| Title | : | No Exit and Three Other Plays |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | - |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 275 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1947 |
No Exit and Three Other Plays Reviews
-
I am surprised no one said much about the piece "Dirty Hands" since it was terribly interesting and took up a great deal of this book. Though I love No exit and think that the punch line was both clever and well developed I think that Dirty Hands was by far a more enjoyable work. It was extremely clever, the wit was harsh. The characters manipulative and yet humorously negatable. The deep political messages, the thoughts surrounding "purity of political ideals". For some reason I can just better picture this on stage. As someone who loves theater I think Dirty Hands would be excellent to reenact and depending on the gestures could be both moving and comical if well casted. The flies was kind of more of a classic message that seemed a bit more straightforward though also complicated in its own way. I don't know! No Exit was great though. The Prostitute had some interesting things to say about the roles of women and racial issues, but gosh the Dirty Hands one did it for me. Excellent writing. Human beings really can be Hell anyway.
-
Hell is not other people. Hell is any holiday dinner with relatives.
Fashionable in the 50s, and still required reading in prep schools and many colleges, Sartre's play - once ventilated - is a discursive product of Dada and Existentialism mixed with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and a lot of Pernod. In the mid-40s it made him the darling of the boozoisie in Montparnasse. Actually, he was inspired by Wedekind and Strindberg. An interesting thinker, Sarte here overlooks his own contradictions : though each man is his own hell, he states, hell is -- hold on ! -- other people.
With 3 characters, this play is a fav among college drama depts and many regional theatres. The original Broadway production in 1946 was directed x John Huston and had, we're told, a superb set by the artist Frederick Kiesler. It also had an adaptation x Paul Bowles. Others must be avoided. ~ Competing with Ethel Merman in Annie Get Your Gun, Margaret Rutherford as OWs Lady Bracknell and Ingrid Bergman in a paraphrase of St Joan, it vanished after 4 weeks. But Sartre, the playwright manque, still lingers as he examines our loneliness in a bleak, disinterested world. More importantly, he foreshadows the absurdist work of Beckett, Ionesco and Pinter. -
No Exit: 3.5
The Flies: 3.5
Dirty Hands: 5
The Respectful Prostitute: 5
Total: 4.25, but I'm rounding to 5 even though it's closer to 4!
My favorite play in this collection, by far, is Dirty Hands. It's about a man named Hugo who joined the Proletariat Party in Illyria and is assigned to the party's newsletter. Finally, he gets his chance to prove himself to the party when he's asked to play secretary to a man the party deems dangerous to its cause and wants assassinated. Hugo is supposed to be the man on the inside, let the assassins in at the right time, and go from there. But Hugo wants to commit the assassination himself. Hugo is a man who talks too much and is considered by party members to be nothing but an intellectual anarchist who only joined the party because anarchy was outdated. Hugo joined the party because he was one of the upper classes who recognized the injustices of capitalism and wanted to get away from his past. What follows in flashback format is the story of Hugo's assassination of Hoederer and the motivation behind the action that has him in prison for two years (not a spoiler--this is revealed in Act One, and it's the point of the entire play). Most importantly, we get ideas.
Sartre wrote this play in 1948. It's an exploration of politics and ideals versus practicality. It also seems to be a commentary against absurdity, the randomness Camus accepts and more a statement of fatalism and acceptance of destiny against choice. This is a common thread in all four plays. In No Exit, the characters are stuck together in one room without an exit. They are forced to interact, and they all have different reasons for being in that room, but the reason they're all together wasn't decided by them. In The Flies, Zeus is in control. He holds the strings, even when men think they get to decide, and Orestes' fate can only lead him in one direction, despite everything he does to fight against it and be an individual, separate from the inherent connection to the gods. In The Respectful Prostitute, truth and right versus wrong don't matter when the men (note the use of men) in power always win even when they lose.
I can't really say much about these four plays because I have too much to say about each one of them. Most of all, I love the ideas. I love plays that make me think. There's very little set description, very few stage directions. This is bare dialogue and character development. Sartre wants his readers and viewers to contemplate the ideas.
My favorite aspect of No Exit is the tone--chilling and straightforward to the point of being frightening. It was like hearing an alarm go off and start in the distance and then get closer and closer and closer and closer. My favorite aspect of The Flies is the retelling of a classic Greek play and its relevance to modern (at the time) politics and philosophy. My favorite aspect of Dirty Hands is literally everything--the characters, the plot, the themes, the political and philosophical questions, the fact that it reminds me of Hemingway's The Fifth Column... It's an excellent play and up there as one of my favorites. My favorite aspect of The Respectful Prostitute is Sartre's blatant and astute criticism of American nationalism. He saw that members of the American aristocracy abuse their power and connections and manipulate Americans' patriotism to brainwash them and force them into coalescence with their secret society ideals and goals. The subtlety of this play and the depth of insight it reveals are astounding. The plot and characters that Sartre chose to explore these themes are perfect. The relevance is upsetting yet impressive.
