My issue with introducing incidental characters

K

kylevant

Well-known member
Hi everyone. I recently finished the first draft of my first feature length screenplay (and hopefully my first feature film - one day...). Anyway, I started working on the second draft by doing a technical read through and fix up just to make sure it conforms to the standards and I came across an interesting issue...

Now we all know that you capitalize your characters names the first time you introduce them, including incidental/functional characters like waitresses and clerks. Now here's my issue: Say now you make use of a motel clerk in one scene. Then you use multiple other clerks throughout the film, each played by different actors. Do I capitalize every time I introduce the new clerk? Since they're actually new characters, but sharing the same name: Clerk.

For example (with scene numbers just for reference):

62 INT. HOTEL LOBBY

Jim speaks to the CLERK behind the counter...

119. INT. HOTEL LOBBY

Alan talks to a CLERK in the lobby...

Because technically it's a whole new Clerk, not the same one. But if someone reads it I'm afraid it may seem strange, since they may think that the Clerk's being introduced again - or that it's the same Clerk. Any ideas?
 
Mmm... I wanted to avoid that. It feels like it's placing too much attention on the amount of Clerks there are. And it doesn't look nice...
 
kylevant said:
Mmm... I wanted to avoid that. It feels like it's placing too much attention on the amount of Clerks there are. And it doesn't look nice...
Click to expand...


I believe that is the "standard" in these cases, "Clerk #1", or "Clerk 1", etc. same is true when you have say police officers, two in a squad car, and they are only marginally in the movie for that one scene

[scrippet]
EXT. HIGHWAY - NIGT

A car drives erratically down the highway.

A police car follows with siren blaring and lights flashing.

The car overshoots the curve, crashes into a tree.

The police car stops.

OFFICER 1 gets out, gun ready. OFFICER 2 shines the spotlight on the wreck.

A large CLOWN, gigantic in fact, pops out of the car like a Jack-in-the-box. Large teeth line the Clown's mouth.

One gulp and Officer 1 is gone.

Officer 2 drops the spotlight, pulls his weapon. Too late.

The Clown has him, and all that's left is a puddle of blood in the street.

[/scrippet]

For me, reading a script, there are named characters that I 'should' remember across the script... if a character just has a 'function' name, and perhaps a 1, 2, etc. after, I know I don't really have to remember that name for later.

If on the other hand it is the same clerk several pages later, perhaps that would be a case to give a specific name, so that when the reader meets the character again, there will be perhaps some 'recall' on the previous appearance of that character.

Also, in my example above, I didn't give any detail to the police officers... could be any one that passes as an officer... old, young, married, single... it doesn't matter in that story, in 5 or 6 lines they are out of the picture...
 
Last edited:
I understand the whole numbering of functional characters within a scene or a few scenes lasting a page or two, but in my screenplay there are multiple Clerks who are often separated by dozens of scenes. I could have a clerk in scene 30 and then a clerk in scene 130. I could have about 10 different clerks. I just think it'll look strange referencing Clerk #7 in scene 182 after not have spoken about any clerks for about 20 pages already.

Looks like I may just have to go the numbering route, whether I like it or not but I thought there may have been some sort of convention when it comes to instances of generic and functional characters. Like just telling the reader that this is a new clerk, you don't have to worry too much about him just that he isn't the same as any other clerk you've seen. Maybe a symbol or something, like &CLERK, or @CLERK, or #CLERK - when introducing - then we know, it's just a another Clerk. Instead of Jim talks to Clerk #18, and also having to worry about keeping track of all the clerks.
 
Bottom line -- if they are clerks in the same hotel, but two different people, then you either need to give them names or designate that they're different people by the use of "Clerk 1", "Clerk 2". I suppose they could also be "Day Clerk" and "Night Clerk", if appropriate. Or "Male Clerk" and "Female Clerk".
 
kylevant said:
I understand the whole numbering of functional characters within a scene or a few scenes lasting a page or two, but in my screenplay there are multiple Clerks who are often separated by dozens of scenes. I could have a clerk in scene 30 and then a clerk in scene 130. I could have about 10 different clerks. I just think it'll look strange referencing Clerk #7 in scene 182 after not have spoken about any clerks for about 20 pages already.
Click to expand...

I would wonder about things if it requires more that a couple of 'clerks'... what re-writing Frank Zappa and the Mother's of Invention's "200 Motels"(1971)... I don't recall any clerks at all... but anyway...

Even in stories that cover a lot of territory, for example, "No Country for Old Men"(2007), and "Fargo"(1996), picking Coen Bros' films because they often have 'interesting one-scene' characters, don't have 20 clerks... at least 20 specifically hotel clerk.

As a note, the couple of Coen scripts I found online, have 'WAITRESS", or "CLERK" for such characters as required. I didn't read them through to see if they had numerical versions when there was 'another clerk' in a scene, of the same type as before, but different location or setting.

While there may be use of minor characters to give realism to a script, having many such characters may lead to confusion on the part of the reader, which is death for a script.
 
Two things:

Instead of numbers, I like to give some sort of attitude or attribute like BALD CLERK or BORED CLERK or TWITCHY CLERK or SLOPPY CLERK. That adds a touch of character to that walk on...

And walk ons - maybe this is an indicator that you have too many pointless speaking roles? If a character speaks one or two lines (waiters, etc) they cost the producer over $1,000. Now, often this doesn't matter - but sometimes those add up and are money spent on characters who really serve no purpose. And you don't really want characters who don't serve a purpose. How many desk clerks are in MEMENTO? Might you be starting scenes too soon or showing us scenes that will end up on the cutting room floor? Look at that stuff while you are doing your rewrite.
 
Okay, if I go through it I can have (actual individuals as such, played by actors) about 4 clerks spread throughout the story. And yes, they are all functional and their functions are very important. Each of those clerks holds information that cannot be handed to the other clerks as it would effect their behavior around the main characters.

