: In a stage play, how should the script refer to minor characters whose names are irrelevant? Problem I'm writing a play that includes a number of minor characters who only exist for a scene

Vote Up Vote Down

+1 Cyn, however, typically you use a designation (Woman #1 , Cop #1 , Kid #1 ) and always number sequentially from 1, using '#', and don't not use random numbers like 5 or 9. If you want to be specific on the crowd size, if you think that makes a dramatic difference, then be specific. (It can, a crowd of 6 is dramatically different than a crowd of 60).

A crowd, about a dozen men and women, two uniformed police officers, the mayor and eight councilmen, all male.
Woman #1: I think this is a rip-off!
Man #1: Corrupt! That's what it is!
Woman #2: It's stealing money from the grade school!
Councilman #1 (into microphone): Calm down, everybody! It's just a loan!
Woman #1: A loan that won't ever be paid back! It's a rip-off!
Cop #1: Ma'am, please calm down.
Man #1: Or what? She's got rights!
Cop #1 looks at Cop #2, Cop #2 waves a cut-off signal at his own throat. Cop #1 rolls his eyes up and ignores Man #1.

You can add other dialogue tags to this for direction if you want (angrily, tearful, shouting, wearily, calmly).
The numbers give the director the count of exactly how many of these anonymous SPEAKING PART actors he needs, the designation a notion of costume and purpose.
If you say "Townsperson #5" it seems there are at least 5 speaking parts. The only men, women cops or councilmen that get a number are those with action or speaking parts, everybody else is just part of the crowd or one of several.
I will also say "Townsperson" is too general, pick a gender at least, that can dramatically change the weight and tone of what is said.
An action but non-speaking part is like Cop #2 above. Or "Man #2 raises both middle fingers far above his head, directed at the Mayor."
Remember the play is a story, but first it is a PLAN for the director in visualization and casting and to some extent the challenges of production and rehearsal.
Random members of an upset crowd are just extras. They don't have to be at the read-through, or at multiple rehearsals. But anybody that speaks or takes specific action needs more attention, in casting and rehearsal, even if they are only in a single scene.
If you have a character that appears in two or more scenes, name them (capitalized) and describe them, even if they have no speaking part (e.g. they could be background comic relief, like a janitor always getting himself in trouble); this tells the director it is the same character, so you aren't forced to refer to Man #1 from scene 3 or something. it is just like

In the b.g. throughout CARL, an elderly janitor, is struggling hard to open a folding ladder, with no success.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Every character must have a name.

The name doesn't have to be a real name, but it needs to be something that identifies that character as unique.

In a novel, you can get away without naming characters. But a play requires casting. If you are going to have a person on stage, they need to know which lines are theirs. The director needs to know who they are and how many there are. The other actors need to know who to direct their lines or actions to.

So name them. Any of the following are fine:

Alice, Bob, and other real names.
Townsperson #1 , up to Townsperson #5 , etc.
Woman in bakery.
Man with umbrella.

I wouldn't use "prepared townsperson" and "unprepared townsperson," because they don't sound like distinct ways of referring to a character. Also they're similar in a way our eye doesn't always catch (like it would with a #1 or #2).

It also makes sense to lump minor characters together and give them numbers. So instead of having a dozen "townpersons" who never interact, maybe have:

Yoga student #1 & #2.
Cashier.
Woman walking dog.
Bakery customer #1, #2, & #3.

Just so it's clear, not terribly long, and makes it easy for the director and others to figure out who is who.

(0)