In other words, I can't recommend these plays enough. They're not technically perfect. The dialogue is sometimes stilted, and I'm sure this isn't a translation issue. Also, Jessica of Dirty Hands really annoys me. She's like one of Hemingway's women--I could tell Sartre wants her to come off strong and different, but she comes off like she's trying too hard. I think Sartre liked her much more than any reader/spectator would. Still, the plays are all worth reading for the ideas conveyed through them. I can't believe I've never read Sartre before this, but I can imagine myself reading more of his work! -
“Hell is other people.” What if hell is not an inferno but being trapped in a room with people who judge and condemn you? In Sartre’s play No Exit, three condemned souls must stay with each other for all eternity, watching, condemning, torturing one another. Garcin seeks understanding from Inez for deserting the army but only receives her judgment. Estelle, who killed her newborn baby and caused her lover to commit suicide, seeks Garcin’s affection to define who she is, but only receives his snub. Inez tries to seduce Estelle, but only scares the latter. They seek redemption through others but only receive condemnation. For Sartre, that is the picture of hell, and hell exists not in the afterlife but here in this life.
Jean-Paul Sartre
The most poignant moment in the play is when the door is opened, but Garcin doesn’t leave the room to escape his hell. He remains to persuade Inez to accept his cowardice, his betrayal of his country and his wife. This is Sartre’s vision of the contemporary person, unable or perhaps unwilling to escape his hell for fear of taking on the responsibility of defining his own person. As Erich Fromm has said, freedom can be frightening when we have to accept the responsibilities associated with that freedom. Ultimately, for Sartre, hell is when others, friends and family, career and leisure, society and culture, religion and government, define who we are.
Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone deBeauvoir -
Sartre has very good ideas. I love reading Theatre of the Absurd. Existence precedes essence. Three damned souls are brought to hell by a mysterious valet, but it's not what they expected. Sartre depicts hell as a Second Empire style room in bad taste, not fire and torture devices. I love this idea!!! Garcin, Inez, and Estelle torture each other with judgement since they have nothing in common, and they are unlikeable. "Hell is other people" means that judgement is eternal punishment. I found it very thought-provoking that Sartre's hell did not have any mirrors, because of the characters' existence. The Flies is about Orestes and Electra. Zeus is the god of death and flies, and I found that to be really funny, in a dark way. Once a year the dead come and torment those who are guilty. My favorite play in this book was Les Mains Sales because it was so riveting, and it is about an intellectual bourgeois, Hugo, who assassinates a political leader. This play is much longer than any of the others, but it is very well-written, and I kept reading with great interest. I found these plays stimulating.
-
hell is other people!
-
For me, this little collection gets by purely on the strength of the title play alone. No Exit is a terrific little work. The concept is clever and simple, and the execution first-rate. And in addition to being impressed by Sartre’s abilities as a playwright, I was also surprised that the message wasn’t the vague banality I had expected it to be.
As everyone knows, this play ends with a punchline: hell is other people. Now, I had expected this to mean simply that being around other people is awful—which pleased the misanthrope in me. However, it doesn’t take a philosopher to reach the insight that other people can make life a hell; furthermore, it seems obviously untrue, if taken as a general statement. I quite like a lot of people (well, maybe only a few), and I know that Sartre did too.
But that isn’t the message. Rather, Sartre’s point is that people give up their freedom—which, for Sartre, is the be-all and end-all of the human condition—when they evaluate themselves through the eyes of others. All three of the characters in that room need to be seen in some way: Garcin, as a hero; Estelle, as a woman capable of attracting men’s attention; and Inès, as someone capable of manipulating others (specifically, attractive women). And—it being hell—they are grouped together in such a way that none of them can look at each other in the 'correct' way: Inès sees Garcin as a coward; Garcin is unmoved by Estelle's advances; and Estelle is immune to Inès's charms.
Well—to say it once more—I thought it was brilliant. But I must say that I had a much lower opinion of the other plays in this collection; and the whiner in me can’t resist saying a few things about them, too.
The Flies does not come close to the heights reached by No Exit, but I thought it still enjoyable. It was certainly interesting to see an existentialist philosopher reimagine a Greek myth, and Sartre manages to add some nice touches—the guilt-based society, the petty Zeus, the tortured Aegisthus. Nonetheless, I was unimpressed by the overall effect. (This, by the way, is the general problem with thinkers writing fiction—the endings are predictable once the thinkers' ideas are understood.) Sartre makes Orestes into an übermensch, who takes the full existential weight of the responsibility of his choices upon his shoulders, thus freeing himself from the externally imposed morality of Zeus. In other words, Sartre offers us watered-down Nietzsche.
