Talk:No Exit

Naming Question

Any reason why Inèz is consistently used in this article instead of Inès? Just wondering if it should be changed. Gvarab (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I did not see any place that needed or called for citations, so I deleted the clean up notice. Niasain 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

She poisoned a husband in the eyes of his wife.

I'm not sure what that line means. Do you mean she turned a husband's opinion against his wife?

Also, there are some POV issues (and a typo) in calling one character "false and vaccuous," though I'm at a loss for what to use in substitution. I haven't read the play. It might be better to describe what the woman has done and let the reader decide if s/he considers the woman false and vacuous. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:53, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll make the changes when I have the time. --Alex S 04:57, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Hell is Other People"

Could someone elaborate on what Sartre meant by "hell is other people"

If you read the play, it becomes clearer. Garcin realizes at the end (as Inez did earlier) that there's no need for torture (in the traditional sense-- racks and red hot pincers and fire and brimstone and all the rest) in this hell. Hell is literally the company of the other two people. "For ever, and ever, and ever." That's obviously a literal version, but it's a play, not philosophy in the traditional sense. If you want to really sink your teeth into existentialism, you should read some Sartre (not the plays). The plays are great as a kind of icing-on-the-cake kind of thing.

Maybe the two-vs-one aspect of the play could be explained. Throughout the play, two of the characters team up to torture the other one. Thus, every character is tortured by every other character, teams up with every other character and tortures every other character. Inez and Estelle constantly argue amoungst themselves (as Inez attempts to seduce Estelle) and drag Garcin (who only wants to be left alone) into their arguments. They also use their femininity (Garcin wants to feel manly) to tortue and toy with Garcin. Garcin and Inez, in turn, torture Estelle by probing into Estelle's past together. They are united through their mutual like for brutality and dominating the weak. In fact, in one scene, they use Estelle (who is sexually desirable to both characters) as a sort of bargaining chip to settle the conflicts between them. Garcin and Estelle use their heterosexuality to torment Inez and, as they kiss and paw at each other, Inez begs them to stop. Garcin and Estelle team up because both do not feel feminine (in the case of the baby killer) or masculine (in the case of the coward) enough and fufuil this need for gender identity with sex. The two-vs-one dynamic that runs throughout this play helps to explain and highlight the most salient features of the characters, as well as show how all are fundamentally weak and flawed individuals (niether is strong enough to dominate another). Due to this weakness in every character, their agreements, treaties and invasions of each other's privacy almost take on a political air. However, while the characters seem like they are specifically chosen to be each other's torturers, upon closer examination, this is not the case at all. For example, Inez does not call Garcin a coward until he asks her if he is one. The whole idea of "hell is other people" is that people sometimes project what they hate about themselves onto others. That is, people see their worst flaws in other people. An example of this from Catcher in the Rye is when the main character keeps calling others "phony" and insisting that he hates "phoniness" most of all when he himself sees the need to lie, act in an affected manner and generally not "be himself" throughout the book. Relating this back to "No Exit", when Inez first sees Garcin she assumes he is the "torturer". In reality, Inez seems to have the most talent for torturing the other characters. Simularly, Estelle at first assumes that Garcin "has no face". Later, we find out that she casued her lover to blow his face off with a revolver. Garcin gets insulted at both these remarks and is justifiably angry and gruff with the women, at first. Thus, each of the characters in the play see the others as their worst nightmare, even though there is no basis for this belief in the way the characters act. Thus, for the doomed souls, and everyone watching at home, hell has a tendency of manifesting as people in your life that you despise unreasonably. Everybody has a person at the office or at school who they hate with a passion. Such intense hate is usually the result of someone being too simular to you, which naturally arouses competitive instincts ("opposites attract" turned on it's head). However, such simularily is very rare and is usually only preceived simularity. This idea of attributing your own problems to other people is called projection (Freudians will know what I'm talking about). Anyway, I didn't quite know how to put this on the main page, so here it is. Probably needs some revisions, though. - Capt Poco

The line 'Hell is other people' is tied in to Sartre's theory of 'The look'. We tend to act for another person rather than remaining true to ourselves - we cannot affect how outsiders percieve us - in the play, the characters are told by the valet that their eyelids have been cut off - they cannot sleep or blink - they are totally in the gase of other people - in this hell, the three room sharers are carefully grouped together - the coward who was mean to his wife disgusts the younger woman - the older woman is a lesbian, but unable to seduce the younger because the man is trapped in the room with them - the younger girl is passionate but has no one to share her love with - the three are trapped in a viscous circle of their own rising hatred, incapable of escaping each other's hate or satisfy their needs as none can shift the other's opinions of themselves - hence hell is just a room full of people - no complex tortures are needed. (User:arthurchappell

Analysis/NPOV

Mikekev58 16:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC): I don't agree that Garcin's statement "pas besoin de gril: l'enfer, c'est les autres" is really ironic. Who best to make such a piercingly clear statement than Garcin, described in the entry as incapable of making a clear statement on anything, i.e., lacking the ability to commit to societal institutions such as military rules and marriage? He knows what it is not to have a clear view of things, to be ambiguous or downright hostile to black and white in life. I am reminded of the traditional understanding that Polonius' statement "To thine own self be true..." is ironic. Given Polonius' penchant for human respect, he would certainly know that it is best to be true to oneself, because he has not been true to himself. In other words, we often know "the truth" of something because we have chosen to exclude it from our lives, against our own better instincts. I'm not going to edit the entry, because this is my POV and would, I'm sure, generate unnecessary argumentation about what irony is or isn't.

