The Skin of Our Teeth is an ambitious, thought-provoking play. Thornton Wilder completed this, his sixth play, on 1 January 1942 and - as we gather from a delightfully lilting voice-over by Kenneth Branagh during the film projection at the play's opening - it is a play about the Antrobus family: a typical all-American family made good, living the American dream. Mr Antrobus, his wife, his son, Henry, and daughter, Gladys, live comfortably in a white-washed suburban home with a maid to light the fire and make sandwiches.

The Skin of Our Teeth however is much more than an average, all-American play, and despite the many comedic passages, makes far from comfortable viewing. Possibly its most striking feature is that it is a play about a play - a play that contains references to itself as a play. Characters speak directly to the audience, commenting on the play, so breaking any attempt at theatrical illusion. For example, the theatre Director, Mr Fitzpatrick (who tells us that seven of the cast members are sick due to food poisoning - and are currently at the JR!) and various theatre staff members rehearse briefly the ending of the play. Our common preconceptions of time, place and usual play form are subverted. The supposedly average 1940s American family live through the ice-age and the start of the Great Flood, remain married for the next five thousand years (they celebrate their five-thousandth anniversary) and survive (in this production) the Second World War.

In one sense this play purposefully defies the critic, since we are told repeatedly in some of the play's more self-conscious moments that we, the audience, should not take the play at all seriously - and even that the playwright himself had no idea what he was writing. On the other hand, this very defiance is at the heart of the play, and in some ways forms the most substantial core of any message or memory that one may take from it. It is not flippant to suggest that the play may otherwise be fairly empty of meaning, since this attempt to communicate whilst acknowledging the difficulty in communicating is subject matter enough for any performance. If this sounds too post-modern for you, don't worry - it is possible to enjoy this play without contracting a headache!

For an actor to convince an audience that he can play his role, whilst also speaking directly to the audience, takes exceptional skill. If this is not done well, such devices can seem clumsy. Although in places this play is exceptionally well-acted, one key role is not quite acted well enough in order to give the play the unity it needs. This is the part of the maid, who ends and opens the play, and gives the play its structure. It is the maid (Dilveer Panesar) who speaks directly most frequently to the audience. Panesar acts very well, but she does not convince equally well in all her roles. This is a shame, because it is otherwise a good play and a good production.