But the collection takes a real nosedive with Dirty Hands. The most obvious problem with this play is its length—it is overlong, and underwhelming. But the more serious problem with this play is that it is badly-digested Dostoyevsky. It is a straightforward ripoff of Crime and Punishment—a young intellectual striving to reconcile theory and action, a disillusionment with socialism, a final redemption through owning up to one’s actions. Sartre even gives Hugo the code-name Raskolnikov—which he might have thought would be cute, but ended up merely pathetic. Someone should have told Sartre that Dostoyevsky's style doesn’t work as a play—it’s too psychological to be compellingly portrayed through dialogue.
(And here was well, the play suffers from predictability, as the mindful reader, acquainted with Sartre's ideas, knows how it must turn out from the very first act. A play where all action is subordinated to a thinker's system is a drama without drama. Imagine if Freud wrote a play.)
The last play, The Respectful Prostitute, was almost comically bad. I even felt embarrassed on Sartre’s part for having his name associated with that half-baked piece of work. What is supposed to be a comment on American racism just becomes a parody of American popular fiction—with stiff, stereotypical, two-dimensional characters, as well as a potboiler plot. When the Senator was speaking to Lizzie in the voice of Uncle Sam, I physically cringed. And just examine this little snippet of dialogue near the end:The first Clarke cleared a whole forest, just by himself; he killed seventeen Indians with his bare hands before dying in an ambush; his son practically built this town; he was friends with George Washington, and died at Yorktown, for American independence; my great-grandfather was chief of the Vigilantes in San Francisco…
(It goes on, but you get the picture.)
Did Sartre get his entire picture of the United States through Spaghetti Westerns? It would seem so, as he manages to throw together every crude stereotype he can find into this mess of a play.
One thing that consistently bothered me throughout all of these plays was Sartre’s portrayals of women. I actually found my reaction quite surprising, as I’m normally not bothered by the unenlightened views of older authors. But Sartre’s portrayals aren’t exactly sexist; he doesn't treat the women as inferior per se. Rather, Sartre sexualizes all of his female characters. In No Exit, the two women are, in different ways, sex-obsessed. In Dirty Hands, hardly a scene goes by without men commenting on Jessica’s attractiveness; and Jessica, for her part, flirts back with every male in the play. It is even implied (I think) that Olga, the hard-boiled communist agent, is sexually involved with Hugo. Of course, the only woman in The Respectful Prostitute is a prostitute, so perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprised that she is sexualized. But I found the relationship between Electra and her brother Orestes the oddest of all, as Electra’s professions of passionate love for Orestes didn’t strike me as particularly platonic: “Take me in your arms, beloved, and press me to your breast.” Sartre, it seems, had a very narrow understanding of women.
In sum, this is my advice to those who wish to read this collection: read No Exit, and, if the spirit moves you, The Flies; the latter two plays can be safely consigned to the oblivion of time. But, of course, the choice is yours; how could it not be?—since all humans are condemned to freedom.
-
Jean Paul Sartre uses hell for the setting of his existentially significant work, No Exit. While Sartre is an atheist, he uses a place that is fundamentally connected to Christian beliefs. Yet Sartre's hell is vastly dissimilar to the Christian conception of hell, and makes no reference to a God or Satan. Ultimately, the hell in No Exit serves the same purpose as a Christian hell: to torment and torture. The methods used are different, but the result is the same. In fact, Sartre's hell is more intense than a Christian one because not only is one tortured, but one tortures others, and most importantly oneself. A Christian hell features external tortures, but in Sartre's one is his or her own torturer.
While a Christian hell offers fire and brimstone, infinite lakes of fire, and the rack, Sartre's hell consists of little more than confinement and human company. In fact, Sartre's hell ultimately proves to offer an escape; it's the people who choose to continue their torment. Sinners sent to a Christian hell “shall be punished with everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). Pain and destruction might be the ultimate punishment for a Christian, but for Sartre's existentialist characters the judgment of “the other” is the greatest torture.
When Sartre's three main characters enter the scene, they are shocked by the lack of sinister “instruments of torture” (No Exit, 4). Slowly, Garcin begins to understand the nature of his torture, if not the actual form it will take. “Ah”, he says, “it's life without a break” (5). Once Garcin observes the lack of eyelids in his hell, he realizes there will be no escape. The rack and poker can only cause so much pain. But this hell is eternal, without even a momentary respite. A Christian hell offers physical tortures, but a Sartrean hell dispenses psychological torture. Garcin, Inez, and Estelle are to be eternally plagued with each other's company. And of course, with company comes judgment.
