First off, I've used them often. It is one of the most valuable tools a writer can use to see flaws in a script and the parts that shine. I know having my work read back has made them better (especially when done by good actors). Am I alone in seeing the value in this tool?
Table reads, why aren't they used more often?
- Thread starter lambert
- Start date
combatentropy
Veteran
No one doubts its value. If they hardly use it, I guess it's because, as easy as it may be, it's still 100 times harder than not doing it. 
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
A good table read requires decent actors. If you can afford to pay them, then by all means a table read is an excellent idea. If you can't, it can be hard to find good actors willing to commit time to doing a table read.
Why do you think they aren't used? I know very few writers who don't at least try to do them.
I know they are used, but it seems low on many writers priority list and off others radar completely. Point taken with cost and access to decent actors, I can absolutely see where these can be major obstacles. I certainly don't believe most screenwriters hear their work frequently enough early in their career to develop a good ear for dialogue let alone a great one.
combatentropy
Veteran
Greed, sloth, pride
The biggest reason I've seen for people who don't do it is that they're afraid of letting anyone else see their work, lest they "steal" it. That's a pretty silly fear.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
The second biggest reason for people to don't do it may be they are secretly afraid of actors.
I would think organizationally, and at the WRITING STAGE, as in, before you're at all ready to film, and with no budget (like many of us), this would be a very hard thing to put together, especially with real/decent actors, let alone friends. How hard is it to get more than 2 people together on the same day for a while when everyone isn't college age and no money is involved? Exactly.
Those answers all make sense. Writers are actually afraid of actors, wow, never would have thought of that one, another reason for writers to take a few acting classes. I hope the work is good enough someone would want to steal it, I agree pretty silly. I'm always flattered when a working actor wants to use something I've written as an audition piece. Obviously protect your work, but If you treat it as gold you will miss many opportunities, the work needs to get out in the world. The only way to find out how good or bad it really is. It does take work to put actors together for a read especially if you're away from the typical film areas or college world. For those writers afraid of actors or don't want to deal with them it might be money well spent to hire a casting director to make few phone calls and put together some actors. Actors spend a ton of cash on their craft, classes headshots, taking off shifts for auditions, gas, gyms. They can find the money to pursue their craft (extra jobs etc) so it doesn't seem out of line to spend some cash on occasion to improve our work.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
You can give it a try with just a few people who may not be great actors per se but are good readers or speakers. Anyhow - you will learn a lot about your script even when they do it "not right" - and if it is only that what you thought is in the script may not totally be there pr need more material or less. A rather well known director in my country even makes a reading with the technical team before he starts shooting. A bit overblown maybe but he is sure he and the team are learning something through it.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Money, or the lack there of is probably the biggest issue here. Many of the low budget films I have declined to work on had almost zero pre-production time scheduled. That tells me the whole story behind the project.
Isn't that weird? Pre-production seems like the time when you'd have all the time in the world (depending on which aspects you mean). . .why not take it and make a good product? What's the hurry? Festival deadlines? Are those fests going to be non-existent the next year? Will your subject matter be less timely another year out?
I think Final Draft (or one of it's earlier versions) has (or had) this function. Computer generated voices would "read" your dialogue to you. A friend showed it to me. It was completely useless. Like not even "better than nothing" - actually "nothing" was better because at least you weren't traumatised by robot voices. Maybe that online thing you linked to is better, but I'm afraid there is no substitute for live actors.
The challenge is of course that a writer writes with an inner voice - and it's just deceptive as all get out, bearing scant relation to reality. No doubt great artists are able to somehow compensate, and "hear" what it will sound like, but I think the vast majority don't have that facility. FWIW, I try to read my dialogue out loud, and in fact record it - you'll be shocked by what you hear. Mostly, my conclusion, is that - at least in my case - among the various problems with my dialogue is a very fundamental one: over-writing. It is easy (for me) to over-write, because while I try to imagine the film, it is in the end on paper at first, and the subconscious tendency is to over explicate everything not trusting for the picture to say what needs to be said. But enough about my problems - I just wanted to pass along the tip that you may (your mileage may vary, of course) benefit from recording yourself reading your dialogue - additional twist: after recording you should immediately put it away without listening to it first - and only listen to it a couple of days later - wow! (at least for me!).
Now, your inner voice just about NEVER seems to correspond to whatever it is that the actor does. At which point, there are two schools of thought - actually these days the second school of thought has completely fallen out of favor, and indeed been strongly deprecated. The first school of thought is to take what the actor does as the ultimate and final arbiter of how the dialogue should be read, including if the actor spontaneously changes or ad-libs... you just go with the flow, as if you're handing off completely and now the actor makes their contribution... a director might make some suggestions, but it's less frequent when it comes to dialogue in my experience (maybe yours is different) and more about other aspects of acting or giving a more detailed background about the character or motivation etc. - more rarely about how to deliver the dialogue itself. The other school of thought is the Ernst Lubitsch approach - where you have no compunction about telling the actor how the dialogue is supposed to sound, right down to actually acting out and speaking the part and requesting the actor to mimic that performance... yikes! You're lucky not to get punched if you try that these days, but apparently Lubitsch (a fine actor himself) had no such scruples... admittedly a very tempting approach, if the actor's "contribution" is not doing it for you and s/he's not giving you what you want.
