That sounds like an amazing development, Keith. But I can't find any obvious indications on the Spotlight website that this new function is in place - have you got any more details on the background to this?
I think such a development will, if it is going ahead, undoubtedly have both beneficial, but also possibly deleterious, results...
First off, I think it's obvious that most actors will welcome the opportunity to get the chance to see a wider range of casting breakdowns, offering access to better paying jobs, than they might otherwise ordinarily get (no disrespect to CCP, I hope, but they will be the first to acknowledge that many of the jobs on sites like this are lo pay). Seeing these casting breakdowns may help give individual actors better insights into how casting demographics for major companies and theatres work, and acquaint them better with the work of certain casting directors. One of the most important reasons that actors are so reliant on agency representation (aside from the simple fact that agents ensure the best payment deals on actors' behalves) is that only agents have access to this kind of confidential, privileged information, and so, it is often only through an agent's auspices that an actor is offered the chance to land a truly high ranking job. Simply put, there is little opportunity that the actor could easily get to know about the existence of the job in the first place without the agent's help.
I am sure there are some actors out there who would love to represent themselves, and rather not have to give a slice of their earnings to an agent, some who simply cannot land an agent and need to find their own worthwhile work, and many who are saddled with agents whom they would be better off without. So, this 'democratising' of an application process would be a massive boon. Also, there is the old adage that the 'personal touch' can work wonders at the casting stage, and, frequently, what an agent may argue on your behalf is not as 'personalised' (and therefore as affecting?) as what you yourself may come up with.
BUT
with this said, I remain baffled by the development, and slightly disturbed by the implications of it. There seem to be good reasons why these sorts of casting set -ups have previously remained confidential. Essentially, when a Casting Director is looking to fill a part, then they hope to do the job with the minimum of difficulty, at the same time ensuring that an actor whose work will reflect well on their initial casting choice gets cast. So, casting directors naturally prefer to cast actors they trust - this is the number one criteria - that the actor will be able to deliver. Also, casting decisions often need to be made quickly, particularly in the world of TV and Screen.
I think we, as actors, are ever hopeful that an open - minded casting director may want, on occasion, to cast their net wide, and we might get a chance to be seen for a part. And, within reason, given that we may have the correct look for a part etc., it's more than possible - but even this is rarely considered defensible without there being some kind of collateral incentive for the CD to want to take a 'chance' on you. This might be anything ranging from the fact that they know your day job matches the description of the character's to the fact that you have played very similar parts before, but most 'trust' of 'unknowns' is undoubtedly still generated by the fact that a) the 'unknown' actor is represented by a reputable agent b) the 'unknown' actor trained at an accredited institution c) the 'unknown' actor has proved themselves by performing regularly at notable venues, for notable companies, etc. etc. over years.
Spotlight Link's traditional policy of confidentiality (I have it on good authority that Casting Directors can specify which agencies their casting breakdowns are sent to before they send them - so by no means all casting breakdowns end up in everyone's inbox) seems to complement all this. For a start, all casting directors signed up to the Link are assured that, at the very least, every application that gets sent to them comes from somebody who calls themselves an agent, and this not only guarantees a certain amount of respectability (every actor represented must have at least one person backing them who believes in their potential), but reduces the number of actors who may be 'allowed' to apply for a job to a substantial degree. It's not necessarily a question of whether this is fair or not - many tremendous actors remain without representation at any given time - but it does surely help casting directors to delimit the field of potential considerations. And then, as I say, the biggest of the lot will delimit this field even further by specifying *which* agencies of app. 700 odd are privileged enough to be allowed access to their breakdowns.
What confuses me is that any 'opening out' of the Spotlight Link to all eligible subscribers will seriously dismay many Casting Directors (and some Agents) who rely on its ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Literally anyone can get into Spotlight if they pay the fee and have managed to get some kind of headshot taken - the market for actors is notoriously oversaturated - if any actor at all is allowed to make applications via the Link on their own behalf, then casting directors, in particular, a) lose the reassurance that all the applications they are receiving are coming in from actors who can be 'trusted' to some extent and b) risk becoming snowed under by thousands, rather than mere hundreds, of applications for any given part. I think most casting directors will vote with their feet, and wishing to avoid these sorts of problems, will no longer advertise jobs on the Link openly, and resort solely to pre selecting specific agencies to whom they can send breakdowns. Those who *will* still advertise directly will remain those who are literally prepared to take all comers on for any potential project, and who will therefore probably be accessible through other channels in the first instance. This is already what happens with PCR, for instance - I have applied for at least one job through the journal that has been advertised under false pretences (i.e. PCR advertised the job, though the Casting Director hadn't asked them to - I assume a 'stringer' picked up the info, and published details of the so - called 'vacancy'). The casting director's caustic response was that she had absolutely no interest in being saddled with hundreds of random applications for a part she had filled internally, and that she would never have advertised in an organ like PCR for precisely this reason.
I fail to understand quite why Spotlight should be prepared to undermine their own position by 'democratising' Spotlight Link - after all, whilst benefiting performers and subscribers *is* in their interests, surely being taken seriously by Casting Directors and Agents is equally important to them? This is also regardless of the fact that such 'opening up' of the Link will probably help to kill some co-op agencies altogether, as it one of the most important resources they rely on.
Well, if this is what is happening, I wish us all the very best of luck with trying to break through the limitations of the current casting system! Maybe some Casting Directors out there will prove amenable to taking us on. Who knows?