Inez is the only one who comprehends the torture that the company of others is to be. She is also the only member of the trio who outrightly admits to her sins. Inez explains the nature of the group's sinning: “There have been people who burned their lives out for our sakes – and we chuckled over it” (17). Inez is the only character who is not in “bad faith”; she is completely aware of her cruelty and need for dominance. She desires domination and admits that she “can't get on without making people suffer” (26). As a lesbian, she transgresses the lines of typical sexual interactions and takes on a typically male role. The other two sinners, Garcin and Estelle, outrightly deny that they have sinned. Estelle, in fact, goes so far as to claim that a mistake has occurred; surely she doesn't belong in hell! Bur Inez knows better. She knows that “they never make mistakes” (16) in hell, and that her two companions are being untruthful.
Ultimately the group's concern with “the other” stems from power. All three have different needs for power and control. Inez must control others with the intent of causing harm. Estelle needs to feel desired, and by feeling desired she believes herself to have control. She is also particularly disturbed by the lack of mirrors in hell, because she needs to “see [herself:] as others saw [her:]” (19). Garcin is, it seems, the least power-hungry of the trio but he nonetheless asserts his dominance over his wife and over Estelle. Estelle fixates on Garcin and seeks his admiration because he is the only available male. Though Inez affirms her beauty, it is not enough for Estelle. She needs a man to affirm her. Garcin takes advantage of this situation as much as he took advantage of his wife. Estelle is weak in the same way that Garcin's wife was – she is willing to accept sub-par treatment as long as she has a man. Garcin wishes to use Estelle to affirm his bravery. If he can convince Estelle that he is truly a brave man, then he somehow feels better. Of course, Estelle doesn't care one way or the other about Garcin's true self; “Coward or hero, it's all one – provided he kisses well” (38).
Garcin, Inez, and Estelle are unendingly confronted with the judgment of others as their punishment, as well as the company of each other who happen to be equally judgmental and simultaneously terrified of judgment. While Inez seems completely aware of her transgressions, the other two are in total denial. In fact, they are unwilling to truthfully share the circumstances of their deaths. They lie in an attempt to hide from the negative judgments of their companions, just as they eluded justice for their actions while on earth. However, once the truth does come out, and once Inez has fully expanded on her own cruelty, it becomes like a sort of contest amongst the the trio. Each person wants to explain how cruel they were and what “power” they held over the other. Estelle made a man die, Garcin tortured his wife, Inez seduced a woman and led her to her death. Surely they must be important, special, and powerful to have had such a profound effect on the other? But even with this shallow victory they continue to require affirmation from the other. The way they are thought of on the earth they no longer inhabit becomes of extreme importance.
All three characters claim that they don't care about others, and they outline their cruelties without any real sign of remorse. It seems like a badge of pride that they have been able to inflict so much damage on others. The strange contradiction to this is their unending concern with the judgment of others. They view the other as essentially useless, a petty object to be toyed with, and yet they can't handle the prospect of being thought negatively of. The three look down at the people they left behind and hope their minds are focused on the deceased. If people on earth still value them, then their lives continue to be significant. Estelle wants men on earth to miss and admire her, Garcin wants his peers to respect him and affirm that he is not a coward. Garcin's “fate” (39) has been left in the hands of others, and the prospect scares him. Even after they realize that earth is somewhat separate from them, they cannot let go of the need for affirmation from each other. Even in hell they need affirmation; Estelle believes that if Garcin loves her, then she can be happy and have power, for example.
When the three are given the opportunity to leave hell and the hell of each other's company, they don't take it. They are so wrapped up in the need for affirmation that they can't leave each other until they are sure they have it. Garcin stares at the open door and says, “I couldn't leave you here, gloating over my defeat” (42). He then proceeds to shut the door and continue what is now SELF-imposed torture. This is where the most significant difference between a Christian hell and a Sartrean one becomes highly apparent. In the Christian hell there is the rack and the poker to torture the sinner. But in the case of the poker, someone else must inflict pain. In Sartre's hell the sinners torture themselves.
Hell is not only a place of unending “judgment”, but to a Christian part of the torture of hell is the absence of God. Once one is damned to hell they are forever without God's love and presence. Obviously, Sartre does not care if God is present, and the three sinners in Sartre's hell seem to have no notion whatsoever of a God. The fact that their hell lacks God is irrelevant. But there is a different sort of lack that causes their torture. They lack the presence of others who can make them feel good about themselves and make their lives meaningful. They look down on earth and observe the lives they no longer touch, and the consciousness of those people somehow define their own existence. As the ability to see down to earth fades away, so does their importance on earth. Estelle looks down and as long as she can see her old life she is only “half here” (32) in hell. When Garcin's view down to earth is gone, he surrenders and claims, “I've left my fate in their hands” (39). His hope is that even though he cannot see the earth anymore, the earth will remember him.
