> That makes sense. So it's basically the makers of the movie who decide. Huh. Complicated stuff....I just watch and make little judgements in my head, "good", "bad", "ok".
>
> Hurray for simplicity and gut reactions.

You don't understand. Billing doesn't have any bearing on how good the performances are. If you're Bruce Willis, and you're starring in Die Hard, you're first billed, or have first billing, because your name shows up in the credits first. There is no connotation to the term "first billing" that implies that his was the best (or worst) performance in the movie. It's a factual term. He's first billed or he's not.

What I was saying about Kimberly Elise's low billing in "Beloved" (specifically she's fourth billed, behind Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, and Thandie Newton) was that her low billing may make her ineligible for the "Best Actress" category of the Oscars and instead eligible for the "Best Supporting Actress" category. It doesn't mean that she wasn't good enough, it means that if she gets nominated for an acting Oscar at all, it would more likely be the Best Supporting Actress award rather than the Best Actress award. My objection to this was that even though she is not the leading actress in Beloved, she has enough screen time to *warrant* the Best Actress nomination.