A Look at the Play ‘An Inspector Calls,’ Recently Published with a Translation by Bozorg Alavi

According to the Iran Book News Agency (IBNA), this play, also known as ‘An Inspector Calls’ (Bazpars Vared Mishavad), has been adapted into several theatrical productions, teleplays, films, and TV series.

The wealthy Birling family is celebrating their daughter Sheila’s engagement to Gerald Croft. Suddenly, Inspector Goole enters and announces the suicide of a young woman named Eva Smith.

The main message of the play is that we are all responsible for one another. Priestley sharply criticizes capitalist individualism. Eva Smith’s identity symbolizes the working class; Priestley shows how the affluent class views her instrumentally. Priestley was interested in the philosophical theories of his time. The play’s structure—reversibility, warning, the cycle of repetition—reflects these views. The Birling family members try to justify their actions, but the inspector forces them to confront reality.

The play has received the most global attention from leftist critics. Many critics, including Raymond Williams, consider the play a prime example of British “social morality theater.” Williams writes: “This play shows that social conscience is not an individual matter; rather, it is a structural issue.”

Researchers like John Boulton, in literary analytical articles of the 1960s and 70s, showed that the play is a critical response to the growth of liberal individualism before the war.

Especially the character of Mr. Birling is carefully designed as a symbol of blind capitalism.

Critics like Steven Warwick and Mark Spiro write that: “The ending of the play highlights the recurring cycle of irresponsibility.”

Classical critics, such as Irene Shaw, consider the play an example of “unity of time, place, and action.” All events occur on one night and in one place, which gives the play a quasi-classical tragic quality.

Some critics (e.g., Timothy Sidler from Modern Drama magazine) believe the work uses the police procedural format to create a “moral interrogation.” He says: “The inspector is not a detective; rather, he is the hidden conscience dressed in a police uniform.”

Feminist scholars, including Elaine Aston, consider this play an example of criticizing the position of women in pre-war society.

They emphasize these points: Eva Smith symbolizes working-class and powerless women. Sheila Birling is the only female character who undergoes a moral transformation.

The conclusion of these critiques is usually: Priestley shows how patriarchal and class structures destroy vulnerable women.

In addition, important reviews have been written about various productions—especially the 1992 production directed by Stephen Daldry.

J.B. Priestley’s play, ‘An Inspector Calls,’ is one of the unique works of British dramatic literature that, more than seventy years after its first performance, continues to be a subject of discussion among critics, researchers, and the general public. This work is not merely a detective play, nor solely a moral drama; rather, it is a combination of social realism, mystery, and a kind of philosophical reflection on the role of humans in shaping each other’s destinies. This multilayered nature prevents the play from being easily categorized and allows for multiple interpretations.

The story begins in 1912, in the home of the wealthy Birling family, on a night when they are celebrating their daughter Sheila’s engagement. With the sudden arrival of Inspector Goole – a calm, serious, and somewhat mysterious character – everything changes. He reports that a young woman named Eva Smith has committed suicide, and now it must be revealed how each person present in the house played a role in the woman’s downfall. The narrative structure is a step-by-step interrogation, in which a new layer of the past is revealed each time, and the characters gradually confront darker aspects of themselves.

One of the play’s most important strengths is the precise and rhythmic dialogue. Priestley, with professional skill, gradually increases the tension from beginning to end. Each confession darkens the atmosphere slightly, and each time the audience thinks the truth is complete, a new question arises. This method is reminiscent of classic crime dramas and also evokes a tragic structure, one in which the characters, the more they try to prove themselves innocent, the more they fall into moral collapse.

The character of Inspector Goole is at the center of attention. He is neither entirely like a police inspector nor like a preaching social thinker. Ostensibly, his method is simple: asking direct questions and holding characters accountable for their actions. But on a deeper level, his behavior is more akin to the presence of an “embodied conscience.” He does not get angry, he does not threaten, he does not seek to assert power; rather, with strange calmness, he gradually draws them out of a defensive posture. This ambiguity has made him one of the most enduring characters in English dramatic literature.

