Top Girls

by Caryl Churchill

Serious Comedy / Castin: 7f. with doubling / Ints. Marlene has been promoted to managing director of a London employment agency and is celebrating. The symbolic luncheon is attended by women in legend or history who offer perspectives on maternity and ambition. In a time warp, these ladies are also her co workers, clients and relatives. Marlene, like her famous guests, has had to pay a price to ascend from proletarian roots to the executive suite: she has become, figuratively speaking, a male

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Feminism, School, Fiction, Classics

112 pages, Paperback

First published August 28, 1982

About the author

Caryl Churchill (born 3 September 1938) is an English dramatist known for her use of non-naturalistic techniques and feminist themes, dramatisation of the abuses of power, and exploration of sexual politics.[1] She is acknowledged as a major playwright in the English language and one of world theatre's most influential writers.

Her early work developed Bertolt Brecht's modernist dramatic and theatrical techniques of 'Epic theatre' to explore issues of gender and sexuality. From A Mouthful of Birds (1986) onwards, she began to experiment with forms of dance-theatre, incorporating techniques developed from the performance tradition initiated by Antonin Artaud with his 'Theatre of Cruelty'. This move away from a clear Fabel dramaturgy towards increasingly fragmented and surrealistic narratives characterises her work as postmodernist.

Prizes and awards

Churchill has received much recognition, including the following awards:

1958 Sunday Times/National Union of Students Drama Festival Award Downstairs
1961 Richard Hillary Memorial Prize
1981 Obie Award for Playwriting, Cloud Nine
1982 Obie Award for Playwriting, Top Girls
1983 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize (runner-up), Top Girls
1984 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, Fen
1987 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy of the Year, Serious Money
1987 Obie Award for Best New Play, Serious Money
1987 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, Serious Money
1988 Laurence Olivier/BBC Award for Best New Play, Serious Money
2001 Obie Sustained Achievement Award
2010 Inducted into the American Theater Hall of Fame.

Plays

Downstairs (1958)
You've No Need to be Frightened (1959?)
Having a Wonderful Time (1960)
Easy Death (1960)
The Ants, radio drama (1962)
Lovesick, radio drama (1969)
Identical Twins (1960)
Abortive, radio drama (1971)
Not Not Not Not Not Enough Oxygen, radio drama (1971)
Owners (1972)
Schreber's Nervous Illness, radio drama (1972) – based on Memoirs of My Nervous Illness
The Hospital at the Time of the Revolution (written 1972)
The Judge's Wife, radio drama (1972)
Moving Clocks Go Slow, (1973)
Turkish Delight, television drama (1973)
Objections to Sex and Violence (1975)
Light Shining in Buckinghamshire (1976) [7]
Vinegar Tom (1976)
Traps (1976)
The After-Dinner Joke, television drama (1978)
Seagulls (written 1978)
Cloud Nine (1979)
Three More Sleepless Nights (1980)
Top Girls (1982)
Crimes, television drama (1982)
Fen (1983)
Softcops (1984)
A Mouthful of Birds (1986)
A Heart's Desire (1987)[18]
Serious Money (1987)
Ice Cream (1989)
Hot Fudge (1989)
Mad Forest (1990)
Lives of the Great Poisoners (1991)
The Skriker (1994)
Blue Heart (1997)
Hotel (1997)
This is a Chair (1999)
Far Away (2000)
Thyestes (2001) – translation of Seneca's tragedy
A Number (2002)
A Dream Play (2005) – translation of August Strindberg's play
Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? (2006)
Seven Jewish Children – a play for Gaza (2009)
Love and Information (2012)
Ding Dong the Wicked (2013)
Here We Go (play) (2015)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Ch...

Reviews

[Steven Godin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now this is one dinner party I would have loved to participate in, shame it was a women's only affair. I guess playing the waiter would come a close second, just so I could overhear the conversation on offer between six charming ladies, five of which return from history.

