「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努虛金（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.