法國導演 Antonin Artaud（後以坊間普遍熟悉的中文譯名「亞陶」統稱）以理論啟發無數劇場人。波蘭實驗室劇場的導演 Jerzy Grotowski（後以坊間普遍熟悉的中文譯名「葛羅托夫斯基」或「葛氏」統稱）及美國生活劇場的創辦人Julian Beck 和 Judith Malina 夫妻就是其中兩個例子。前者的《衛城》和後者的《天堂此時》有共同傳承自亞陶的特色，如兩者都使用神話；演出像儀式；打破演員和觀眾的距離；不尊重文本而強調景觀和意象；使用聲音的差別變化，如尖叫、呼喊、吟誦和沉默靜寂等。這篇文章主要分析《衛城》和《天堂此》的亞陶概念如何不同？兩者打破觀眾／演員界線的目標、原則與方法又為何？雖說兩個劇團都受亞陶影響，但因他們製作目標不同，形式就差異很大。前者是有機、嚴謹的戲劇製作，悄悄地指派觀眾同為集中營的囚犯或是見證者；透過挑戰、顛覆觀眾所熟知的各種神話，來反思現代文明，是心理對抗。後者的形式則更貼近現代表演藝術的概念，透過援引中國或印度的思想，打造一個無政府主義神話，肯定而非挑戰演出的神話；結構雖有設計，但同時也是隨機的，因邀請或挑釁觀眾成為表演的一部分，以在劇場中預演革命，是身體的對抗。

French director Antonin Artaud has inspired many theatre practitioners with his theory. Among them are Polish director Jerzy Grotowski of the Laboratory Theater and the founders of the Living Theatre, Julian Beck and Judith Malina. The former’s Akropolis and the latter’s Paradise Now show some common Artaudian legacies, such as the use of myth, ritual-like performances, emphasis on spectacle and images rather than on texts, demolishing the barrier between actors and audience members, and great variation of voices ranging from scream, cry, groan, chanting, to silence. This article aims to answer the following questions. How do the Artaudian concepts differ from each other in these two productions? What are their respective goals, methods, and principles of breaking down the audience-actor barriers? Although both troupes are inspired by Artaud, their styles of production vary greatly since the goals they want to achieve are different. Akropolis is organic, and rigorously-structured, casting the audience members as witnesses or fellow prisoners in the concentration camp. By challenging and subverting the myths familiar to the audience, Akropolis creates psychological confrontation, forcing the audience to reflect on civilization. However, Paradise Now creates a myth of anarchism and ositively affirms it. More importantly, its audience members are invited or provoked to participate, thus making the structure less rigid and creating physical confrontation.