--I agree. I don't think it is meant to be ironic. Hell is other people, and Garcin condemns himself to Hell when he chooses not to leave through the door. He damns himself to be tortured by others as an object, a being-in-itself. He cannot exist on his own. This absolute freedom, a "being-for-itself" is the ultimate meaning of existence according to Sartre, but we constantly want to be a being-in-itself dependent on other people. This is Hell. Freedom, that is, to exist on our own, it the opposite of Hell, namely, Heaven. For this reason, I am adding a NPOV disclaimer. My recommendation is that the analysis section be deleted. Niasain 19:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I move that the analysis section be renamed "Salient Points" or the like. Then "Hell is other people" could be mentioned without POV, and the second paragraph could be left mostly as is, though a citation would be nice. I'll make these edits later provided no one beats me to it or has a better idea. -- Ben-Arba 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see the Analysis rebutted than deleted; the above paragraphs were interesting to read. -- anonymous 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the most correct thing to do here would be to reference other critics who have made points similar to those in this section. I don't think the ideas are particularly controversial or original, they just need to be anchored to some real critics. --six.oh.six 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Title Translation

I'm new here, and therefore don't want to edit the page directly; but the literal translation of "Huis clos" as "Closed Door" in the first paragraph of this article is slightly off. In French, "Huis clos" is an idiomatic expression which translates best as "closed session." The expression is generally only used to describe parliamentary procedures and other such meetings when they are held behind closed doors -- I don't think you'd use "huis clos" simply to describe a literal closed door. Since "Huis clos" is the title of the work, I think we ought to try to get this nuance right. Ducôté 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added the literal translation, so I'll explain first why I thought the addition was necessary, and second why I chose that translation.

In literature titles are generally translated literally, and a look at Jean-Paul Sartre#Works shows that most of Sartre's works are known by their literal translations, and for the few works where that's not the case, it's usually pretty easy to figure out what Sartre's original title was. Huis clos is the sole oddity: it's not known by its literal translation, and most English readers are not going to be able to figure out what huis means without having to find a French-English dictionary (clos is pretty easy I think). So that's why I thought a literal translation should be given.

Now as to whether or not Closed Door is an accurate translation. All my French sources say that huis is an old and literary word for door, e.g.:

HUIS, subst. masc. A. Vieilli, littér. Porte extérieure d'une maison. B. 1. Littéraire b) Huis clos (subst. masc.) Synon. de intimité.[1]

"Huis clos" is indeed these days almost exclusively a judicial term, and probably was usually used that way in Sartre's time as well. But it seems pretty clear that he didn't mean it in that sense. Given evidence that the term has a history of being used in literary context to mean simply door, I think it's reasonable to translate it as such. Certainly Sartre meant the title to have certain connotations, and I definitely feel that No Exit is the best figurative translation yet. But I contend that Closed Door is the closest literal translation there is.

- Severinus 06:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which English title is the best known or most used? I've always heard it called NO EXIT. 2601:C2:201:2B85:DCBC:8F3C:D2C9:212 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Example of later influence The play No Exit has been influencial since it was first put on the Paris stage, as can be seen from the number of fims & tv productions noted in the article. It continues to be influencial in the 21st century, at least in Europe, through the popular tv show "Big Brother". Here the format of isolating a group of people in a house & creating boredom among them with the intention of forcing them to socially interact, generally produces an atmosphere similar that in Sartre's famous play. Without books or any electronic means of amusment or comunication the individuals in the house are unable to avoid assimulating aspects of other people's charcters, characters moreover that they learn to hate; their mode of existence is changed from the "being-for-itself" to the "beings-for-others", which for the "being-for-itself" is hell. This popular tv show is an example of experimental existentialism (if there is such a thing)& it probably would have delighted Sartre. January 22nd 2007

Movie Adaptation

The link at the foot of the article that reads "The latest adaptation movie" is not actually relevant to the article. Asside from the fact that the movie in question has the same title as the one with which theis article conserns itself, there seems to be nothing else in common: the movie is about crystal meth in the gay community! I don't see a link. If someone else could clarify why this link is there...--Dark Green 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1985 BBC TV version

Vicious Circle - 1985 BBC TV adaptation of Sartre's play Huis Clos.