There is the host of course, Marlene, out celebrating her job promotion at a swanky London restaurant. Now, where are our five guests?.....Ah, here they are starting to arrive, we have, Isabella Bird, a nineteenth-century English explorer, writer, photographer, and naturalist. Lady Nijō (1258-1307) a Japanese Emperor and Buddhist, Dull Gret, who was the subject of the painting 'Dulle Griet' featuring a heroine charging through hell with a band of woman battling the devil. Then we have Pope Joan (supposedly so from 854-856), who is disguised as a man, and there is always somebody who is late!, in this case it's Greselda, the obedient wife whose story is told in Chaucer's 'The Canterbury Tales', she probably spent about three hours locked in the bathroom putting her face on. This sets the scene (act 1 from 3), of Caryl Churchill's 1982 play which premiered at the Royal Court Theatre, London. It's a chatterbox heavy piece, with strong feminist themes, that really makes you feel you are sat around the table with them, indulged in the highs of the evening. The orchestration of dialogue works wonders, providing six completely different life stories that overlap each other in conversation, leading to some wonderful moments full of energy and wit, horror and dismay, humour, and drunken celebration,"Oh God, I can't bear it, Waiter!, I want some coffee, six coffees, six Brandies/Double Brandies!, straight away".

Talking of their lives, relaxed in each others company is the most simplistic of things, but it must have been a tricky scene for practitioners and actors, to find the right rhythm in performance to ensure not only that the meal is served and eaten without distracting from the dialogue, but that the guests, however distinctively different, become a chorus communicating more than their individual stories. Acts two and three take place in a back yard, the 'Top Girls employment agency' ( after Marlene's promotion to Managing Director) and a Kitchen, a year before any of the above took place, for me the first act was the best, but it still all worked out nicely put together, and as reading a stage play goes, this was one of the better I have read. Thumbs up Caryl.

[Jeanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a book that seems more likely to spark a dozen conversations than one which it is easy to judge per se. To the point: did I like it? Of course. I didn't actually expect to say things like, "it's clumsily written" or "the plot is hackneyed" about a play someone is given to read in lit class. So... did I agree with it? And that's where trouble begins. What exactly is the author trying to say? The end of the play feels like one big question mark, which is not a bad thing, but certainly seems to rummage through the reader more than the reader can hope to rummage through the piece itself.

You think you're going to read about fictional characters, about other people's lives. Not yours. Be able to get away from yourself for a while. Isn't that what literature is for? Escapism, right? Yet this play is like a stick poking into your brain and your heart and your guts, a mirror which forces you to examine your own reflection. Comfortable? Not always. But fascinating, for sure.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's just me these days. (But I doubt it, if this play is more or less of a classic.) Top Girls is about being a woman; it's about the entrapment and contradictions (more than just the hardships) which being a woman implies. There is a kind of impossibility in that fact. Being a woman. Antithesis? I don't mean to sound pessimistic by suggesting that, nor do I think that Top Girls is a hopeless or depressing work (first off, it's way too interrogative for that). It is often almost comical, interspersed with weirdly enthusiastic sparkles, just like a woman's life is.

So what should a woman do? I cannot give an answer because I don't know what the answer is myself. All I know is that God, I feel what Ms. Churchill is showing us. I know exactly what it's like. And I hope I find my way out of this maze someday.

[Soplada · Rating 2 out of 5]

As said about this play "It raises questions about Feminisn ,but doesn't answer them" and what a kind of depressing, fruitless and vain questions it raises?

