1. Through Dialogue and Actions:
* Initially charming and confident: Gerald is introduced as a charming and well-spoken man, engaged to Sheila. He initially appears as a likable figure, seemingly unfazed by the Inspector's questions.
* His flaws gradually revealed: As the play progresses, his dialogue reveals his affair with Eva Smith and his attempts to cover it up. His actions, such as his defensive and manipulative responses, contradict his initial charm.
* A sense of guilt and shame: While not directly confessing to his wrongdoing, Gerald shows signs of guilt and shame as the play goes on, particularly when confronted with the photo of Eva Smith.
2. Through Other Characters' Perceptions:
* Sheila's changing view: Sheila initially trusts Gerald, but her perception changes as she learns about his affair. This shift in her perspective highlights Gerald's deception and casts doubt on his true character.
* The Inspector's scrutiny: The Inspector probes Gerald with sharp questions, exposing his hypocrisy and forcing him to confront his own actions.
* Eric's resentment: Eric, Gerald's stepson, shows resentment towards Gerald for his past actions, furthering the audience's understanding of Gerald's flawed character.
3. Through Stage Directions and Setting:
* Gerald's wealth and social status: The play's setting, the Birling's opulent home, underscores Gerald's privilege and status. This background subtly implies his potential for carelessness and insensitivity towards those less fortunate.
* His connection to the factory: While not explicitly shown, his connection to the factory and his involvement with the company suggests a potential for exploitation, further adding to his ambiguous characterization.
4. Through Symbolism and Themes:
* The "fire" motif: Gerald's actions, particularly his affair with Eva Smith, can be seen as contributing to the "fire" of social injustice that the Inspector warns about.
* The play's focus on responsibility: Through Gerald's actions and reactions, Priestley explores the importance of taking responsibility for one's actions and the consequences of social inequality.
Conclusion:
Priestley skillfully combines these methods to present Gerald as a complex and ambiguous character. He is not simply a villain, but a flawed individual who represents the hypocrisy and moral shortcomings of the upper class during this period. By exposing Gerald's flaws, Priestley challenges the audience to confront their own biases and to consider the social responsibility of those in positions of power.