Back in 2003, I directed an improvised play patterned after the creative process of British director Mike Leigh. Through a lengthy series of improvisations lasting several weeks, the cast devised a story that was then presented as a fully-formed play. Truth to tell, it would have been nice to have just a couple more weeks to flesh out the ending, but overall I was extraordinarily impressed with the work we accomplished and felt very satisfied, both creatively and professionally.

Apparently, some in the U.K. theatre establishment argue that the playwright should maintain his traditional primacy, and that plays devised by a group of actors are inherently inferior to those written by a single author. Brian Logan sums up the argument this way:

Devising companies will be familiar with this pressure - if you want to be taken seriously, stop improvising and get thee to a library. One can only assume the theatre establishment feels threatened in some way by devised work. After all, if you take the ensemble ideal far enough, even directors (a relatively recent innovation in theatre) can be surplus to requirements.

From my own experience, I can tell you that if you're doing it right, the audience shouldn't be able to tell whether a play was written by a single author or a devised by a group of actors. The end result should always be entertaining, moving, poignant drama.

You can catch up on the whole debate over at the Guardian blog.