Hello and welcome and thank you for joining me for today's English lesson.

My name's Mrs. Butterworth and I will be your teacher for today.

Now I'm really looking forward to today's lesson 'cause it's all about "An Inspector Calls".

So do make sure you have access to that text because we will be referring to it throughout the lesson, which is focused on the characters of Gerald and Eva and the themes of class and power.

So lots to get through so we better get started.

So in this lesson, you will understand and explain the significance of the characters, Gerald Croft and Eva Smith, while considering them as character foils.

But before we delve into the lesson, let's look at those all important key words.

Now you may spot them popping up throughout the lesson.

Now these words are foreshadow, superficial, motive, foil, and comparative conjunctions.

Now if you foreshadow something, it means to hint or suggest something that will happen later in a story.

So we're gonna be thinking about how the descriptions of Gerald Croft may foreshadow things that happen later in the play.

If you are superficial, you are only concerned with looks or outward appearance.

So you're not really interested in anything deep or meaningful.

You could be considered superficial.

If you have a motive, you have an intention.

So a motive is the reason or intention behind a person's actions or behaviour, linked to the word motivation, if you like.

The word foil is a character who contrasts with another character.

So we're gonna be looking at how Gerald and Eva are foils to each other.

And then finally, comparative conjunctions.

So comparative conjunctions are words used to show how two things are similar or different.

And the outline of our lesson looks like this.

We're going to start by looking at Gerald, so understanding his character.

Then we're going to look at Eva, and then we're going to move on to think about how we can write about Gerald and Eva as character foils.

So let's begin by understanding the character of Gerald.

So after reading the play, our Oak pupils made these comments about Gerald.

So let's read them shall we? Andeep said, "I think Gerald is superficial.

You can see this when he tries to downplay his affair with Daisy Renton." Sam says, "I was shocked by Gerald's dual life because he presents himself as honourable, but his actions show deceit and hypocrisy." And finally, Sofia says that, "Gerald is a flawed character.

This is clear when he abandons Daisy Renton, despite claiming to care for her." Now, I'd like you to discuss, please, who do you agree with and why? So you'll need to pause the video to give yourself time to discuss that question.

If you're working on your own, you may wish to think quietly to yourself or even write a few ideas down, but you'll need to pause your video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

Okay.

So I want you to keep your ideas and those statements in your mind as we look at this next bit.

So in the initial stage directions, Gerald Croft is described as the following, he's described as attractive, well-bred, man-about-town, manly and chap.

So thinking about some of those comments about Gerald at the end of the play, I'd like you to discuss please, how is Gerald presented in these stage directions and how might this foreshadow later events in the play? Okay, so how is Gerald presented and how might this foreshadow later events in the play? You're gonna need to pause your video to give yourself time to answer this question.

Off you go.

Okay, so I have some answers here.

You may have discussed something similar, but it's good to get some feedback and to share some ideas.

So in terms of how he is presented, there's this idea that he has this superficial charm, isn't there? You know, he's attractive and well bred and these traits really emphasise his high class position within society, but could also hint at his ability to see that kind of superficial charm to do with his class, his status, and how he looks.

This idea of him having a dual life, you know, he's described as a man-about-town and if we think about what happens, this becomes very significant because it suggests that he's social and potentially has hidden relationships, unknown to Sheila.

You know, he goes about town, he socialises, he goes out a lot.

And this foreshadows his affair with Eva Smith.

The way he's described as this kind of traditional masculine idea of manly.

But it also hints at this power, which we know is later misused with Eva.

And then finally, the idea of him being a flawed character.

So he's described as like a chap, which could reflect a relatable facade, but that could mask moral failings.

You know, chap is almost someone that's a bit, you know, we think of it being almost cheeky or you know, again, that idea about man-about-town.

So there is something here about Gerald that, you know, is a bit deceitful, a bit uncertain, and all of those sorts of things.

Which words are used to describe Gerald in the stage directions.

You need to pick A, B, or C for your answer, please.

Okay, well done to everyone that's noticed, it was two words, b and c, attractive and chap.

Like the other characters in the play, Gerald narrates his own story.

So he tells his version of what happened with Eva.

Now it could be argued that Gerald is an unreliable narrator.

Now what this means is that his perspective on events in the play may be influenced by other motives.

Okay, so Gerald may choose to present the story in a certain way because of other things, other motives.

So these include things like maintaining his reputation as an upper class member of society.

Now we know from the start of the play, Mr. Birling refers to Gerald's parents as Lord and Lady.

So we know he has this high class standing in society and this links this other motive of protecting his family name.

You know, he has this status, this important reputation.

Another motive could be the successful continuation of his engagement with Sheila.