However, the bottom line is that without a doubt table readings are super useful - it's just not always 100% clear what to take from it if the actor goes into a completely different place than you expected "wow, I really must fix my dialogue" or "hmm, say it like this, that's how it should sound". Speaking just for myself, I would love to use table readings, but without being able to pay, I am super reluctant to impose on actors good will, unless I can guarantee them the part, which I may not be able to for whatever reason.
clang
Veteran
I agree that computerised voices reading a script aloud probably won't give much value, other than a few unintentional laughs. The value of a table read comes from humans pretending your dialog is real speech, and you then discovering that some of that dialog is clunky, too long, confusing, waffly - and hopefully also really good in some places. It's particularly good for judging whether humour is working.
You don't necessarily need experienced actors - plenty of people can't "act" in the traditional performance sense, but can do just fine with a script in front of them to read aloud from. (But equally, some people are terrible at it.)
You don't necessarily need experienced actors - plenty of people can't "act" in the traditional performance sense, but can do just fine with a script in front of them to read aloud from. (But equally, some people are terrible at it.)
I agree that computerized dialogue is not very useful but I was assuming most of the dialogue on this service would be read by actors and that only the non dialogue would be read by computer voiced (I could be wrong). I haven't used the service but came across it in a stage 32 post and hopefully this or similar services if they exist may be helpful to those struggling to find actors. As far as a table read being an imposition on actors, I've had many actors ask to be invited to participate in future reads. Actors work hours preparing to go in a room for a minute to audition, why wouldn't they want to explore a character more extensively (many times voicing multiple characters). Most actors thank you for the opportunity. Actors realize the positives from participating in a read. I've hired casting directors in the past to cast readings, guess what that director was able to see actors for more than a minute. Some of those actors have show their range and expand the parts they get pulled in for. If your unrepresented and serious why wouldnt you jump on every opportunity to show off your acting chops? It should be a win win for all involved, if it isn't something is wrong.
rsbush
Well-known member
Table reads are a part of almost all theater productions. At the start of rehearsal you conduct a table read so that everyone can hear the voice of the play and get a sense of it's inherent rhythm. That's it. It's not an acting audition or rehearsal it is a read through. You do not want ANY acting from your actors. What you want is for everybody to just make sense of the lines and keep it moving along. No dramatic pauses, no digging for emotion. Beginning actors have a terrible time with this, mainly because they are trying too hard. You have to be very vigilant to not let them sink the read. Any interpretation an actor adds is going to affect the delivery of your more skilled actors just by nature, and pretty soon you're hearing the actor's voice of the play not the play's voice. Worse yet, when an actor starts digging for emotion the rhythm goes right out the window and now you have nothing but a waste of time on your hands.
If you are not in production and don't have actors on board for a table read, what you really need are people who can read aloud well, which means, just make sense of the lines as written. It's as simple as that. Keep it tight, keep it moving forward. You want to hear the voice and rhythm of the piece, not what an actor is bringing.
Some skilled players will bring more truth to a line naturally without really trying, this is fine as long as there isn't any interpretation going on, and can sometimes lift the whole thing a bit for everyone. You don't want to inhibit that.
If you are doing a read for an audience, that's a different beast and will require some acting chops from your readers. But, it also requires some direction prior to the read. It's purpose is to judge an audience's response.
Here's a cliche to help clarify what I'm talking about: Good actors can read the phone book and make it sound like something. If you have good acting at your table read, how can you be sure that you don't just have a phone book?
If you are not in production and don't have actors on board for a table read, what you really need are people who can read aloud well, which means, just make sense of the lines as written. It's as simple as that. Keep it tight, keep it moving forward. You want to hear the voice and rhythm of the piece, not what an actor is bringing.
Some skilled players will bring more truth to a line naturally without really trying, this is fine as long as there isn't any interpretation going on, and can sometimes lift the whole thing a bit for everyone. You don't want to inhibit that.
If you are doing a read for an audience, that's a different beast and will require some acting chops from your readers. But, it also requires some direction prior to the read. It's purpose is to judge an audience's response.
Here's a cliche to help clarify what I'm talking about: Good actors can read the phone book and make it sound like something. If you have good acting at your table read, how can you be sure that you don't just have a phone book?
Last edited:
Obviously a table read isn't an audition but I've known many actors who have received opportunities they wouldn't have otherwise if they hadn't participated (many booked paid work). One casting director I've worked with was given a speaking part after she filled in at a table read. I had an ex-writing partner fill in for an A list actor at a principal cast read through (drove three or four hours brought his baby , short notice). He didnt book anything from that movie (already cast) but the next major film he got a nice sized roll (would he have gotten it anyway, who knows, but his audition was put in front of the director). If a script is in the developmental stage I'm usually fine with an actor showing some emotion within reason depending on objective of the read. If its a fairly informal read (three or four actors around a table) I'll have them reread scenes, and if they want to get away from a middle of the road delivery I'm fine with that. Its pretty obvious when dialogue doesn't work, even the best actors will be fighting against it. It may be more palatable with great actors but you can tell when you're off unless you're completely unaware.