upper-class men
exploit their own wives we then see how
dishonest he is about his grief at Eva's
death and he is in fact gone out to try
and prove that the inspector is not real
because Priestley's point is it doesn't
matter whether the inspector was
or not it matters what they did and the
person who has been doing that all the
way since 1912 till 1945 in the play in
the world of the play will be Gerald not
the burling's and not Gerald's parents
for Crofts so Gerald is the true villain
of the play he is the capitalist that
Priestley wants the audience to reject
when they vote for a socialist
government in 1945 so hopefully you can
now nail that grade seven or eight or
nine thank you very much for watching
and subscribing see you soon on my
channel
関連動画をさらに表示
Mr Birling in TEN Quotations - 'An Inspector Calls' GCSE English Literature Revision
'An Inspector Calls': Mr Birling Character Analysis (animated)
get to KNOW him thru unhinged Q&A 🫣 | VLOGMAS DAY 9
'An Inspector Calls': Act 1 Summary
An Inspector Calls: Context And Background
An Inspector Calls Context - J B Priestley
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)