Huis Clos and other Plays: "The Respectable Prostitute"; "Lucifer and the Lord"; "Huis Clos" by Jean-Paul Sartre

by Jean-Paul Sartre

Genres: Classics, Plays

Paperback

About the author

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.

Reviews

[Liāna · Rating 4 out of 5]

The respectable prostitute 4/5

Lizzie is a prostitute caught in between a racial attack on black men by wealthy white men. She is not on either side (though she is not NOT racist), she won’t go out of her way to save the wrongly accused black man but if she is asked-she will tell the truth.
Fred is a wealthy white man, what else is there to say. He gets services from prostitutes while seeing it as sinful and dirty- nothing changes. He is also very very racist and wants Lizzy to lie to the police and the judge.
The senator is a man who wants this story to disappear, he appeals to Lizzies lack of respect in society and makes her feel empathy for a stituation that does not deserve one.
Black men are of a lower tier, a black life is worth less than a white one- at least according to this southern town. White men are protected by the police, by their family and by the whole town. They make Lizzy pick who to save: a black man who “doesnt work, loafs and sings all day”(quote from the book) or the guy who tries to rape women, kills a man and tries to solicit that same woman he tried to rape to lie for him.
I dont think it’s a tough choice- I can see that Lizzie wants to be accepted by the town, by an older woman(senators wife) who could be a mother figure to her- maybe in her situation the lie seems like a good choice. She is told that 2000 men will loose their job. So there are some minor arguments in defence of the white guy. Except it doesn’t work that way, the white man will still be owner of the company from jail or if he does get killed because of his sentence- someone will inherit the company or some kind of new guy will buy it. We also know that this black man will not get jail time like the white guy, he will get lynched. The white man will lose nothing but the black man looses his life. Not a tough choice on who to save.
When she makes the choice of saving the white guy, she receives an envelope with some money, no “thank you”, not even the same amount she was offered before. So there is nothing gained on her side. She is offered a money cage as a thank you for her silence.

Pretty relevant today too

Lucifer and the lord 4/5

I kind of didn’t get the language at first, I was also reading this at work so that’s probably why. Overall though, the writing is strong and very packed with quotes to rethink and it’s also very funny and fun to read. Really good way to learn about Sartres philosophy.

The play explores the classic theme for philosophers- the question of god. Sartre argues that God does not exist, and if he does, he is not fair. I think his quotes speak for themselves, so the review of this play will mostly consist of that.
People on one side claim that God is on their side, only that doesn’t make sense (or also isn’t fair) if the opposing side also believes that.

God has made it impossible to do good on this earth - there is no good without evil, your choice may seem like harmless but still can destroy someone, do something bad.

“Your holy church is a whore, she sells her favours to the rich.”-this highlights how religion is beneficial for those in power. You owe church everything, you belong to the church.

“God is innocent of our sins”- damn also good point- again we are condemned to be free, to make our own choices and not blame them on something or someone.

The question of war
Winners define wars in our history books, the looser side is always the cruel one even if that might not be true. “Why didnt you accede to his demands before he lost patience”- this quote reminded me of Putin apologists about Ukraine war.

“He’ll demand free entry and promise not to touch a feather”- just a classic strategy of war criminals.
“When the rich fight the rich, it is the poor that have to die”- we fight on false premises, on fabricated hate, just so the government can get more money/resources.
“You are for us when we are massacred, against us when we fight for our lives.”
”Hatred, massacre, the blood of others are the necessary ingredients of your happiness- kind of like to have a tasty chocolate”, there was slavery involved (or at least unethical practises somewhere along the way
”No one will tolerate that you remained neutral while your brothers were having their throats cut”-Question of pacificsm if you are being attacked.

The character of Goetz
He is so charming- he is evil and cunning, funny but also very much real about what he is. At the start his evil attitude seemed a bit preachy but I think he is the perfect character to transform and grow. Goetz is not an idealist, he’s a contrarian. He chooses whatever seems like the least liked option. He felt special in his evilness, but was told that everyone does it. So he doesn’t want to be like everyone and becomes a kind of “saint”. Goetz sort of reminded me of Nietzsches Zarathustra- man is something to overcome - Goetz overcomes himself, his loss and accepts his being as is. Not entirely evil anymore but something in between.

Question of class

Unfortunately some men are worth more than others- some would rather kill 20 thousand men than a few priests. While this is a kind of class based trolley problem it really highlights how powerful people don’t see value in ordinary men.
But also the poor or middle class don’t really want equality- at least it doesn’t work in a capitalist system. If the poor become rich then someone else becomes poor and exploites them.

- GOETZ: How are we to cure the poor?
- THE BANKER: By transferring them to another social level. If you were to make them rich, they would defend the established order.


In camera/ no exit 2,5/5

I didn’t understand this one at all. There are 3 dead people in a closed room with each other without any mirrors. They are the torturer for the other two. One is a lesbian, one is horny and one just wants peace and quiet. Thats all I got. I didn’t get any symbolism or deeper meaning without my trusty friend google. So for that I give it a low rating- yes I give it a low rating because I am not smart enough to notice these things, yes it’s not fair. But the google answers made this play better.