Of course, the remembrances of others are not enough to satisfy Sartre's characters. The specific WAY in which they are remembered is of equal, if not more, importance. Garcin is fixated on being remembered as a brave man. Estelle wants to see that her beaus still desire her. All the characters are also fixated on each other. Inez is the most diabolical, it seems, but we see a certain degree of weakness in her. While she does seem cold, she is also very dependent on trapping Estelle's emotions. But it is hard to tell whether she needs love or if she genuinely needs to hurt the psyches of others in order to be happy. Considering that up to this point she has been the only one living “in good faith”, she can be seen as truly cruel. She may need to make others miserable in order to be happy, but we can assume she will have no problem finding such happiness. She is, after all, in hell, where torture is on the menu and she is an expert chef. In fact, her power to make the others suffer is so great that they don't even run from her when the opportunity arises. Garcin could run from her when the door opens, but she has entrapped him so thoroughly that he cannot leave without her blessings regarding his character.
In Sartre's hell there is no God and no Satan, as well as no implements for physical suffering. And yet the three characters who find themselves there are in agony. They rely on the positive opinions of others, and both their companions and those they left on earth do not give them this affirmation. Sartre's hell runs with great economy, as the tortured become their own torturers, and no one can leave because of their dependence on others. Locks are unnecessary in his hell, as the damned become psychologically dependent on each other – even as they feel pure hatred for the other. The Sartrean notion of hell offers a level of psychological torture that a Christian hell cannot achieve: the pain of torturing oneself. And unlike a Christian hell, there is no need to employ torturers or buy any tools. The damned take care of the torturing without any input or supervision. A fantastically effective hell that requires no effort on the part of any outside entity. What could be more perfect? -
Date line 1980: Jean-Paul Sartre passed away this year joining God and Albert Camus in a place from which there is no exit. Sartre was that rare philosopher who could write fiction with equal brilliance, something the obverse of Camus, whose novels and short stories are timeless but lacked the depth to do serious philosophy. NE EXIT AND OTHER PLAYS displays the same symmetry. Sartre could draw characters and write memorable dialogues, especially maxim, "Hell is other people", while Camus could tackle big ideas in theater, e.g. the morality of political violence in THE POSSESSED, without the making an impression on the theater-goer or reader. NO EXIT and THE FLIES are the best introduction to existentialism, and the moral dilemmas of the twentieth century, I know of.
-
A brief one-act that seems much longer than it really is. Alternately horrible and funny, it's Sartre's take on Hell, which can be described as such: a small hotel room with no windows or mirrors, a door that is usually locked, and three couches. Three people - Garcin, Ines, and Estelle - are all brought to this room by what I can only guess is a bellboy. (I read this in French, so forgive any factual errors that I missed as a reult of that) Everyone keeps asking, "Where's the torturer?" because they know they're in Hell and are going to suffer. It's finally Ines who figures it out: "Il n'y a pas de torture physique, n'est-ce que pas? Et cependant, nous sommes en enfer...le bourreau, c'est chacun de nous pour les deux autres."
Rough translation: "There's no phyisical torture, right? However, we're in Hell...each of us is the torturer for the other two."
An even rougher translation: "Hell is other people." ("L'enfer, c'est les autres.")
At first, the other two resist this idea, and maintain that they can just ignore each other for the rest of eternity. That lasts about five seconds, and the merde quickly hits the fan, and we see just why these three people ended up being forced into a room together. Really interesting and thought-provoking, but maybe not something you should make your French students act out during class.
Read for: French Literature from 1800 to Present -
Sartre was marginally popular with some high school friends, particularly his novel, Nausea, and play, No Exit. I started the former at a boring party at Bill Causer's home at the Park Ridge School for Girls one night, but didn't get far. I didn't relate to the paranoid attitude and put it down. Years later, his Being and Nothingness was assigned--same attitude, but this time an obligation to complete the thing.
Some time towards the end of high school I gave Sartre another chance. I'd enjoyed Camus quite a bit and Camus was generally regarded as a lightweight compared to Sartre by respected older friends, so I picked up this collection of four plays and actually got through them all, one by one, over the course of a few days. I didn't like them much either, but was glad to have gotten familiar with the famous, much-cited No Exit. So much for Sartre's fiction...
Recently, a friend explained to me that Sartre was a user of amphetamines and compensatory downers. I'd only tried white crosses once, and then a relatively mild dose, the dose a trucker would use, but I'd known a few speed freaks--enough to avoid speed except for that one chicken-shit trial. In any case, such drug abuse may account for Sartre's characteristic misanthropic paranoia. Of course, it does not account for why so much of his fiction is highly regarded by many others. -
I guess I’m in the midst of an existential questioning. Then I picked up "No Exit” and Three Other Plays, and it became a full-blown crisis. I would walk to my neighbor and ask him, “Do you think I’m useless? Am I a bad person? What do I stand for? What is the purpose of all this?” Poor guy.
So this is hell. I’d never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the ‘burning marl.’ Old wives’ tales! There’s no need for red-hot pokers. Hell is — other people!