That he almost wants to do some damage control on the story because if he tells it in all its truthfulness, he's going to ruin that engagement.

So we could argue that part of Gerald's narration and the fact that he could be an unreliable narrator is because of these motives and they may drive him to try and control his narrative.

So you are now going to do some reading with all of this in mind.

So I'd like you please to find act two, page 34 from when Gerald says "I," to page 39, where the inspector says "You." If you look in your text, you should be able to find it.

So once you've found that and you are reading that, I would like you to consider how Gerald describes the events and his involvement with Eva.

It's very telling and very interesting to think about.

Okay, so when you found that section in the text, pause the video so you can read it and then consider how Gerald describes the events and his involvement with Eva.

Off you go.

Okay, great, thank you.

Let's just look at some ideas here.

So I'm sure you picked up on some similar things.

So Gerald talks about when he first meets Eva in the bar and describes Eva giving him a look that suggested she needed help.

Now this isn't to say that Eva didn't need help, it's, you know, when Gerald describes what's happening in the bar, it does sound like truly awful what is happening to Eva.

But in terms of the narrative, Gerald chooses to foreground this look where Eva's almost explicitly asking him for help through this look.

He says that he felt sorry for Eva and describes her as grateful.

So again, there's this sense that, you know, he's doing a really selfless charitable thing.

You know, he gains nothing from this.

So again, how he's describing this all is very interesting and Sheila even mocks him slightly by saying that, "Oh, you were the fairy prince," in this story.

So there's this idea of like Gerald is controlling his narrative by presenting himself as this kind of selfless hero.

To summarise, Gerald controls his narrative presenting himself as a hero in the story.

Although he seems to take some responsibility for his actions, he downplays his involvement and impact on Eva's life.

He foregrounds this kind of good thing that he did.

Now Laura asks this question, "Didn't Gerald do a nice thing? He gave her money and a place to live," which is a really good question from Laura.

I'd like you to discuss, please, how might you respond to Laura to argue Gerald's actions were not entirely selfless.

So you may want to think about his role as an unreliable narrator and also what he got from their relationship.

So pause the video so you can discuss your answer, off you go.

Thank you for your answers everyone.

I think it's really important to acknowledge that the relationship between Gerald and Eva is a lot more complicated than that he just did a nice thing for her because also if we just view it as that we forget about the purpose of the play of what Priestley's trying to say about class, about power, about social responsibility.

So it is important to consider the following when exploring Gerald's relationship with Eva.

So we need to acknowledge that there is a power imbalance.

So Gerald uses his status to control Eva but not help her equally.

You know, he acts in self-interest.

His actions benefited more than they truly helped Eva.

He kind of took what he needed from the situation and then Eva was left when he didn't need her anymore.

And that links to this idea.

He offered short term help but kept class divisions intact.

So yes, he helped her, but it wasn't a long-term solution.

And Priestley uses Gerald to show how the upper class can exploit the vulnerable.

True or false time.

Gerald presents himself as the hero of his own narrative, emphasising how he saved Eva.

Is that true or is that false? I'd like your answer now, please.

Yes, well done to everyone that said true.

But now can you explain why that statement is true please? Off you go.

Okay, so here's an answer.

Perhaps you have something similar.

Gerald presents himself as a hero by highlighting how he gave Eva shelter and money, framing his actions as a rescue.

He emphasises his generosity ignoring the power imbalance and his underlying self interest.

Okay, so your first practise task.

So Lucas has made this statement, "Although Gerald presents himself as a hero, his actions reveal a deeper exploitation of Eva and his narrative can be challenged." So I want you to think about that statement and then I'd like you to discuss, please, how far do you agree with this statement? So you may want to consider the following, Gerald's motives, his societal position as an upper class man, and Priestley's intentions, and what role Gerald serves in the play.

So lots to think about there.

So think about the discussions that we've had so far too.

So when you're ready, pause the video and discuss your answers.

If you're working by yourself, you can think quietly or even write some ideas down.

But pause the video and off you go.

Great, some really lively, interesting discussions there.

It was really great to hear your thoughts on that and I loved how some of you were using specific examples to the text to really bolster your arguments.

Fantastic work.

So we have part of Jun's response here, so let's read this through together.

So Jun has said that, "Although Gerald appears heroic, his motives can be seen as self-serving using his upper class privilege to control Eva.

Priestley uses Gerald to expose class hypocrisy showing how the wealthy exploit the vulnerable while maintaining a facade of morality." That's a great comment from Jun, isn't it? This facade of morality.

And this is kind of what Gerald's doing, isn't it? He's presenting himself as this hero and that he's done something good without really acknowledging what happens.

