In Sartre and the Theater of Existentialism, we observe a destruction of the dramatic form,

disrupt the dialogical space between the characters, and that lead to a crisis of the relationship
between object and subject. The main belief in the philosophy of existentialism is that life doesn't
make sense - everyone is alienated from everyone else. As a consequence, every person is forced
to define himself, because "existence precedes the essence", as Sartre says, what is the result of
our choice, not the opposite. Once everyone is free to determine himself, he is also fully
responsible for who he is and what he does. The fear and anxiety of this responsibility leads
many people to ignore freedom and responsibility by letting others make their choices. That's
why Garcin / "No Exit" / is not able to leave the room when he opens the door. He can not
oppose Ines and leaves her to determine his decision. Likewise, Estelle thinks it does not exist
until it is visible in the mirror. When Ines wants to be her mirror and says that Estelle has
something on her face, Estelle allows someone else to recreate it and transform her essence.

In the play of Sartre - "No Exit" the story unfolds in a room in Hell. After the three people
(Garcin , Ines and Estelle) are forgotten on the ground, they are now free to define themselves.
They then realize that they are unable to do so because the presence of others determines them
by what they see and know about them. Full confession of committed sins does not help to save
them, since their actions have defined them once and for all. "Man is condemned to be free",
Sartre wrote. They are not only "sentenced to be free" but are ready to condemn each other to
avoid their freedom. We change through the eyes of others, they build us according to their
notion, and finally we begin to accept their value system. We do not acquire the responsibility
until the moment when values are created by the other, not ourselves. According to Sartre, every
situation gives the opportunity and the responsibility to choose one's own, what to do.
Responsibility in this case is a personal act and nothing from the surrounding world can serve as
a justification for failure. This choice according to Sartre is the main characteristic of the free
person.

"No Exit" the theme of freedom is at the heart of the play. Here, however, is the boundary that
implies the freedom of society itself and the communication with the other. "hell is other
people," Garcin says when he sees that all the exits to salvation are closed to him. The
punishment of the three has nothing to do with Dante's "Inferno". The punishment is invisible to
the eyes, though their eyes, when they enter this hell of a hotel room, remain open forever to see

1
everything. Hell, this is the look of the other who watches and judges us what we are. Their eyes
to remain forever perceptible are the basis of their punishment. They can not even blink once,
constantly present at this moment. The punishment for the three is just the contact between them.
A contact that gives rise to fear and hatred and useless attempts to rescue love affection. The
reason they are in hell is their sins while living with their loved ones. Estelle kills the child she
did not want, Ines - psychic harassment, and Garcin has committed a treachery of cowardice.
They are condemned to torture the rest and to be tortured by them. Every desire they have is
mercilessly rejected by the other. Innes seeks the sympathies of Estelle, who rejects her, because
her desire is directed at Garcin, who closes this cursed triangle with the desire to receive Ines'
acknowledgment, which, in order to be denial, despises him. In this atmosphere of contempt and
desire, everyone seeks the other's sympathy, but is hurt when he goes to want it.

By the end of the play, Garcin is faced with the choice of going out of the door of this hell of
dependence on the two women or staying with them. Only he faces this choice, women remain
static in it. Sartre identifies the denial of consciousness with human freedom. The fact that we
can move beyond what we are to what we are not claim to be freedom. The idea clearly shows up
in the play that we are rather what we get from what we are. Our existence precedes the
formation of our essence. We deny what we have been to try to become what we are not. Sartre
talks about radical freedom - you can do whatever you want, but with this freedom comes the
heavy responsibility. "No Exit" is a glance at the unsuccessful attempt to be free. According to
Sartre, we are responsible for achieving what we can from the world. Because such a
responsibility raises fear, our freedom can awaken and we will try to escape it, as Garcin does.
Sartre calls this escape "bad faith." Unlike the lie - a situation where I know the truth and I try to
hide it from others - "in bad faith," Sartre says, "I hide the truth from myself." When we deny
ourselves by ignoring or suppressing the fact that our free solutions are decisive in determining
the situations in which we are, bad faith intervenes. For this and the play, all interpersonal
relationships are in complete failure.

The alienation in the theater since Chekhov has so far a similar function - to seek the real
experience, to break away from the falsity of human relationships in search of something
innermost. Chekhov reveals in depth the psychological processes behind the outer layer of the
difference between the characters. For Sartre, the alienation is interesting, above all, as an

2
existential category, as a situation in which the characters are challenged by choice and are
responsible for the consequences of this choice. Absurdists consider the alienated position of the
individual with the world and the other. Language has lost its capacity as a means of
communication, everyone is unable to understand the language of the other. With Pinter, speech
is used as a tool to conceal the truth. For Pinter, as we are closer to silence, we are closer to the
truth. His personalities don't have the essence, so they put different masks-roles to conceal the
alienation of themselves. A major feature of all the allegiance of the authors is the imitation of
dialogue. The dialogue is actually missing. Although communication is increasingly apparent,
the truth is, if one looks behind this appearance, that everyone speaks and hears only his own
voice. What Dostoevsky has expressed through the dynamism of his dialogues, the clash of
contradictions and sparking truths that come from them is gone. There is only a hollow echo of
what has been said. The difference in the alienation between Harold Pinter and Ionesco is that
Pinter is looking for the danger of communication, not the inability. For Pinter, silence is one of
the best ways to communicate. Under Ionesco , the relationships are simulative. They lack the
psychology of relationships, as is the case with Chekhov. The contact, though it is here, is devoid
of content. We see deepening alienation. In Chekhov contact is a lack of empathy, but he gives
access to self-reflection. At Ionic, this bridge was destroyed by alienation. In Chekhov the
dialogue is devoid of significance, the monologues stand out. They are stylized as replicas.
Between the characters, no connection is born, in any case, no oath in love does not come true,
but the lonely flame in the hostile city remains. In Sartre, opposite to Chekhov, forced by the
outside world, dialogue in interpersonal relationships is reversed. The limited environment
deprives people of a space in which to be with themselves and their monologues. In Sartre play,
the dialogue is at the other pole, talking to someone literally hurts the other, breaking through his
imprisonment and forcing him to answer. In Sartre, he seeks the way back to classics, breaking
the attitude of domination between environment and man, he radicalizes alienation. The
environment of him, unlike other authors, turns into a situation. The person, who is no longer
connected with the environment, remains free in the foreign situation, but nevertheless his
situation.