Top Girls: Lonely at the Top

       On Saturday, April 5^th at 7:30 p.m. in the Wismer Theater, Carly Churchill’s Top Girls was performed. Directed by William J. Johnson and starring Nikki Allair, Paige Patterson, Marianne Riera, Lauren Cipoletti, Elizabeth Chilcott, Cindy Kay, and Lindsey Schmeltzer, the play, in the most basic summary, explored the exploits of various women. In one edition of Churchill’s manuscript, she provides an introduction that attempts to explain the goal of the play. She wanted to write a piece that was focused on female success; at the time, many of the shows were written by men and featured mainly male parts, giving women very little voice. This show gives all the voice to women - what that voice brings to light, though, may not be the sunshine and rainbows expected of female figures.

      Act I, Scene I features a modern-day executive attending a dinner party at a restaurant with various historical and fictional women of power. In her notes, Churchill records that this idea first came to her between 1977 and 1978 - she found plans for it in one of her old notebooks. The distance in time from when she first had this idea to when she wrote the rest of the play may account for the fact that this scene, although beautifully executed, does not really fit in with the rest of the production. Instead of aligning Marlene, the protagonist, with these impressive figures, this peculiar opening nearly undercuts Churchill’s message, as it highlights the change in society’s idea of “success,” and what it takes to get to the “top.”

      The dinner scene features top girls: Isabella Bird, a woman who traveled and wrote in the late 1800’s; Lady Nijo, a Japanese courtesan, Buddhist, and writer; Dull Gret (Dulle Griet) who was the featured heroine of a painting by Brueghel; Pope Joan, a woman who dressed up as a man, and whom is believed to have been Pope from 854 to 856; Griselda, the patient wife who’s story is told in Chaucer’s “The Clerk’s Tale” of The Canterbury Tales; Marlene is the high-powered woman of “today.” Throughout the scene, these women exchange stories, often talking over each other. This point alone frustrated me, because it seemed to underline the belief that woman don’t really listen to one another, but simply wait for a turn to talk - in this case, they don’t even wait.

      While each actress did an absolutely superb job with their characters - Elizabeth Chilcott was absolutely explosive in all her roles - the show as a whole seemed fragmented. The focal plot seemed to be the relationship between Marlene and Joyce, and the “sacrifice” that Marlene made in order to follow her dreams of success: giving her daughter Angie up to the care of her sister, Joyce, and passing for “Auntie Marlene” instead of “Mom.” However, her sacrifice and her goal both pale when compared to the conquests of the previously introduced characters.

      Patient Griselda spoke of the tests her husband put her through in Chaucer’s “The Clerk’s Tale” - having her children taken away from her upon their birth, and being sent away from him herself in order to prove her love and devotion to him. When he allowed her to return months after her initial exile, her children were also reinstated to her care: they were both in their pre-pubescent years by this time.

      Gret, donning an apron and brandishing a sword, gave her dynamic testimony of her journey to hell (painted by Brueghel), where she led a mob of women to fight off the devils. Her account was so impassioned, so vivid, I was moved to tears. When someone in the audience laughed, I was infuriated. The depth of this reaction -- the sense of sympathy of, and protection toward, this character -- made me realize the extent to which I was invested in the show; the acting, all-around, was simply remarkable.

      I spoke to my friend about the show, trading opinions, impressions, and commentaries, and found that we took away very different ideas of what the play was trying to accomplish. While I felt that the opening scene took away from the overall “message,” she felt that it contributed to it, emphasizing the notion that if this is what it takes for a woman to get to the “top,” this sacrifice and pain, then maybe being at the top isn’t worth it. She broadened it even further, expanding this idea to cover men - people just have too much self-interest to have their priorities properly aligned.

      After having this discussion, I admit my opinions of the production have shifted. I still feel that the first scene did not fit in, but my deeper understanding of Churchill’s intention has caused me to regard the piece with more esteem. I began with the impression that Marlene, the modern executive, was to be held to the same level of strength and endurance as the historical figures. I now realize that it is not strength and endurance that was being targeted, but the willingness of an overambitious spirit to surrender what is closest to them in order to achieve their goal.