Un inspecteur vous demande

Believing that the original 1954 version of Guy Hamilton was on TV I actually watched the 2015 BBC version of Aisling Walsh. Aisling Walsh is an Irish director who has done much work for TV (in 2012 she also made a "Room at the top" remake for the BBC), but with "Maudie" (2016) she also made a feature film for theatrical release.

I can't compare (as yet) with the original version, but the 2015 version is very well, with good period atmosphere.

"An inspector calls" is based on the play of the same name by J.B. Priestley (1945). Earlier Priestleys novel "Benighted" (1927) had been adapted by James Whale into the movie "The old dark house" (1932). Both novel and play are comments on the English class society.

The story of "An inspector calls" is about the suicide of a working class girl. During an interrogation by the mysterious inspector Goole (being a group interrogation, this gives the play / film a very Agatha Christie like flavor) it turns out that all of the members of a wealthy family have contributed in one way or another to this suicide.

The story has aged very well. I would like to call attention to a couple of things in particular.

In the beginning of the film the father of the wealthy famlily says "It is not important where you start in life, it is important where you finish". The old American dream phrased differently. His own family is the living proof of the fact that it does matter where you start in life.

Inspector Goole is very mysterious. He seems to be omniscient, interrogating to force a confession and not to learn more himself. He makes a very moralistic farewell speech, in which he says there are thousands of people like the poor working class girl in the story. It is obvious that he is not an ordinary police inspector. It is for the spectator to decide who or what he really is.

The members of the family ar all guilty of the suicide of the girl. There guilt is however ethical and not legal. It is disenchanting to see how quickly some members of the family recuperate when they become aware of this distinction.

Aisling Walsh's telefilm of the Priestley classic, first performed at London's Old Vic Theatre in 1945, opens out the action somewhat. It begins with a shot of Eva Smith (Lucy Rundle) writing in her diary in a lonely room, followed by a shot of some wooden floorboards, and two or three establishing shots of the Birling factory with a 1912 car moving out of the gates. Through this brief sequence we are given a clear idea of the class-differences permeating the film between the haves and the have-nots, the exploiters and the exploited, that forms one of Priestley's major themes.

Eva Smith does not appear in the Priestley text; in this version she is transformed into a hard-working girl who is not backward about coming forward. Hence she becomes an object of affection for factory-owner Arthur Birling (Ken Stott), his son Eric (Finn Cole), and Gerald Croft (Kyle Soller), the son of a rival factory-owner who is due to be affianced to Arthur's daughter Sheila (Chloe Pirrie). Yet it soon becomes clear that all of them treat her as an object to be picked up and cast aside at will; it's a tribute to Eva's strength of character that she manages to sustain her integrity throughout, until she gives up the ghost and commits suicide.

At the end of the film the floorboards shot is explained, as Eva describes herself as "a crack in the floorboards" - a member of the underclass who is allowed to fall through in a crassly unequal society. No one, it seems, is willing to treat her on her own terms as a human being.

Walsh's version also represents the Inspector (David Thewlis) as a mysterious figure moving slowly in the darkness towards the Birling residence, walking along a narrow slum in shadow, his bowler hat and long coat silhouetted, and visiting the dying Eva in hospital. We are left unsure as to whether he exists at all - especially at the end when he mysteriously disappears. But the question of his being isn't really important: what matters more is his ability to uncover the truth about the Birling family through patient, insistent questioning. Thewlis's expression remains impassive throughout - even if he despises the Birlings' superciliousness, he will never let his emotions get the better of him.

In the central moments of the drama, as the truth about the family was gradually revealed, Walsh used repeated close-ups to focus on the protagonists' changing expressions: Arthur's look of quiet confidence was transformed into an expression of utter despair as he ran his hands through his hair; his wife Sheila (Miranda Richardson) tried her best to retain an impassive exterior, but the tell-tale movements of her cheek and neck-bones betrayed her emotions. Her stoicism in the face of the inevitable truth-revelation was contrasted with Eric's expressions - at first he looked guiltily at everyone in full knowledge that he had been in some way responsible for Eva's death, but as the drama unfolded he acquired a strength of character as he tried to come to terms with his past.

Brilliantly performed and suggestively directed; this was a thoroughly televisual version of the play that reminded us of the persistence of social inequalities today.

As an English student who recently read thoroughly the play this movie is based of, my main thoughts about this film is that it's a perfectly crafted piece that follows the plot of the play quite accurately, but I also consider myself quite "unexperienced" in the matter because I have only seen this adaptation and not the rest- so maybe by watching the rest of the movies my opinion on the quality of this movie may differ, but I hope that not drastically.

To be honest, right at the beginning when the characters were presenting themselves at the dinner table I found most of their portrayals quite bland and out of character in a sense- especially Eric and Sheila. I found them lacking that strength and uniqueness that had made me strive for them while reading the play, but then again it's true that at the beginning their personalities were much more superficial and that were mostly developed as the play progressed- something which was shown naturally in the film.

Nevertheless, as soon as the plot starting moving the skepticism faded away and I was left awestruck by the actors' outstanding performances; Mr and Mrs Birling were just how I pictured them throughout the story; Gerald was given much more emotional depth than what I had imagined and Eric even though it wasn't how I initially thought of him made me comprehend a completely different interpretation of his character. I am not quite sure of Sheila yet, but I do have to admit that Chloe Pirrie reflected her major character development, but I imagined Sheila as a more immature and naive girl in the beginning. Let's not forget about Sophie Rundell's breathtaking job as Eva: taking only brief descriptions from a dead girl and turning that into a round character with a profound, political and representative meaning behind it.

Even if the characters' portrayals is essential to the film, what really sticks to the audience are the audiovisuals, and I can assure you this film excelled in that job. The shots were beautiful and gave the story a deeper meaning for me as a viewer and indeed hinted many subtle messages that otherwise wouldn't have made much sense. Above all, what most impressed me was the score; from the beginning until the very end the score was used skilfully to match the characters' emotions in certain scenes, but the feeling of strings and a piano matched the main themes of the play, and probably may be the main reason for my passionate liking of this film.

I saw the 1954 version and although I liked it very much I didn't cry. I saw this version and I just couldn't stop crying. The ending was utterly heartbreaking and although I usually disagree with changing the endings of well known books, plays etc (for example Agatha Christie's works that on the newest adaptations it's some kind of a "norm" to change the endings) I hoped down to the last second of the movie for the ending to change. An amazing adaptation. One I will never forget.

I went into this with an open mind, as i knew it was a remake. Right from the start i was captivated by the enveloping period atmosphere and way the story weaved its story. The plot was simply superb, exposing the class divide and way that others can be mistreat their fellow man, without any conscious or care for the consequences. The lessons in humanity ring as true today as they did in that period so its still highly relevant and should provoke some internalising. However putting that all to one side the acting was simply top drawer and David Thewliss contribution was truly spellbinding. He was so commanding throughout and more than a match for the wealthy opposition he encountered that night. This was so good that i actually watched it three times back to back, as every scene was so immersive and tense. So if you like good drama you would be hard pressed to beat this and all the more amazing was the fact it was mostly delivered in a drawing room, so that speaks volumes for the way it was acted. So I hope you enjoy this period piece as much as i did