The main theme of the play revolves around a recurring axis: the connection of our small actions to the lives of others. Priestley does not offer direct criticism or slogans; rather, through the precise arrangement of events, he shows how a seemingly simple decision – firing a worker, ignoring a poor woman’s request, or an ill-considered emotional behavior – can have a devastating impact on a life’s trajectory. This human and moral message, although it carries social weight, is not dependent on a specific ideology. The play neither rejects capitalism nor prescribes a specific social system; rather, it reminds the audience that no action occurs in a vacuum.

One of the valuable achievements of the play is the way the Birling family characters are developed. Each of them is not merely a representative of a moral, class, or personality type; rather, they appear as multifaceted individuals. Mr. Birling, the father, despite his self-confidence and power, sometimes falters when faced with the inspector’s simple questions. Mrs. Birling, with her composed appearance and aristocratic demeanor, gradually becomes fragile and defensive as her past is revealed. Sheila, the young character of the family, experiences a genuine internal transformation during the play and shows one of the most honest moral reactions. Eric, the nervous and restless son, gradually becomes central to one of the most important confessions in the story. Even Gerald, the future son-in-law, is not an entirely black-and-white character; his relationship with Eva Smith simultaneously contains both compassion and exploitation.

The play is written against a historical backdrop that is worth analyzing. Priestley wrote it in 1945, shortly after World War II, but set the story in 1912. This deliberate time gap provides a kind of historical insight to the audience. In 1912, the world had not yet entered the war, and many common perceptions about progress, morality, and social stability were different. By setting the story in this year, Priestley offers a historical warning: that blind trust in social order and disregard for human responsibilities can enable future catastrophes. This work neither chronicles history nor theorizes; rather, it simply portrays how pride and undue confidence can build the groundwork for future downfall.

At the end of the play, a surprising twist occurs. The family assumes the inspector was not really from the police. They breathe a sigh of relief, and many try to justify their actions again. But moments later, the phone rings: a young woman has just committed suicide, and a real inspector is on his way to the house. This clever ending has three important functions:

• First, it emphasizes that morality and truth cannot be invalidated by casting doubt on the inspector’s character; truth remains steadfast regardless of its source.
• Second, it shows that the cycle of human irresponsibility can be repeated many times.
• And third, it confronts the audience with a question that is also personally thought-provoking: if there is another chance for redemption, would we truly take it?

‘An Inspector Calls’ has significant dramatic potential in terms of production. Its limited staging, focus on rhythmic dialogues, and intelligent use of a confined space allow directors to offer various interpretations. Some productions have emphasized the mystery aspect of the work, while others have read it as a pure moral drama. The play’s flexibility in this regard is a major advantage: Priestley left his message within an open framework so that it can be reinterpreted in different historical periods and cultural contexts.

In summary, ‘An Inspector Calls’ is a work whose literary and dramatic value extends beyond conventional political readings. The play successfully draws the audience’s attention to the quality of human relationships and the effect of individual actions on the lives of others, without resorting to explicit slogans. More than suggesting a way to govern society, this work reminds the audience that ethics, responsibility, and empathy are individual concepts that gain meaning in a collective context. In a world where events are accelerating and relationships are becoming increasingly complex, the play’s message remains fresh and thought-provoking: that humans, with all their weaknesses and strengths, are partners in shaping each other’s destinies. Such an understanding, though it may seem simple at first glance, deeply raises one of the fundamental ethical questions of the modern world: how aware are we of the impact of our small actions on the lives of others?

Many productions of this play have been staged worldwide, and in Iran, a teleplay adaptation directed by Reza Babak was broadcast on television. Bozorg Alavi’s rare translation of this play, titled “Mostanteg” (The Interrogator) in Persian, was published in Iran shortly after its original publication and performance worldwide. This translation, after several decades, was re-released in Autumn 2025 by Nariman Publications, in 118 pages, priced at 200,000 Tomans, and sent to bookstores.