This is the most famous of the three plays and for good reason. It played into my deepest fears: trapped in a room with strangers who will analyze my life and irritate me with their little tics. The three main characters are stripped bare of all their validations for their actions.
from “No Exit” (45)
I am 31 years old, and I have never felt the need to confess my sins so badly in my life.Love or hatred calls for self-surrender.
It’s been a long time since I read the Oresteia, so long that “The Flies” may as well be new to me. I knew what happens to Agamemnon when he returns from Troy, but “The Flies” concerns the aftermath. The citizens of Argos are literally covered in their sin; Zeus has sent swarms of flies to torment them for their rulers’ crime.
from “The Flies” (87-88)
I liked the role of Zeus. He brings about the punishment of the people, but he also mocks them for their continued penance. He has no love for any of the mortals. Interestingly, he has no actual power over them either. The flies are the penance that they’ve brought upon themselves. The power that he wields exists only because the people have consented to it: “Once freedom lights its beacon in a man’s heart, the gods are powerless against him.” (102)They’ve got it easy. Up there, when they decide that a man’s to die, it’s as if they scratched a name off a list; it’s neat, and elegant. Here death is a chore. The slaughterhouses are here.
This is the longest play in the collection, and I liked this one the least. A young intellectual joins a revolutionary group, and he is assigned to kill the leader of the group. His ideals are questioned in the face of the reality of taking another man’s life.
from “Dirty Hands” (207)
It’s another meditation on the separation between the people in charge and the people whom they control.Lizzie: You too? You feel guilty?
This is, sadly, a still relevant story about racism in America. Two unnamed black men are accused of raping a white woman, and a group of white men kill one of them. The other black man flees for his life. He approaches the white woman, a prostitute, and asks her to testify in court that he did not rape her. However, the white men would be charged with murder if she does so.
The Negro: Yes, ma’am.
Lizzie: But you didn’t do anything?
The Negro: No, ma’am.
Lizzie: What have they got anyhow, that everybody’s on their side all the time?
The Negro: They’re white folks.
from “The Respectful Prostitute” (272)
I didn’t find this play “scathing” so much as truthful. There is no bitterness in the tone, only sadness for the way life is.
I dithered over this review for a few days because, honestly, I’m not smart enough to analyze Sartre. He is far above me. I’m well aware that my thoughts on these plays aren’t what other people think of them. But they’re mine, so there you go. -
I'll start off by saying I rated this book before realizing we only read one of the plays in college. Took me awhile to actually want to read the whole book. It's actually a pretty easy book to read. shouldn't take you more than four days.
I really liked the first two plays in this book. No Exit is one of the best. I love the characters, the setting, the dialogue, and the plot. The Flies was a nice surprise too. It was interesting to read another existentialist writ about Greek mythology. I was going to give this book a four star review.
However, the last two plays I didn't really care for, thus making this book a three star book. Dirty Hands was somewhat interesting, but too damn long. The Respectful Prostitute read some like a European tying too hard to write a Southern Gothic. I really didn't care for that one. Plus, the last two plays felt too much like in-your-face politics.
At least the first two in this are worth reading. Sartre isn't a bad writer, I want to read more of his stuff, but he gets too in-your-face at times. -
Ach. Simply great.
It brought to mind that ancient Greek myth, Ixion, albeit modern and with different actors.
Same destination, though.
Satre, the man. -
"Hell is other people".
-
This week I bumped into so many books I’ve read before. Another One — Th Best Reading –paraphrase DJ Khalid
-
I actually loved these plays, especially No Exit and Dirty Hands, which felt surprisingly modern. Unexpectedly, Sartre has written some of the best female characters I've read. Managed to write political and philosophical plays without being preachy or simplistic. The last play, The Respectful Prostitute, was absolutely brutal and putting it at the very end of the book was like getting hit by a train
-
I only read "No Exit", as intended. An allegory for fascism? Must be there somewhere, but I don't get it. What I do see it as an allegory, I guess, or at least an illustration, for how we say we want to escape from the emotional torment of our decisions, preferring the physical torment of "racks and prongs and garrotes", but really we want to stay in that room, with our torment, because it makes us feel alive. In emotional masochism, there is no exit as satisfying as a locked door.
-
I don't know what made me buy this book. It isn't like anything I'd ever want to read, so why the ridiculous curiosity? Well, I finished 'No Exit' and didn't feel like reading the three other plays (although I'm willing to wait some time and come back to it.) The whole thing felt like walking knee-deep in mud.
-
I never read Sartre's great play...but I the theater critic of the NY Times suggested it as reading during the lockdown. All I can say is that I pray I never am condemned to hell!
-
I'm that cat staring into a camera, rgb strobe lights flashing behind me with Caramelldansen playing in the background, and in my head are 25 sirens blaring simultaneously.