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
As a note, the couple of Coen scripts I found online, have 'WAITRESS", or "CLERK" for such characters as required. I didn't read them through to see if they had numerical versions when there was 'another clerk' in a scene, of the same type as before, but different location or setting.
Click to expand...

I've actually gone through the Barton Fink screenplay and it has many instances of "man" or "woman" functional characters with no numbers - although they're not capitalized either. Interesting...
 
kylevant said:
Okay, if I go through it I can have (actual individuals as such, played by actors) about 4 clerks spread throughout the story. And yes, they are all functional and their functions are very important. Each of those clerks holds information that cannot be handed to the other clerks as it would effect their behavior around the main characters.



I've actually gone through the Barton Fink screenplay and it has many instances of "man" or "woman" functional characters with no numbers - although they're not capitalized either. Interesting...
Click to expand...

The problem with the Coen scripts is they are often shooting the film they write... so, they are not doing cold call spec scripts. They may be writing enough of a script to get money people interested, given the successes that they had early on. (Who else could have a 5 minute Yiddish short that had almost nothing to do with the rest of the film... but I digress...).

I'll defer to WCMartell's advice about Character Hints in minor character names. So if you've used Bald Clerk before... change for variety... and if you run out of names... you've probably made too many...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The problem with the Coen scripts is they are often shooting the film they write... so, they are not doing cold call spec scripts. They may be writing enough of a script to get money people interested, given the successes that they had early on. (Who else could have a 5 minute Yiddish short that had almost nothing to do with the rest of the film... but I digress...).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that. Always peculiar.

j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I'll defer to WCMartell's advice about Character Hints in minor character names. So if you've used Bald Clerk before... change for variety... and if you run out of names... you've probably made too many...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I'll be going with that - it makes it slightly more personal than CLERK 1, but at the same time not too much so.

I do remember another method for naming incidental/functional characters which actually involves allocating a temporary name.

For example:

[scrippet]INT. HOTEL LOBBY
John walks up to a counter and notices a Clerk, lets call her SARAH...[/scrippet]


So just for anyone else who may come across this, there you go. Three ways to introduce incidental characters (or four, if you count the dodgy Coen brothers approach).

Thanks guys.
 
Last edited:
The problem with "BALD CLERK" or something similar is that it makes casting assumptions for no good reason -- unless there's a plot-related reason WHY the clerk needs to be bald.

And for me, saying "Let's call her SARAH" is the same as saying "We see..." -- it momentarily takes us out of the story reality. If I was going to go that route, I would just say "John walks up to the counter and notices a CLERK (SARAH)." Again, though, I personally would use "CLERK 1" and "CLERK 2", in order to leave the casting options open. But that's just me. :)
 
David W. Richardson said:
The problem with "BALD CLERK" or something similar is that it makes casting assumptions for no good reason -- unless there's a plot-related reason WHY the clerk needs to be bald.
Click to expand...

Damn! You got me with "plot"... just when I thought I found a way to introduce my incidental characters without them sounding like programming variables.

David W. Richardson said:
And for me, saying "Let's call her SARAH" is the same as saying "We see..." -- it momentarily takes us out of the story reality. If I was going to go that route, I would just say "John walks up to the counter and notices a CLERK (SARAH)."
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I do agree with you David. It does take you out of the story, but like I said - it's just something I've come across in a few screenplays.For me, numerically identifying characters takes me out of the story even further. A predicament indeed...
 
kylevant said:
Just for the record, I do agree with you David. It does take you out of the story, but like I said - it's just something I've come across in a few screenplays.For me, numerically identifying characters takes me out of the story even further. A predicament indeed...
Click to expand...

I see your point. But any kind of specific naming -- whether it's "CLERK (SARAH)" or "BALD CLERK" or even "MALE CLERK" -- is going to encroach upon casting decisions without a reason. So it seems the best path is the one that takes us out of the story the least -- whatever path that is.

If the scene times lend to this, maybe call them "DAY CLERK" and "NIGHT CLERK"? Just a thought.
 
Personally, I'd still avoid saying "Let's call her SARAH..." To me that's like TELLING the reader "I had no idea how to name this character for the purposes of the script." At least, that's the way it seems to me.
 
Seriously just give all speaking characters (or any featured extra) character names. You solve your entire problem, and it looks better in the end credits. The only description you're implying at that point is gender; which can be gotten around with unisex names.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
Seriously just give all speaking characters (or any featured extra) character names. You solve your entire problem, and it looks better in the end credits. The only description you're implying at that point is gender; which can be gotten around with unisex names.
Click to expand...

You can't really do that. Say you call a hotel clerk "Sarah". If nobody in the movie ever identifies her by name, then the name in the credits won't properly identify the actress who played the role. Better to be called "Hotel Clerk 2" in the credits than "Sarah" in that case -- someone can always scan through the movie and find the 2nd hotel clerk, thus identifying the actress. No amount of scanning will find "Sarah" if she's never identified properly. A simple hotel name tag isn't an adequate identification either, in my opinion.
 
The other issue with giving actual names to unimportant characters is that when someone reads the screenplay and sees a name, they think that is an *important* character and remember it (and write it down if they are doing coverage)... and this is just going to anger them.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Bald is easy no matter who is cast-- pull out the hair trimmer, razor, and shaving gel, ha!
Click to expand...

Actually in comparing some scripts that have been made to movies, often what is in the character description, does not actually end up in the casting choice. So, "BALD HOOKER"... would work just as well as "MOHAWK HOOKER"... in fact it is a very short hand way of describing, so one is not 'confused' while reading... which I hear is quickest way to the death of a script...

Put those descriptions in your script and it will be sure to be green lit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top