[نازنینا · Rating 4 out of 5]

دوستش داشتم. خیلی زیاد!
شما فکر کن توی پرده‌ی اوّل چند تا شخصیّت زن، چه از برهه‌های مختلف تاریخ چه از افسانه‌های مختلف، دور هم جمع شده‌اند و دارند حرف می‌زنند. از بدبختی‌هاشون، سقط جنین‌هاشون، مبارزه‌هاشون و غیره. که خب گیج‌کننده و سخته خوندنش‌‌ چون خیلی توی حرف هم می‌پرن.
و به عنوان یه نمایشنامه‌ی فمینیستی خوبه که این نقد رو به فمینیست‌های اون دوره داره که آقا تو که هی می‌گی مبارزه کن، موفّق شو، پیشرفت کن، کار کن، فلان کن، بیسار کن، درکی از شرایط اون زنی که از طبقه‌ی پایین‌تره داری؟ همه نمی‌تونن مثل تو top girl باشن. بعضی‌هامون همین که زنده می‌مونیم هم هنره. ولمان کن.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Caryl Churchill is a master of taking what would in lesser hands be an experiment in collage and creating something emotionally charged and politically.

While on the one hand the characters in Top Girls are passionate and examples of strength, they are also figures of regret and uncertainly.

Luckily Churchill doesn't take a strong-side and make this a message play (claiming that working women are empty without a family, or that housewives are without identity other without their families), but instead seems to say that the act of choosing one's life is tricky in itself, always seeing the other paths running parallel to our own. I can see how some might feel this is a cop-out, but still: I found the play moving.

While still a topic in debate, the play does date itself slightly in that, when it was written, the subject was bit newer and probably had more teeth. How many debates, rallies, movies, novels, plays, etc. have dealt with this topic? Churchill seems to address this question directly with the first Act, in which historical and fictitious women of the past gather for dinner and we are told flat out that this is a subject that dates back over a millennium ago (and no, this scene is not just intellectual masturbation, it actually works!)

[Mar Leyva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh wow this was magnificient.

Reread 2025: still great.

[Marc Kohlman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this play for my college Feminism class and I thought it was very interesting how it focuses on what it means to be a successful woman. Act I of the play was intriguing and examines the social achievement of women through the legendary and historical female characters who attend Marlene's luncheon. Each of the guests represented different ideals of women having social liberties and power. Pope Joan reflects Marlene's own life style when I first read it. Both Marlene and Joan were clever from a very young age, determined to continue to engage in their studies. They also left their homes to fulfill their goals. Also they both had to mask their sexuality in order to rise to the high positions they strove to achieve and compete in male-dominated worlds. Another historical figure in the play who identified with Marlene and represents the theme was Isabella Bird. Both ladies were not content to simply settle down but wanted to travel the world and have that freedom to do so. Marlene and Bird "need adventures more" while they both needed men in their lives, neither of them allowed for them to wait for them "to turn into the little woman" men could abuse and control, such as Marlene's mother. Marlene and Bird both detested marriage. Marlene does not favor it due to the cruel mistreatment of her mother by her father's hands and Bird "tried very hard to cope with the ordinary drudgery of life." She started to feel for her husband John initially, bu he became "a skeleton with transparent white hands" that she was looking after. Isabella Bird's character in the play represents that part of being a successful woman- one should not be bound to a husband, trouble with having or raising children, yet instead carve out their own paths in life. The play also addresses the Marxist Feminist issue of women and Humanism. Nijo, another of the historical characters explained how when she was in favor in the court of the Emperor, she bore other children to him yet saw her daughter only once before she was killed because the child was female, which raises the issue of legal rights for women. Joan afterward explained how the Vatican issued an embarrassing test of examining the testicles to ensure popes following her were male. The rest of the guests laughed at how ridiculous the test sounded and it is an example of the issue of how women are ragarded in positions of power and were barred from holding seats reserved only for men. Patient Griselda's story also deals with this particular Feminist issue. When she was plucked from poverty to be the Marquis wife, she had to swear to follow his orders. Her obediance oath cost her the 3 children she bore, all taken away from her. When told to return home by her husband, she obeys. All the pain Griselda endured was to test her loyalty to her husband. While she understood why her husband tested her trust, she believed she could have been spared years of suffering if her children were not taken away from her. This was the first play of Churchill's that I have ever read and I enjoyed it and the subjects and issues it argues on about females striving to make their own way in the world and not be kept under a man's thumb.