Basically google told me- Hell is other people. Their punishment is the eternal inability to change who they are after death; they are frozen in the narrative of their actions as judged by others. Lack of mirrors and lack of peace and quiet makes them not able to precieve themselves, they have to rely on each other to do that. According to Sartre, human beings are "condemned to be free," meaning they are entirely responsible for their choices and actions.
I’m actually kind of sad that I didn’t understand this myself but at least now I know what it all ment

[WEN ↟ · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of Sartre's most notable quotes & his most famous line from his play Huis Clos (no exit) is “ Hell is other people”… The play is set in Hell but it’s very different to hell so many of us grew up believing. There’s no fire or physical pain. Instead there’s 3 people forced to spend an eternity together in one room. 3 people who will send each other mad. Sartre essentially makes this idea that Hell is sort of hotel. The fear the moral condemnation of others this is essentially what torments these characters.

The entirety of play is an analysis of our relationship with other people, both good & bad. Other people are essential to our experiences. Sartre highlights brilliantly that we need other people (they are essential to our experience) but we also need to be vulnerable. However with being vulnerable comes with a great risk. Sartre believes we recognise others as free which is a both edifying & scary concept. Why? We are constantly forced to tolerate the judgment of others or even forced to see ourselves through their eyes but we also want to hear their judgement(s) If it’s bad we want to change their minds & if it’s good we feel happy or relieved.

( A poignant moment in the play is where Garcin has had enough the Inez & Estelle’s company, to which he frantically try’s to leave the room. To his shock & the others the door to hell opens. He’s free to go. However he decides to stay until Inez agree that he is not a coward. The door to hell is open & he’s free to go… This is pivotal moment in the play, he chooses to stay because as much as he hates others he needs them to validate him. This is really telling moments as it depicts the torturous effects we can have on other people. We need their approval, there validation & this need grows stronger the more we are disapproved of. A certain extent of recognition is necessary if we are to come fully rounded. Staying in blissful ignorance of how we appear to others wouldn’t help us grow. For Sartre a person cannot exist in isolation we are moulded by the friction & interplay between society & the agent of themselves.

No exit is telling us something about how morality functions in our society, how it can unintentionally make us miserable. Everybody on this planet is guilty of doing something wrong (e.g lying to a friend or family or not sticking to matters of principle if personal matters are at stake etc). Sometimes our system of morality limits us to not expressing these actions because we need to suppress them or hide them away in our heads, out of fear of the moral criticism of others so (we essentially torture ourselves) & so we can think ourselves as ‘good’. Sartre is not saying we should get rid of morality but he’s expressing humans are not perfect even if you claim or pretend to be. In No exit Sartre is illustrating one downside to our moral system.

I loved the way Sartre explored The gaze of the other as a form of torture through these characters. There are no mirrors in Hell so the characters are condemned to be watched by each other. They are damned for eternity to see each other through the eyes of each other furthermore also their judgements of both physical appearance & their character this ultimately sends them mad. Sartre is illustrating that most of the time we only see ourselves through the judgment & opinions of others, through their warped mirror. Can you truly believe yourself brave if no one has told you so? How you deem yourself beautiful if everyone around you disagrees? Sartre is saying no.. For the most part this is a reflection on our society where some individuals crave the approval of others. Sartre is also saying that most social interactions will be reaped in fear.

(another poignant moment in the play is where Inez offers to be Estelle’s mirror to ultimately tell her what she looks like. This is starts off fine with a lot of admiration but then Inez thinks Estelle is judging her. She tells her there’s an ugly spot on her chin…which upsets Estelle greatly & of course she has no way of checking if Ines is lying because there’s no independent judge of her appearance - a mirror. Like the two women Garcin too is forced to rely on the judgement of the two women to determine his self worth. He implores them to see him as a brave man & not coward (for what led to his death) although he manages to convince Estelle.. Inez on the other hand won’t. This distresses him greatly as he can’t gain the approved of Ines ( who openly holds him in contempt) similar to Estelle he has no one to turn to offer him an honest judgement about his character. He too is stuck looking at himself through the eyes of others with no given solitude to save his own self image. He is constantly miserable as a result)

Whether you agree with Sartres analysis it is a thought provoking & entertaining play.

[iris and her library · Rating 3 out of 5]

the respectable prostitute: 3.5/5
on: racism, racial injustice, truth, hyper individualism, sex work
review: how the fuck is this still relevant? but yeah, idk man this infuriated me from start to finish, so I guess good on sartre.
tw: racism, slurs

lucifer and the lord: 2/5
on: war, class inequality, revolution, the necessity of violence, religion and faith
review: hated hated this as a play (it was convoluted, a slog, had endless nearly useless characters), but made some fantastic points on the above points. maybe it would work on stage? but it did not work on the page
tw: graphic violence, sexual assault, rape, so much religious trauma jesus (lol)

huis clos: 4/5
on: hell is other people
review: I get why this is the one sartre play that prevails and is still put on today. it’s short, but packed with story, humor, and characters. speaking of the characters, they’re all interesting and fascinating (especially the girl who was implied to be a lesbian…i read that right, right??!). so yeah, almost wish I hadn’t read it first so it could’ve ended my reading experience nicely, but no, I chose to end with lucifer and the lord (ugh).

[haz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felt like this took me ages to finish but that’s mainly the middle play (longest and most convoluted) ‘lucifer and the lord’. The last play and I believe Sartre’s most well-known ‘no exit’ (4/5 stars) was the best and most interesting of the lot. Got a kick out of seeing where the ‘Hell is other people’ quote came from. Will make sure to reread it and annotate it at some point.