I remember in one class I had that featured screenwriting, the teacher told me that I should give everyone a name even if their name isn't expressed.

Is it absolutely necessary to give every person a name, even if they only have one line and their name is never revealed?

Personally I don't think it's necessary to give everyone a name. Especially if there name is never revealed. It just ends up being unneeded chaos. Like you have a bartender, it's not like the actor has to know where the character is coming from to do that job.

I don't think each needs a name, either. You can refer to them as Man 1 and Woman 1; or "villager" and "another villager" or "man from Hoxton" and "man from Selsey". (as in My Fair Lady). Just so it's clear...

I agree that not everyone needs a name. You frequently see credits with "Cute Girl 1" or "Patrolman 2" as they scroll down after a movie or a TV show.

Julie

I join in with the rest.
If you have a character who's spending only a couple of seconds on screen, there is no need whatsoever to give him a name. A description (tall blonde) or a function (security guard) is more than enough.

I'll go against the flow, here. While it may not be necessary to give all the characters names, it can help you, as the writer.

A) It forces you to consider the character, even if just for a moment. If you give them a name, they're more than just someone who throws out a line. If the line can be said by RANDOM MAN 1, why couldn't it be said by one of your other characters?

2) Readers (as in the professional type who are paid to read scripts for professional coverage) want to be dazzled. Calling someone BARTENDER isn't very dazzling. Even if you put a little flair on it, like, SWEATY BARTENDER, it creates a memorable image. Also, once you get into numbering characters (i.e. COP 1 and COP 2) it can be difficult to follow who's actually saying what. So, again, if you get just a little bit creative and call them TALL COP and SHORT COP, there's a visual distinction between the two.

A character should never just be a device used to say a line. You, the writer, should know about every single person who populates your screenplay, even if you're just making it up on the spot. I mean, that's what writing is, isn't it? :)

A) I'll agree that characters who speak dialogue should have some sort of name. I've named everyone with any bit of dialogue (including one character who is identified as "Receptionist" in the action and character tags. One of the characters uses that one's name - "Is there a problem here, Dana?") However, there are times when you do need a random person - a waitress - to just be there in the scene as a character, to give the scene some realism. I don't feel that those people don't need names.

2) (why the switch from letters to numbers?) I'll agree that "Sweaty Bartender" gives a stronger visual than just "Bartender", but I'd avoid descriptions referring to height and build (or even hair color), unless it's important to the script in some way. It might just be me, but I - as a writer - keep hearing that we're not supposed to tell the director what they're supposed to do. Isn't identifying Cop 1 as "tall" saying, "You have to get a tall actor to play this role"? Maybe personality descriptors (gruff, harried, etc.) or physical descriptors (sweaty, tidy, messy, scruffy, etc.) would be better? It opens the role to more actors and provides a stronger visual than just "tall".

I've been in plays and I've never played a character with an actual name. When I had a line, I was "THE BLIND MAN". When I didn't, well, I was in a crowd of COWGIRLS or HOUSEWIVES or PARTYGOERS or whatever the script called for. You have to identify all the players you'll need, but you don't need give them all names.

Death toll: 7 named, about 181 unnamed

thanks everyone :)