Top Girls

I mean that is also a classic reviewer trick too...talk about how important the play still is to avoid saying TOO much about the current production. Amazing how many words you can kill off with that...

An unabashed 5* from Time Out, and he is talking specifically about this production: www.timeout.com/london/theatre/top-girls-review

An interesting read:  'enjoyable' and 'brightly directed' seem to be the only remarks on the production aside from a couple of comments on the acting.

Well, presumably they weren't bored. And a review is the view of the reviewer, who will have stayed for the whole thing, not a review of the audience

3* from the Guardian - www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/apr/04/top-girls-review-caryl-churchill-revival-lyttelton-national-theatre - Billington thinks it's lost a bit on the huge stage and doesn't like the absence of doubling -

Well I say don’t let the nay-sayers put you off because I thought it was brilliant. There were no signs of a mass exodus of audience members tonight, although the reception at the curtain call was distinctly muted compared to the usual atmosphere at the National. I went in only knowing the premise of the first scene and found the play to be very different to my expectations.

Katherine Kingsley and Lucy Black give outstanding performances, and the rest of the cast support them well. There isn’t really a weak link cast-wise in my opinion. The problem is with the piece I think - while the first scene is a nice theatrical trick, and sets up some of Marlene’s character without giving everything about her away, it jars with the rest of the play stylistically and raises too many themes that are never fully grounded. What then follows is very gripping and by the end I had almost forgotten that the dinner party had taken place. I also had an issue with the set design - scenes 1 and 3 are great, but 2 and 4 were not well conceived in terms of sight lines. They’re both box-like and pushed to the front of the stage so people at the ends of rows will struggle to see the full depth of the playing area in those scenes. I was about 1/3 of the way in on the front row and scene 2 was awkward to watch. Scene 4 is better as the playing area is bigger but it’s still got the issue for extreme ends of rows.

Anyway, don’t write this one off as it’s a well-written play that isn’t what it first seems. It’s not perfect, but then very little theatre is and we don’t get anywhere if we’re not prepared to challenge theatrical form and try new things.

I thought this was excellent - agree with jgblunners points including the issues with the set design - I was about 5 seats in, it was fine for scene 4 but scene 2 was significantly restricted. Ironically the exhibition upstairs explains how they use digital modelling to avoid sightline issues!

On the cast doubling - most of the dinner guests in scene 1 do turn up in scene 3 as non-speaking visitors to the office. Gives them something to do I guess! There is some fabulous hair in that scene and I loved the look of the office although seemed odd there were no typewriters, fax machines, photocopier etc.

Loved the way the final scene made me 


Interesting watching it as a period piece. For instance the 46 year old woman being interviewed, talking about the different attitudes of younger women in the workplace would have been born in 1935 and is talking about women born in the late 1950s. 

Had a look at the playtext - there’s a note from Churchill that she wrote it as three acts with two intervals (act 1 the dinner, act 3 the current second act) and she thinks this structure makes things clearer but slows things down. In the original production the interval came before the office scene, also there’s a short interview scene which came after the dinner, which is now part of the office scene. She ends the note with “so do what you want!”. I think either of those would work better than the NT approach 

My heart sank a bit at the start. The first scene didn't really engage me and felt interminable, but after that it just got better and better and the whole thing is cleverly structured and draws you in subtly. By the end you realise the point of the first bit!

That's an interesting point which hadn't occurred to me. A good reason for not doing the usual doubling - this isn't specified in the text so would have been introduced in MSC's original production.

Working now. For info; 4 dates remaining with £15 and £18 seats in the front rows - two are matinees.

If this is still running, go and see it. Writing from the 1980s that stands up still, as well as presenting 2020s-style audiences with both historical insight into the period it came out of and, with regard to 'nowadays' when things are supposedly more sophisticated, knowing and different, food for thought.

I read this online yesterday and she makes an argument about the play that is worth thinking about:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/29/fourth-wave-feminism-play-top-girls-feminism

I saw it on Saturday and really enjoyed it. I was in the centre of row D, so no issues with the view.
Everyone around me seemed to be loving it too, people laughing like drains during the dinner party scene (which I thought was funny too, but not quite as hilarious as some people obviously did!)
Really lovely performances from all the cast (not sure about Angie, but she's such an annoying character anyway I can't see anyone being able to make her likeable)
No walkouts that I could see, and no one seemed to expect an interval after the dinner party although it's such a long scene.
I was really expecting to be bored after some of the things I'd read here, so an even nicer surprise.
My only issue was that it was FREEZING in the theatre, it got progressively colder throughout the performance (it was a very hot day on Saturday and I thought twice about taking a jacket out with me but I'm glad I did - I'd suspected it might be too cold in there)