I find it very curious MGM gave character actor Dudley Digges "star supporting billing" (below the title but in big letters) with Rosalind Russell and above C. Aubrey Smith, who has a much larger role. Robert Benchley, William Henry, Live de Maigret, and Hattie McDaniel also have bigger roles than Digges yet are given lower and much smaller billing. Any ideas?
shareHarlowMGM, you are one of my favorite IMDb posters (as the only other known admirer of The Little Nuns), but I would have to mildly disagree that Digges' role was smaller than any of those you mentioned except for C. Aubrey Smith, who had much more screen time, and as the owner of the steamship line was more important in the scheme of the story, not to mention that his presence adds about a half-star to any picture he is in. I suppose that the character's importance in the scheme of the story works for Digges, as he was the ship's chief officer, and the play of his behavior against that of Lewis Stone's character was a crucial story element. I know you like Live de Maigret and Hattie McDaniels but it "just ain't fittin'! ain't fittin'!" to place the importance of their characters in the overall scheme above that of Digges. If I had my way, Lillian Bond would be billed right behind Lewis Stone because she looks like my favorite cousin!
--------
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
Well thanks for the nice words, however I wasn't going by any admiration for Hattie or Live's performances in my suggestion they deserved billing over Dudley, simply by the fact it appears to me they have more lines and more screen time. And surely Dudley's part is much smaller than Robert Benchley's who has many lines and great scenes as the perpetually drunk voyager and William Henry as the young 20ish crew mate also seemed to have a bigger part. Perhaps Dudley's role had him in more scenes where he didn't have that much to say and that worked in his billing over the others who had a little more color to their parts, or perhaps his lines were so neglible it just seemed to me as if his part was smaller than it was.
shareI can see what you mean, but perhaps he just had a good agent.
shareI can't pretend to know how the order of the credits are determined. I have seen actors play very small roles with few lines and even less airtime than an extra could expect yet they get top billing and often go on to win awards. These are not necessarily cameos just small parts.
I often wonder why their role was considered pivotal but apparently the Academy members got it and saw fit to not only nominate them but select them for the top prize. I have also seen the opposite; actors who have quite a lot of screen time and as many lines as the lead but they are considered supporting actors; if that. Their names don't appear very high on the credits; they get an end credit; or sometimes their name is completely omitted from the credits.
It can be mind-boggling if one thinks about it too long or too often. The only thing I heard that makes any sense is that it's a strategic move by the studios or movie makers. In later years they might give someone a supporting role to better their odds of getting a nomination or award. Back then, they probably gave actors higher billing if they had better name recognition or box office draw.
Today we may know a lot of the other actors better than we do Digges but perhaps in his time his was the bigger name and he was better known than some of the others.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]