開放劇場的「集體即興創作」之衝突與易逝

The Conflicts and Facile Dissolution of CollectiveImprovisation: "The Open Theater" as Example

10.30095/SYJH.201107.0004

朱靜美(Vivian Ching-Mei Chu)

集體創作 ； 即興創作 ； 約瑟夫‧柴金 ； 開放劇場 ； collective improvisation ； Joseph Chaikin ； the Open Theater

中山人文學報

31期（2011 / 07 / 01）

61 - 84

繁體中文

「集體即興創作」是歐美「新前衛劇場時期」（1960-70）甚為風行的一種實驗潮流，尤其盛行於朝夕相處、共同生活及演出的「公社型劇團」。在當時著名的公社型劇團中，約瑟夫‧柴金（Joseph Chaikin）所領導之「開放劇場」（The Open Theater）可謂最極端的代表，在既無劇本導航，也無表演藍圖的情況下，完全依仗「非語言」的集體即興來創發新劇。此外，不同於絕大多數的集體即興劇團摒棄劇作家於門外，柴金擅於挖掘天賦極高的年輕劇作家加入團隊，為後世留下了頗具文學價值的五部即興長劇，而團隊成員也多來自各行各業的菁英份子。這些團員犧牲原有的優渥職業，獻身於杯水車薪的前衛表演，其熱情之高、創作力之旺盛，在當時的集體公社型劇團相當罕見。可惜的是，開放劇團在成立十年後黯然解散（1963-73），無法像彼得‧布魯克（Peter Brook）的「國際劇場研究中心」（ICTR）或阿莉安˙虛金（Ariane Mnouchkine）創立的「法國陽光劇團」（Théâtre du Soleil）一樣持續不輟地從事集體創作實驗。本文的目的是挖掘「開放劇場」這樣理想色彩濃厚的公社型劇團，其特殊的「集體即興創作」方式所衍生的人事衝突與無法長久經營之原因為何。探討的核心包括：因開放劇場之劇作家的角色由一人變為多人，尤其是演員在劇本創作佔了舉足輕重的地位，這樣的分工方式有何優、缺點？特別是劇作家的工作方式大幅變更，會造成何種困難、衝突？導演柴金的人格特質與領導風格對作品的美學、團員向心力、劇團興衰等方面的影響如何？劇團組織的法制化與派系之間的嫌隙如何造成劇團分裂和瓦解？以上種種問題，皆顯示了開放劇場是如何在藝術與政治的角力之下逐漸殞落，也藉此反思集體即興創作所面臨的特殊困境所在。

”Collective Improvisation” is one of the most popular trends in the Neo-Avant-Garde Theatre(1960-70), whose undifferentiated mixture of private life and work characterizes this type of commune-like theatre companies. Among those famous practitioners, ”The Open Theatre”, directed by Joseph Chaikin, is undoubtedly the foremost example of this ultimate trend, who abandons the dominance of the pre-written script and pre-dominating acting style, depends whole-heartily on the collective improvisation to the ultimate extend and applies it as the dominating performing form and method. Besides, unlike most of the collective improvisational theatre companies who denounce co-working with the playwrights, Chaikin is keen to discover those talented young playwrights and collaborates intensively with them, from which five collective plays with highly praised literary value springs. Furthermore, his actors come from all walks of life, giving up their lucrative profession and devoting themselves into such lucubrating avant-garde performances, whose passion and creativity is unparallel among all the other collective theatre companies. However, ”The Open Theater” finally comes to an end after its glorious ten years of existence, unable to maintain the viability of collective experimental creation like Peter Brook's ICTR or Ariane Mnouchkine's Théâtre du Soleil.The purpose of this paper is to investigate the main reasons why ”The Open Theater”, an idealized commune-like theatre company applying collective improvisation, confronts the conflicts originated from this method and fails a long-term management. The core of this investigation includes: what are the advantages and disadvantages with the shift of playwriting from a single mind to a plural collaborative creation, especially to the actors in which they play a dominant importance? What are the difficulties and conflicts when the working pattern of the playwriting is drastically altered? What are the influences and side-effects of the personality and leadership style of the director upon the esthetics of the production, the centripetal force within the company, and the development of the theatre? How do the institutionalization of The Open Theater and the conflicts among its inner factions result in the collapse of the company? Upon all these questions, we may have a glimpse of how ”The Open Theater,” under the confrontation between art and politics, finally perished in the theatre history, and at the same time it allows us to reflect on the method and the problems of this kind of commune-like theatre company when it comes to creation and management.