-
When a friend asked if I had seen the play or the movie based on Sartre's "No Exit", my curiosity was piqued. I searched online and found a version I could read. In this brief one-act play, Sartre illuminates the human condition and the consequences of behavior. Actions often taken lightly, reverberate and leave disaster in their wake. The three main characters are dead. In life, they were each, in their own way, responsible for a tragic ending. They are now in Hell, where they are forced to explore their sins. They are forced to face them and take responsibility for their actions. There is a purpose and design to the combination of the souls together, in the room with no exit.
Ines is a lesbian. She is the most realistic about their plight and is the intuitive foil used to move the play along, used to expose each of the other character's faults. Estelle is consumed with her own vanity, her own image. Garcin is a coward who does not want to face his own weakness or his true self image. All three are in denial about the errors of their ways and their deaths. Each has been involved in an affair of the heart, which ended in dreadful circumstances because of their transgressions. Each has been consumed, in the conduct of their lives, by the selfish satisfaction of their needs, without regard for the pain those actions caused in there aftermath.
When at the beginning, Garcin says to the valet: “So one has to live with one's eyes open all the time?”, my first thought was, so that is Hell, having to face oneself. Later, near the very end, he says: "Hell Is Other People” and I realized the simplicity of the message the play imparts. Hell is being placed in a situation where you have to face yourself through the eyes of other people, others who are relentless in their effort to expose and judge you, the very thing you avoided during your lifetime, the truth.
The three people chosen to be together in the room with no exit, have been condemned to the constant exploration of their character flaws through their intimate conversations. They lay bare the imperfections in each other and, therefore, can no longer hide from their own. Their torture was not physical but emotional and mental. They must constantly face their shortcomings with no hope for redemption. In the same way they tortured others in their lives, with dreadful consequences, they now are tortured by the actions of their "roommates" who are consumed with themselves and their own cruel natures, bent on exposing each other and forcing each to witness the humiliation of their shameful ways and horrible consequences of their shallowness, perhaps over and over through eternity. There is no escape from that kind of Hell.
-
The book I read is simply titled Three Plays. I couldn't find this particular copy listed on Goodreads. It doesn't contain "No Exit," but contains "Dirty Hands," "The Respectful Prostitute," and "The Victors." All three plays deserve 5 stars and were quite entertaining. They reflect his philosophies of existentialism, freedom, and "bad faith." Many of the characters try to find life's meaning in the midst of adversity, and the concept of freedom is expressed by their indecision in desperate matters. Sartre claims that no matter what your situation is, you still have a degree of freedom, and this can create anxiety. Freedom is the philosophical basis of the plays, with the characters not knowing if they are making the right decisions in these violent situations. In "Dirty Hands," I believe Hugo puts "bad faith" in his political ideology, which may have relieved his anxiety, even though he ended up dying for it. Sartre and Albert Camus are often compared, but these plays are the polar-opposite of Camus's major work, The Stranger, where the protagonist seems quite oblivious. I have a basic understanding of Sartre's ideas from watching videos on him, and it was great seeing them expressed in this format. I have only read a portion of Being and Nothingness, but it and Nausea on my to-read list, for sure.
EDIT: I finally got to read "No Exit" and "The Flies." "No Exit" is straight-up classic. I totally agree that if Hell existed, it would be other people. "The Flies" is a unique expression of Sartre's concept of freedom, based on Greek mythology. Both of these are 5 stars as well. His plays are on par with Shakespeare's. -
My first time reading anything of Satre's. I had high expectations which he somehow succeeded.
Also the collection is available for free online at;
https://web.archive.org/web/201311260...
No Exit.
The book's titular play and one of Sartre's most famous. The character dynamic was certainly interesting, but it seemed to drone on just a little. It's one of his most famous, but frankly it was my least favorite of the collection.
The Flies
A clever rework of the Greek myth. It reads like an epic tragedy, but with plenty of humor and irony.
Dirty Hands
The longest play in the collection and rightfully so. A careful examination of the human psyche that pits theory against praxis. It also ends up as a biting political commentary.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed it I couldn't help but wish that Jessica was a little more well written. While she starts off as a complex character, by the end she feels like a plot device.
The Respectful Prostitute
Definitely the most interesting play in the collection. A biting critique of American racism, 'The Respectful Prostitute' exposes politicians, police, and everyday folks in the role they (either intentionally or not) play in white supremacy. This is Sartre's most moral tale and one of the best critiques American society to date. While lynchings might be a thing of the past, the structures and attitudes Sartre critiques here are still very much a part of the American way. -
I wish I had years and years left of college so I could have fit in all the classes I could dream of. If I did, I would have taken an course in existentialism. Unfortunately it was only ever briefly touched on in one philosophy class, but the brief mention was enough to ignite an interest that I was free to pursue on my own.
I would recommend that anyone who finds comfort in exitentialism, like myself, read NO Exit. The line "Hell is other people" might be one of my favorite mantras.