[Siana · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are some plays, like dangerous narcotics, that warrant for a warning to be printed on the side. The warning should state that: This play may cause the reader to experience feelings of hopelessness, rage, depression, violent mood swings, blackouts, or, in severe cases, the reader might even develop chronic narcolepsy and spend the rest of their lives spontaneously falling unconscious whenever the name “Carly Churchill” or “Top Girls” are mentioned in conversation.

Whenever I read a five star review of this play – and, my dear reader, there are so many – I go back and stare at my copy for a few hours, wondering if some crazed worker at Amazon.com went off the deep end and ripped all this "golden content" out of my copy and replaced it with a hundred and fifty pages of vomit inducing swill.

Now, I am not intolerant of poorly written, pretentious literature *cough* , and I’m sure that Carly Churchill’s “Top Girls” does have some level of literary worth *double cough*, but seriously people what do you see in this? Was I the only one who read about Angie having a vampiristic interest in Kit’s menstrual cycle – I’m not explaining that, you can work it out for yourself.

This play doesn't explore sexism or feminism or the struggle of females in the male dominated work place. This play doesn't make sense!

Why do people like this play!? Do you not have eyes? It fails the basic requirement of the comedic genre in the sense that it's not funny. The only involuntary sound this play brought out in me was a sob of despair as I felt the sheer weight of all the pages I had yet to read before I could finish the thing and get on with the book burning I had had planned since I first read the sentence, “"Nobody notices me, I don’t expect it, I don’t attract attention by making mistakes, everybody takes if for granted that my work is perfect."

Stop whining!

[Marieke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A play about women taking over men's jobs. About the effects this had on society as well as the individual. Also a fun little dinner conversation between historical figures who achieved the (extra)ordinary: a woman becoming a pope, a Japanese courtesan of the emporor who travelled through all of Japan by foot, the obedient woman from The Canterbury Tales... An interesting group of people to say the least.

I'm not quite sure yet what my thoughts are on this play. I liked certain parts and I really enjoyed the pacing of the second & third part. The first part however was almost unreadable for me. I'm sure it would have been nice and understandable in theatre, but written like this everything was just one big chaotic blob of overflowing sentences. The core that I could grasp out of the chaos I did enjoy, though.

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was in this. In England, on a high school summer program. I learned how to pour tea properly thanks to my role. Some scenes were good, some were overly dramatic, some weren't as funny as they should have been. But how many plays do you get with an entire cast of women other than Nunsense? Points!

[Laura ⊱✿⊰ · Rating 3 out of 5]

"I'd like profiterolles because they're disgusting."

[Anum · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a rather interesting take on feminism by Carly Churchill. I really thought that she handled all her characters, style and language well in the play.

What I loved most was the way the play enfolds. First we are shown the so called successful women of the past and some reflection of their life and characteristics in Marlene. Then we see the amazing transition of every career woman's idol changing into a social hazard, a woman who had abandoned family for work. The structure of the play is by far its most prominent feature, also it is very well planned and based on an ingenious idea.

By making time a rather ambiguous entity in the play, not only is Churchill able to add a further dimention to her play's historical and fantastical characters, she is also able to make the problems discussed universal. Her characters who all seem to merge into one canvas from different times: may it be a seperation of few months or a few centuries, they all seem to be raising the same issue.

It seems as if society in Churchill's play is like a person who is clothed differently with the passing time. Deep down the core of the matters is the same but the covering, the upper layers are changed.

Another interesting factor that exists in the play is the idea of mothers and their children. There seems to be a chasm seperating the two in the play, perhaps a factor resulting from the alienation that Marlene has subjected herself regarding her daughter. All women seem to mourn the idea of losing their children, not the fact that the said child is lost. They don't seem to have the deep rooted love that a child has the right to expect from its mother. Nor do they give them much recognition as people. What appears to be missed by the women in the first act is the fact that they have lost something that they should not have lost. Even Griselda seems to love her children because that is the proper way of things to be done. She does not talk of her children as human individuals but as possessions, something with which her husband had the right to do what he willed.

