Improvisers sometimes adopt tools they've seen others use without considering their potential negative side effects. I agree that in mid-scene, a scene-paint can be a needless interruption. When coming from an outside player, there's no way for them to provide more context or clues about what they're trying to add. If an inside player does it, why couldn't they just build the detail into the scene more naturally?
That said, I can think of two ways scene-painting is useful. 1. As a training tool for newer improvisers learning object placement and keeping track of where things are on the stage. A scene-paint in the introduction can help them set up the location for everyone with less confusion. 2. If the initiator has a strong premise in mind that relies on specific detail, they can scene-paint it at the top. This gets them into the scene faster and with less risk that their object work doesn't put it across.
But, in both cases, you'd do the scene-painting in the setup and not in the middle of the scene.
Hey David - thanks for such a thought-out comment. Really got me thinking. I can see how both these examples would be useful and I’m going to play about with them myself to see how they feel. Lloydie
Hi, Lloydie! I can tell you that in Chicago, at least, scene painting grew out of the Movie form that Del directed the team The Family in, in which they would narrate elaborate, poetic descriptions of the setting and environment, as you might find in an actual screenplay. The form and their style were so popular that the scene painting made its way into Harold and other forms where it was less intrinsic. Like any sideline support move, it has its time and place and may be used in the service of good (activating the players' and audience's imaginations) or evil (a cheap laugh and/or to make the players' job more difficult). Loving the podcast, thanks for all your deep thoughts on the artform!
Hi Craig! Thanks for this comment. That’s some really useful context that makes sense of why this move exists! I can totally see how it would be a really important part of The Movie and that makes so much sense to me. It’s also interesting to hear how scene painting made its way into other forms. Like I say, it’s not a tool I find as useful as others as (for me at least) I find it robs me of some of the discovery I so love in improvising, but a big believer in folks doing whatever works for them. Thanks for the kind words on the podcast. Would love to talk to you on an episode before long if you’re game to do so. All the best - Lloydie
Improvisers sometimes adopt tools they've seen others use without considering their potential negative side effects. I agree that in mid-scene, a scene-paint can be a needless interruption. When coming from an outside player, there's no way for them to provide more context or clues about what they're trying to add. If an inside player does it, why couldn't they just build the detail into the scene more naturally?
That said, I can think of two ways scene-painting is useful. 1. As a training tool for newer improvisers learning object placement and keeping track of where things are on the stage. A scene-paint in the introduction can help them set up the location for everyone with less confusion. 2. If the initiator has a strong premise in mind that relies on specific detail, they can scene-paint it at the top. This gets them into the scene faster and with less risk that their object work doesn't put it across.
But, in both cases, you'd do the scene-painting in the setup and not in the middle of the scene.
Hey David - thanks for such a thought-out comment. Really got me thinking. I can see how both these examples would be useful and I’m going to play about with them myself to see how they feel. Lloydie
Hi, Lloydie! I can tell you that in Chicago, at least, scene painting grew out of the Movie form that Del directed the team The Family in, in which they would narrate elaborate, poetic descriptions of the setting and environment, as you might find in an actual screenplay. The form and their style were so popular that the scene painting made its way into Harold and other forms where it was less intrinsic. Like any sideline support move, it has its time and place and may be used in the service of good (activating the players' and audience's imaginations) or evil (a cheap laugh and/or to make the players' job more difficult). Loving the podcast, thanks for all your deep thoughts on the artform!
Hi Craig! Thanks for this comment. That’s some really useful context that makes sense of why this move exists! I can totally see how it would be a really important part of The Movie and that makes so much sense to me. It’s also interesting to hear how scene painting made its way into other forms. Like I say, it’s not a tool I find as useful as others as (for me at least) I find it robs me of some of the discovery I so love in improvising, but a big believer in folks doing whatever works for them. Thanks for the kind words on the podcast. Would love to talk to you on an episode before long if you’re game to do so. All the best - Lloydie
Would be delighted to chat! I DM'ed you on Facebook.