1. Chaikin, Joseph "Letter to Gwen (Fabricant, Ms in Open Theater Archive)." Kent State U Libraries..
2. Mohan, Roberta.“Interview with Tina Shepard.” 18 May, 1973..
3. Glickfeld, Kenneth. “Serpent Log.” 1967-68..
4. Van Itallie, Jean Claude. The Ensemble and the Playwright May 10, 1969, VIP..
5. Van Itallie, Jean Claude. “Lecture [Storrs, Conn.],” March 1969, Sec. II, P. 18a, Kent State U Libraries..
6. Artaud, Antonin.(1958).The Theatre and Its Double.NY:Grove P.
7. Blumenthal, Eileen(1984).Joseph Chaikin.Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
8. Burns, J.M.(1987).Leadership.NY:Haper & Row.
9. Chaikin, Joseph.(1972).The Presence of the Actor.NY:Atreneum.
10. Chaikin, Joseph.(1975).Joseph Chaikin: Closing the Open Theater.Theatre Quarterly,4(6),36-43.
11. Coco, William(1983).The Open Theatre(1963-1973) Looking Back.Performing Arts Journal,7,25-48.
12. Feldman, Peter(1966).Notes for the Open Theatre Production.Tulane Drama Review,10,200-208.
13. Gaisner, Rhea(1972).Jean-Claude van Itallie: Playwright of the Ensemble: Open Theater.Serif,9,14-17.
14. Herman, Richard Jerome.Joseph Chaikin: "Thematic Investigations of Life and Death".Diss. Texas Tech U.
15. Hunt, J. G.(ed.),Larson, L. L.(ed.)(1977).Leadership: The Cutting Edge.Carbondale:Southern Illinois UP.
16. Lyons, Charles R.(1974).The Movement of the Creative Process from Playwright to Actor in the Avant-Garde Drama of the Sixties and Early Seventies.Mosaic,8,139-150.
17. Maloney, Peter(1968).The Open Theatre-Europe 1968.The Open Theatre-Europe.
18. Marx, Karl(1958).Karl & Frederick Engels: Collected Works.Moscow:Progress.
19. Mohan, Roberta(1973).Kent State U.
20. Moreno, J. L.(1987).The Essential Moreno: Writings on Psychodrama, Group Method, and Spontaneity.NY:Springer.
21. Morris, Ardith Ann(1989).Collective Creation Practices.A dissertation for the degree of Doctoral of Northwestern U.
22. Munk, Erika(1971).Working in a Collective-Interviews with Susan Yankowitz and Roberta Sklar.Performance,1,82-90.
23. Pasolli, Robert(1970).A Book on the Open Theatre.New York:Avon Books.
24. Ryan, Paul Ryder(1969).Terminal: An Interview with Roberta Sklar.Drama Review,13,149-157.
25. Schechner, Richard(1969).An Ivterview with Joseph Chaikin.Drama Review,13,141-144.
26. Schechner, Richard.(1981).The Decline and Fall of the [American] Avant-Garde: Why It Happened and What We Can Do About It.PAJ,5(2),48-63.
27. Shank, Theodore(1982).American Alternative Theatre.NY:Grove P.
28. Spolin, Viola、區曼玲譯(1998)。劇場遊戲：指導手冊。台北:書林。
29. Van Itallie, Jean Claude,Open Theatre(1969).The Serpent.NY:Atheneum.
30. Weber, Max(1968).Economy and Society.London:Routledge.
31. Weber, Max、康樂譯(1991)。支配的類型。台北:遠流。
32. 谷亦安(1989)。阿爾托（亞陶）式戲劇的演出形式及風格特徵。戲劇藝術，87-102。
33. 郭佩霖(1997)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立台北藝術大學。
34. 蔡宜真(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台南，國立成功大學藝術研究所。
35. 鍾明德(1993)。紐約檔案。台北:書林。
36. 藍劍虹(1999)。現代戲劇的追尋：新演員或新觀眾？：布雷希特，莫雷諾比較研究。台北:唐山。

1. (2023)。以「視域融合」觀點論表演藝術之創作思維。藝術學報，113，1-22。