One thing, however, left a bad taste in my mouth. The last argument between Marlene and Joyce regarding class differences and politics, somehow turns into a childish brawl. I did not appreciate how Churchill could reduce these two characters in such a manner. I would have wanted a little more effort put into the writing of that argument, or even a little more imagination that that, which was used. Anyhow, that was only my opinion. I would like to carry on and read some more plays from Churchill. Perhaps even see one if life gives me the oppertunity to do so.

[Rumeysa Satıcı · Rating 5 out of 5]

It can be seen as a rewriting of Irigaray theory. Male-centered world is criticisied. To be great, woman sacrifices their goodness as Marlene sacrifices her motherhood to have a succesful career in which to be succesful is required competition in capitalist and materialist world. As Irigaray tries to find an alternative to the constructed system, Carry Churcill gives us an alternative character Gret who is trying to be great and good at the same time.The first act gives middle age's woman problems and Churcill shows to reader that not much has changed. At the end of the book, same problems are still lying on the surface.

[Malia Weaver · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this play so much.

[andrea wu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. I don't think I've ever been so stressed out by a piece of literature in my life. I loved this interrogation of female success; although it's linked to a particular time in the UK, it definitely still feels applicable now.

I really want to see this performed!

[Lianna · Rating 1 out of 5]

After reading this play, just one word comes to mind; huh?

This is just so confusing. First off, every act is so different that they could all be from separate plays. They don't have any relation to one another at all. The only constant in all three is Marlene and I'm not even sure why. There isn't a plot, there isn't a story-line or any type of goal for Marlene, and it just doesn't make any sense.

Maybe I'm missing the point. I understand that this play is set in the 1980's, around the Thatcher era and feminism played a big part in society. Women were becoming more and more independent, breaking from the traditional 'housewife' stereotype and becoming more dominant in the workplace. I also understand that the ladies present at the dinner party in act one have all experienced problems that women still face today. I suppose that this is quite a clever concept; bringing five women from different eras and backgrounds into the modern world to discuss the issues they faced in their lifetimes. Issues that are still relatable to this day. I probably enjoyed the synopsis more than the actual play, as it included a short biography of each character. It lured me into a false sense of security though, as I believed that the rest of the book would be just as enjoyable. How wrong was I?

I had to read this for my English Literature degree. We haven't started analysing it yet so maybe my mind will change in time, but for now, all I can say is that I really didn't enjoy it.

[Harry McDonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read this before - apparently before I had goodreads - so it was interesting going back to it with more of a knowledge of Churchill's later work before it gets done at the NT soon.

The main thing is, this is bloody difficult enough to read in 2019, what the hell did anyone think when they tried to read it in 1982!?

And I love that last scene. And that miraculous first one. It's not Far Away but it's still brilliant.

[Finn Mannerings · Rating 4 out of 5]

Occasionally too hard to follow, brutal exposure of Thatcherism on both rich and poor women. Goes from celebration of femininity to questioning if female world leaders can ever be a victory for feminism if they’re forced to act in a male way for success. Furthermore, it examines intersectionality particularly ideas of women and social class and the stigmas that go with those.

[BrieflyGorgeous · Rating 1 out of 5]

Easily the single most annoying play I've ever read. Would not have moved past the first page if I didn't have to read it for class. Whatever Churchill was trying to do with Joan's character was NOT IT. Ugh.

[José Cruz Parker · Rating 1 out of 5]

A right-wing social climber abandons her family to find true success. This comes as no surprise, as she admires Reagan and Thatcher (and probably would have loved General Pinochet).

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Churchill juxtaposes a socialist/difference feminism based on care with a liberal/equality feminism based on careerism.