Why I find it comforting I couldn't tell you...I'm still in the process of absorbing it and learning, but existentialism is something akin to religion to me. -
I remember reading this and Sartre’s Nausea in high school, partly because my big brother was into it and I wanted to be able to converse (and say I’d read important stuff). Of Existentialism I will say this: it is brave in the face of its hopelessness. Ridiculously brave, like the blind man who insists there is no such thing as color, the Existentialist insists that all is meaningless. Except their own novels and plays.
-
Hard to rate since it’s got four plays but...
First off, Jean-Paul Sartre has some hang ups about women and that’s clear in all of the plays.
No Exit: Lived up to the hype for me.
The Flies: Good, clear intro to Sartre’s existentialist philosophies.
Dirty Hands: Crime and Punishment, we get it!
The Respectful Prostitute: Meant to be “an attack on American racism” — I doubt Sartre realized this when he wrote it, but it’s a prime example of what happens when white women uphold white supremacy and justify it by believing they’re the real victims due to misogyny. -
excellent collection, and a great book to start the year with. i love the way this collection examines human imperfection - from numerous angles, with lots of empathy and consideration. i also really liked the more meta moments, which particularly came out in “dirty hands.”
my favourite play in the collection was probably “the flies.” it had great insights on remorse, sin and redemption, etc, as well as the relationship between religion and existentialism. awesome. -
This is a nice compilation of important plays by Sartre.
No Exit is a nicely accessible work in which Sartre examines the nature of self identity. Three people sent to either purgatory or hell, whichever best fits your idea. It is a clever use of implotment and dialogue to reveal character. Perhaps a bit too obvious, but for drama such is how the point gets across. I found Sartre's attempt to examine ethics interesting. I am not sure when this work was produced relative to Sartre's career, but he certainly met plenty of self-serving, ethically blind individuals as he climbed the Communist Party ladder. Perhaps No Exit is Sartre's attempt to expiate his own indiscretions.
I enjoyed The Flies, a take on the myth of Orestes. In this version, Orestes returns to Argos with no apparent reason. Readers (and Orestes) quickly discover his connection to the place and suddenly Orestes decides to stay and take action despite his teacher's and Zeus' pleads to the contrary. The play ends on a wonderfully sour note, Orestes supposedly leading the flies out of Argos and on a new road of interminable suffering. I can easily see many metaphors for political wrangling and harassment of those with noble intent. Orestes' sudden decision to stay and Electra's betrayal lend an absurd, tragic air to the play. Orestes might have been noble in intent but in reality he is just another human with lofty ideals. Will anyone notice? Perhaps. Will he be supported? No, and I think this is where Sartre was aiming the gist of the play: Those who do nothing to alleviate their own self-inflicted suffering. Clever.
Dirty Hands goes straight at the political jugular, so to speak. An interestingly named Hugo returns from jail after serving the needs of his party. Assassination, that is. This is one of Sartre's more artful plays, using flashback to explain how Hugo ends up at the beginning of the play. There is nice use of characters as archetypes, such as Hoederer as the monomaniacal leader. There are several hints that even these clearly fleshed-out characters are not quite so simple, such as Jessica—who puts Hugo into fits with her deviousness. Indeed, the dual (or triple?) nature of human character to say one thing and yet do another seems to be important to this play. Dirty Hands was written before Sartre formally denounced the Russian flavor of Communism, but it is well known that he was not entirely comfortable aligning himself with any political group—he did so mainly to further his career. This play seems to investigate the dichotomy (Ack! Did I just write that?!) of being part of a group with contradictory goals: To promote a group of people (plebeians here) by playing with the very system that oppresses them. I can see Sartre's interest in examining how an intellectual would struggle rationalizing a pragmatic philosophy with idealism. An interesting play, indeed.
The Respectful Prostitute seems strongly influenced by Sartre's journeys in the U.S.A.—ironic by the fact that the visit was a favor by his then-friend Camus and which would help Sartre push his career forward, eventually ending the friendship. As an American, I recognize the idealism and love for power (and money) that outweighs moral and intellectual values in the play. It is a harsh sting. The prostitute in question avoids fully acknowledging her vocation and, when we think she will display the grit and determination that form the idealized American character, she fails. Miserably. For the worst reasons. The end to this very short drama is a sad recognition that few things change. Perhaps Sartre wanted to demonstrate that human values are always corruptible, perhaps he wanted to reveal the influence of money and political power. The racial take on things is obvious and shocking. There is also an interesting feminist angle on the play that merits further investigation, though I suspect Sartre's rough treatment of his female main character might reflect his personal frustrations with women.
This compilation combines two well-known and two lesser-known works in a very nice overview of an important thinker of the past century. Sartre's writing is something obtuse, and some of his plays seem inaccessible, but these four represent four very interesting, accessible aspects of the writer.
