How does the play No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre, exhibit existentialist qualities?

I have to figure this out, and I saw the play yesterday, but it's still very vague to me.|||This paper summarizes Jean Paul Sartre's play, "No Exit", and discusses its existentialist theme about human nature and loss of freedoms. The paper describes how the play depicts a loss of freedom on several different levels and looks at how the characters in the play experience these losses. The paper also compares Sartre's notion about human nature and the basic need for freedom to the deterministic position as espoused by Robert Blanchford, which holds that the lives of humans are already predetermined.


"Jean Paul Sartre?s ?No Exit? is an apt description of existential hell. (Sartre, 1958) Existentialism attempts to describe our desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. Existentialism requires the active acceptance of our nature. Or, existentialism assumes we are best when we struggle against our nature. In either case, we should want this. Given this brief description of existentialism, what transpires in ?No Exit? is that the players are trapped in their own natures. There is a loss of freedom at several levels. The stage setting reveals that even in writing No Exit, Sartre cannot completely rid himself of his existentialist leanings. He asks for a chandelier in the center of the room. And in the ceiling there is a hole?through which he allows as an escape route."