‘The Skin of Our Teeth’ Review: A Party for the End of the World
Thornton Wilder’s antic play, from 1942, packs in an ice age, a deluge and midcentury décor. This Lincoln Center production is the maximalist revival it deserves.
‘The Skin of Our Teeth’ Is Crazy, Deep, and Stars Broadway’s Coolest Dinosaur
Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer-winning ‘The Skin of Our Teeth’ spans 5,000 years, including an ice age, dinosaurs, and war. Its odd mischief still sparkles in a Lincoln Center revival.
"The peaks were high enough to woo the critics of 1942 and win a Pulitzer Prize. The chasms are long enough to send the ordinary viewer spiraling into confusion interrupted only by soul-crushing boredom. “The Skin of Our Teeth” is such a difficult play to make work, it makes “Macbeth” look like a walk through the heather.
And there you have the problem with Lileana Blain-Cruz’s epic Lincoln Center revival, an admirably imaginative treatment of the play that alas does much too little to find a way in for its audience."
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems to me that Oleksinski attributes some of Wilder's words to Branden Jacobs-Jenkins in his review:
"This staging tries to add in some modern meaning with new text. The excellent playwright Branden Jacobs Jenkins contributed material for Beans, who occasionally breaks character as Sabina to speak as herself.
'I hate this play and every word in it,' Beans says in Act 1. 'I don’t understand a single word of it, anyway. All about the troubles the human race has gone through. There’s a subject for you.'
That’s funny commentary. But is it wise, with three hours still to go, to acknowledge that audiences famously don’t care much for this show? I’m not convinced. There are always two choices: Do the play or don’t do it. Save the essays for the program."
The lines he quotes are included in Wilder's original script, and, from what I recall, the contributions from Jacobs-Jenkins in this production were relatively minimal. It seems odd to spend a sizable chunk of his review criticizing LCT for not "do[ing] the play," when that's pretty much exactly what they did - and in a way that makes the text feel so fresh, it's seemingly confused some critics into thinking it's been heavily updated by a contemporary playwright.
Is anyone a real expert of the play who can tell us what changes BJJ made aside from changing some show titles and references? From what I've seen, his contributions sound extremely minimal –– like, "directors & producers have done more extensive changes without an actual writer" minimal. But I'm no authority on this play.
Oleksinski is horrible. And here is proof that he just doesn't know what he's talking about (and yet is so sure of himself, he is trying to pit himself as an expert of the play despite clearly having no knowledge of it). His thoughts on For Colored Girls were fairly problematic. But now he just makes himself look silly and uninformed to the rest of the theater world. I guess that's your comeuppance Johnny!
"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe."
-John Guare, Landscape of the Body