So that's a really great comment from Jun.

But now I would like you to discuss please, do you agree or disagree with Jun? Pause the video to discuss your answers, off you go.

Okay, well done everyone.

We are at the second part of our lesson.

So now we're going to focus on the character of Eva.

So Eva Smith is such an interesting character, isn't she? She has no lines and she's not physically present on the stage, but she could be considered one of the most important characters in the play.

Arguably everything centres around her even though she isn't physically present.

Now, Eva Smith symbolises the struggles of the working class.

She reveals the impact of others' actions on vulnerable people.

She exposes the flaws in the characters, especially the Birlings and Gerald.

And although not present, her influence drives the play's moral lessons.

So she really is an important part of the play.

Now arguably, Eva Smith's importance is established through Priestley's choice of name.

So there are lots of interpretations around the choice of name.

So I wanna hear what you think.

What do you think about Eva Smith's name and what might it link to? So we've got some images there that you can use as clues.

So I'd like you to discuss please, what you think Eva Smith's name might link to? So pause a video to discuss your ideas or think quietly to yourself.

Off you go.

Okay, great.

Some really interesting predictions, ideas, lots of people using the images.

So that's really great.

So let's just explore some of those.

So the significance of Eva Smith's name.

Now interestingly, Eva was one of the most popular names in the earlier 20th century when the play is set.

So arguably this name symbolises the working class as a whole, not just as an individual.

So there's like lots of eithers if you like.

Also the name Eva connects to Eve.

So from the Garden of Eden and the creation story.

And in this sense it kind of, she could represent all of womankind.

And Eva's defiance in the play perhaps mirrors Eve's act of eating the forbidden fruit.

So again, Eva's defiance serves as a catalyst in the play for lots of things that happen.

So we could be linking it to that.

And Smith is really significant because it is one and still is one of the most common surnames in Britain.

Now historically, this name is linked to working class occupation.

So if you think of things like blacksmiths or blacksmithing.

So that's where the name came from and this really reinforces Eva's representation of the working class.

So this name is really significant and I think arguably Priestley was really purposeful in choosing that name.

So true or false time, Priestley's choice of the name Eva Smith may have connections to Eve and the biblical creation story.

Is that true or false? Tell me your answers now please.

Well done to everyone that said true, you are correct.

You now need to explain why the answer is true.

Off you go.

Okay, so there are some interpretations that link Eva Smith's name to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Perhaps her defiance is symbolic of Eve eating the apple.

So I'd like you to read the inspector's final speech please.

So you are looking for act three, page 56 from where the inspector says, "Your," to where he leaves and he says, "Goodnight." So find that section in your text and then as you read, I would like you please to consider the following question, why does Priestley use the names John, Eva and Smith? What does he mean when he says there are millions of them? So go back to the text, read it, and then consider those questions and we'll feed back in a moment.

Make sure you're ready to go, pause the video and get reading.

Okay, great.

It's such a fantastic final speech from the inspector, isn't it, so powerful.

And Priestley uses common names like John, Eva and Smith to represent ordinary working class people.

So it emphasises their universal struggles.

You know there are millions of Johns and Eva Smiths and you know, he uses the word million to highlight the widespread exploitation and suffering they face.

So Priestley use those names to highlight and almost give these nameless people a name if you like the John Smith, the Eva Smiths.

So we're onto our second practise task, okay? So we've thought a little bit about Eva's character.

There is so much we can say about Eva, but let's just discuss now.

So although not present physically on the stage, Eva Smith can be considered the most important character in the play.

I'd like you to discuss please, how far do you agree with this statement? So you could consider what she represents, the significance of her name and what she reveals about the other characters.

Okay, so lots to think about there.

I can't wait to see what you come up with and your personal responses to this.

So when you're ready, pause the video and get discussing.

Or if you're working on your own, you can think to yourself or write your answers down.

Off you go.

Okay, some really great stuff happening there.

So interesting, isn't it to think about the importance of Eva as a character, what she represents, you know, all that work that she's doing despite never even uttering a line or being on stage.

It's quite incredible really.

So we have Aisha's response here and she says that, "Eva Smith, though absent, is crucial as she symbolises the exploited working class.

Her name Eva arguably links to all women and Smith to commonality.

She exposes flaws in the Birlings' morality, embodying Priestley's call for social change." So I'd like you just to consider Aisha's response.

Think about your previous discussions and now I'd like you to discuss, do you agree or disagree with Aisha? Okay, pause the video to come up with your answer.

Off you go.

Okay, so we have looked at Gerald and we have looked at Eva.

We're now going to consider Gerald and Eva's character foils and how we can write about them.