[olivia bennett · Rating 3 out of 5]

not bad but it didn’t do anything for me

[Dylan Greer · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The girlbossification of feminism” - Shayne Legassie, PhD

[Hanako · Rating 3 out of 5]

a ton of different characters and the importance of each isn't super clear. it feels like a lot of examples of strong women just for the sake of giving examples, but i was definitely drawn in (intrigued and/or disturbed)

[Mack · Rating 5 out of 5]

absolutely unreal

[Edward Cheer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Alright, alright. So perhaps I was too harsh on Churchill on my review of Cloud 9. I decided to give her another chance with Top Girls, aaaaaaaaaand it sucks!

After seeing this play, I discovered I was really hungry. For stakes! (These are the jokes, people. Take them or leave them). There are very few stakes in this play and I was constantly left wondering as to why I should care about anything going on onstage. The main plot is about a self-obsessed business woman who had an illegitimate child, who found her way back to her mom. That's it, Churchill. You don't have to stack a ton of unnecessary bland bullsh** on top of it!

When the play's second act was over, I made the remark, "Okay... all of that should have been condensed into act one. We should have more after this." Because the play only starts building its stakes towards the very f***ing END of the play! Seriously! Remember how I railed Man and Superman for that unnecessary third act in Hell? Well at least it had something philosophical and thought-provoking to it- despite it's complete lack of necessity. Top Girls' first, long, 40-minute scene is a pointless conversation between the main character and all these historically significant women in her office. What's at stake? Nothing. They're just chatting about stuff they remembered doing in their lives. And that's it. For forty minutes. And you feel those forty minutes drag because it's like watching a regular good party. No fights. No accusations. Nothing established. And they don't even call back to it at the end of the play! So what was the point of it?

Along with that, there's all this bullsh** painted around the simple story of a woman who left her child behind to be taken care of by her sister and yet these side characters in her office host these random interviews with people who want to join the Top Girls but give bad interviews, and... that's also it. What's the point of that? Is the business failing? Do they need new employees? Should I care about the interviewees? Well they're only in one scene each and then they're all gone for the rest of the play, so I guess I shouldn't care. But the play has so much it wants to say about feminism! Okay, but is the story good? Not really.

Don't get me wrong, when the play picks up it starts getting interesting but it feels like too little too late. Churchill should have cut out all the pointless scenes that did nothing for Top Girls and then focused more on the mom, her sister, and her daughter and made the drama about that but there's all this nonsense at the business that does literally nothing for the central plot. We end at the sister's house with the daughter! So if that was the whole point of the story, why is there all this unnecessary bullsh**?

F*** this play. I was so frustrated by it, and I was amused by seeing so many people leave the theatre one by one out of frustration for the play and for the way it was staged. To be fair, the staging of the production I saw of Top Girls was pretty good, but Christ Almighty... this script is just garbage!

[Ananya M · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such a good play!! It’s a little confusing, but also made really clear through the dialogue. There are a lot of characters and most of them appear only once, but make their point as to what they represent and they stay with you even though they’re never mentioned again.
The number of themes I could derive from this play was insane, I didn’t realize it until I made notes. Here are some- motherhood, change, power, marriage, patriarchy, visibility, misery, choice.
Also this play has zero men, and Churchill makes it a point to only have them be talked about but never present in person. It adds to the overall ‘feminist’ aspect of the play. This ones worth a read for sure.

[Taraneh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very detailed intelligently written play it was ! Every single information you're given is so cleverly put in its place that makes you want to stand up clap your hands for Churchill!
And yes I did cry at the end so how can I not like a play that moved me this much !?
Loved different female characters Churchill created. I could identify with each of them in a different way. I felt like each of them carried a little part of my soul.

[Maxwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting approach to playwriting here. It mixes historical figures at a dinner party, with Marlene, being one of the only consistent characters throughout, as she works in a temp agency. Reminded me of Ali Smith's writing with the strong feminist themes and blending of modern and historical time frames. Looking forward to unpacking this in class.

[Cali]

*read for theatre class*

Big fan of the historical cameos in the first scene. Interesting to read this decades after Thatcher to see how, even at the time, her brand of feminism was polarizing. Also quite a nice change to read a play by a woman with a full female cast (especially after suffering through the misogynistic disaster that is Plautus).