Director: Kenneth Ives. Stars: Omar Sharif, Jeanne Moreau, Cherie Lunghi

More details - www.imdb.com/title/tt0426618/

Removed Analysis section

I removed the Analysis section because it was 100% original research. I think this article could use an analysis section, but it has to be sourced. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm...isn't analysis original research by definition? I mean, even if there were sources for an analysis of this play for example, they'd just be other people's original research about the themes of this play compiled by the author of this article, making the adding of an analysis section paradoxical to Wikipedia's policy of no original research. I'm sorry, but I think this page is an example of the short-sighted Wikipedian "If even a sentence doesn't have sources, it can not be true" policy, which really affects the standard (or lack therof) available for wikipedia articles and users. Also: how can the NEUTRALITY of a page about an existential play set in Hell with flawed characters be DISPUTED? I personally see it as another example of self-destructing logic in the Wikipedian policy and its tenets that is haphazardly enforced under illogical pretexts. That's just my two cents about an article that needs improvement, no insult meant. :)74.225.231.167 00:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Other people's original research (as long as they meet the criteria in WP:RS) is absolutely allowed. But a Wikipedia editor's original research is not allowed. That's the rule. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Still seems a bit odd, but understandable. Could you please also explain how the neutrality of this article is disputed? Thanks!74.225.231.46 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who placed the {{npov}} tag on the article, so I'm not sure what the issue is on that front. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A pox on you! Without an analysis section, this article absolutely STINKS. I appreciate the problems of source and POV and all, but to simply have no analysis at all is NO SOLUTION AT ALL. I, and many many others (perhaps the majority) who come to Wikipedia to look up this topic, are trying to get an answer to the question "What the HELL was that thing about?". The analysis found here on the *discussion* page is about a thousand times more valuable than what's in the actual article! A pox on you, Mr. Heavy-Handed Deleter! --a customer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rude comments notwithstanding, if you don't like the article, fix it. The fact that you don't like policy doesn't change the fact that it is policy. Unsubstantiated musings, analysis, or rambling are not appropriate for this article. If you want to find some real literary analysis and add it properly to the article, feel free. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that policy is policy, does not make it right. If you think the change will be beneficial, DO IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prying open my third eye (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Split?

There is an infobox for the 1962 film - perhaps it should be split into its own article at No Exit (1962 film)? - AKeen 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to do so. Having one article for something with several forms is standard. See Alice in Wonderland, for example. It only needs to be split if it becomes excessive (e.g. Batman). --Cheeser1 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article!

This is a great example of Wikipedia at its best --- in my opinion.

Several years ago I struggled for a while with deciding on the best translation of the title, finally concluding that, because of the above-mentioned highly idiomatic nature of the phrase "huis clos," there is no one correct answer. Personally I like "Behind closed doors," but I have to admit that "No Exit" brings some drama and immediacy to the English title. To apply another (English) idiom, "No Exit" has more punch. Dratman (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuckolded...

I've changed the line

"Estelle is a high-society woman, a blonde who married her husband for his money and cuckolded him with a younger man"

to

"Estelle is a high-society woman, a blonde who married her husband for his money and had an affair with a younger man"

Unless there is a particular reason the word cuckolded absolutely had to be included, it's entirely unnecessary. It doesn't exist in common vernacular and it lacks poetry. 203.219.225.83 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of Autres (Others)

I think that if you look beyond blogspot, you might find the right one. [2] [3]. Some sources don't render it that way though [4]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The Good Place?

Many reviews of THE GOOD PLACE have remarked on the resemblance to NO EXIT: the souls of four dead people being tormented (psychologically, not physically) without realizing that they are in hell. Should it be added under adaptations? 2601:C2:201:2B85:DCBC:8F3C:D2C9:212 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I feel like this should be removed, it completely spoils an extremely recent show. Seems cruel to punish people for looking up information on something that ruins the plot twist of something they might also enjoy. --71.251.60.174 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

One Act = Atrophied Eyelids

When the issue of the Valet having no eyelids prompts Garcin to reflect upon the atrophied condition of his own eyelids, he muses sadly that there will be no more "little sleeps" in this eternity, no break or respite from the unbroken continuity of consciousness. Indeed, how can there be a break in eternal suffering?

A logical extension of this same theme, is the entire play runs in one act, without interval. In the BBC2 television production Vicious Circle (1985), the BBC's licence fee-funded public service remit allows the entire drama to play out without commercial breaks; the TV-age equivalent of a theatrical interval. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming of characters

The names of two of the characters —Inèz and Garcin— are used and spelled extremely inconsistently in this article. Garcin, never referred to by his first name "Joseph" in the play, is repeatedly called Joseph. Inèz is also spelled in various sections of the article as "Inès," "Ines," and "Inez." I've edited the article to fix these issues of inconsistency, in accordance with the play (or, at least, the Vintage International version of it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaguzi (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

TV reference

Elliot Alderson pulls a copy of "No Exit" off the shelf in the "401 Unauthorized" episode of "Mr. Robot", while looking for a man named John Garcin. <45:30> Metadigm86 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Twilight Zone reference

The 1961 episode of the Twilight Zone "Five Characters in Search of an Exit" was, among other things, noted to be greatly inspired by No Exit. In the same vein as the reference to The Good Place being inspired by the play, is there a good way to include a mention about this on this article? I ask especially as this is stated on the article for the Twilight Zone episode already. Josapr (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)