So Gerald Croft could be considered a foil to Eva Smith and actually we could say it the other way around, that Ether Smith could be considered a foil to Gerald Croft.

Now a foil is a character who contrasts another character.

So if we think about Gerald, Gerald could be considered Eva's foil as he represents privilege and power while she symbolises the oppressed.

And arguably Priestley uses this contrast to highlight the deep divisions in society and the need for change.

So let's consider the main contrasts between Gerald and Eva.

So social status and class.

So we know that Gerald comes from an incredibly wealthy, privileged background.

You know, his parents are Lord and Lady, while Eva is from the working class.

There's also this moral contrast between the two, isn't there? Gerald sees himself as a hero for helping Eva, but his actions ultimately exploit her while Eva's innocence and vulnerability expose his moral flaws.

So there's a real contrast there in that.

And gender.

So the fact that Gerald is a man in Edwardian times and Eva is a working class woman in Edwardian times, really has a big contrast, doesn't it? Because Gerald as a man at this time holds power and privilege while Eva as a working class woman is really vulnerable in Edwardian society.

So true or false, Gerald and Eva can be considered foils because they share similar experiences of societal expectations.

Is that true or false? I'd like to hear your answers now, please.

Are we ready? Yeah, well done to everyone that said false, and notice why it's false, but you need to explain why it's false.

Off you go.

Okay, so you may have noticed that word similar there in that statement, which is what made it false because character foils use contrast to emphasise key ideas.

Gerald and Eva are foils because their experiences and places in society are so different.

Priestley does this to highlight social inequality and I think he does it quite effectively.

So when comparing characters, it can be useful to use comparative conjunction.

So particularly in something like " An Inspector Calls", you may have to compare characters, their experiences, their descriptions, all of that kind of stuff.

So comparative conjunctions include words such as contrastingly, whereas, however, nonetheless, and on the other hand.

So I'm gonna give you two examples of statements using comparative conjunctions here.

They're both on the characters of Gerald and Eva.

Arguably both Eva and Gerald are affected by societal expectations.

However, Gerald's privilege allows him to navigate these pressures more easily while Eva faces harsher consequences for breaking social norms. Here's the next one.

Gerald's character is shaped by his upper class privilege.

On the other hand, Eva's life is defined by our lower class status, serving as a foil to Gerald by contrasting their experiences and highlighting social inequality.

So you can see how those conjunctions, those comparative conjunctions can be really useful in drawing out those differences between the characters.

So which is not an example of a comparative conjunction.

So you're looking for, which is not an example of a comparative conjunction a, b, or c.

Off you go.

Okay.

And the answer is c, but, is not an example of a comparative conjunction.

So well done to everyone that's spotted that.

Okay, so final practise task.

So we need to just do a little bit more work.

You're doing great so far, but let's keep going.

So I want you to write two statements using comparative conjunctions that answer this question, how does Priestley use Gerald as a foil to Eva Smith to reveal the stark differences in their experiences? Let's just read that through again, how does Priestley use Gerald as a foil to Eva Smith to reveal the stark differences in their experiences? So I'd like you please to write two statements and use those comparative conjunctions to help you.

So gather everything you need to complete the task, pause the video and get writing.

Well done and thank you everyone for your hard work.

That was quite a difficult task, wasn't it, thinking about those differences and using those comparative conjunctions.

I think you did really well.

So we have an example here, let's have a look, as a character foil to Gerald, Eva's innocence and helplessness expose the moral flaws in his actions.

Contrastingly Gerald's privilege allows him to escape consequences.

Priestley uses this contrast to highlight social injustice and call for greater responsibility.

So my first question for you is, can you identify the comparative conjunctions in that example? Can you do that now? Okay, have we got something? Okay, brilliant.

Well done to everyone that noticed contrastingly there.

So can you do the same in your own work now? So I'd like you to highlight or underline your own use of comparative conjunctions.

So pause the video and get that done.

Excellent work, everyone.

That was a really packed lesson.

We've looked at Gerald and we've looked at Eva and we've even compared the two.

So a very well done to you all.

So let's just run through everything we've learned in this lesson.

We know that Gerald is established as an attractive and well-bred man, which emphasises his social status.

We know that Gerald presents himself as the hero of this narrative, but this can be challenged.

Priestley uses the character of Eva Smith to represent the working classes as a whole.

Priestley's choice of name reflects the importance of Eva's character, arguably.

And Eva and Gerald can be seen as foils to each other to represent the stark differences in their experience.

Well done everyone, some excellent work today.

I've really enjoyed hearing all of your thoughts on the text.

I do hope you'll join me again for another lesson soon.

I'll see you then.

Goodbye.