SAG Best Actress Preview and Predictions

I dunno - all logic points to Kidman .....but there's a side to me that always said I think actresses will really rally around Chastain.......like I think actors see something in the role they respond to - both in look, mimicry, but also level of detail and layering.

In some ways I think she's like Will Smith  - where she has to play a lot of things (and sing!) more than the other actresses (even Gaga).

Basically it's we love Nicole Kidman - she wins or........... it's we love Nicole Kidman ......but not for this (which is the truth )

I'd say likely Kidman with a narrow window for Gaga or Chastain as a statement vote.......

I could see some of the voters who would otherwise prefer Kidman vote for Gaga here. But Kidman seems like the safe bet.

Kidman isn't in serious trouble if she loses to Gaga.  It would be another populist choice, who will likely get a lot of sympathy votes due to her Oscar snub (remember when Idris Elba won the SAG for Beasts Of No Nation when he was snubbed for an Oscar nod). So a sympathy Gaga win isn't  an unlikely scenario.

Kidman's worst case scenario is losing to Colman or Chastain, as they can gain momentum as actual Oscar nominees. If Kidman has to lose SAG,  losing it to Gaga (who can't threaten her at the Oscars) is as close to an ideal loss as possible. She will still go into the Oscars as the only nominee to have won a major industry precursor (Golden Globes. Don't think Critics Choice will matter this year as they are announcing too late). Chastain and Colman I feel need to win SAG  to get the Oscar. Kidman can lose SAG (to Gaga) and still win the Oscar.

I get that these words will probably come back and bite me in the ass but I think it's rather easily gonna be Kidman.

I'm sure that SAG voters don't spend their days researching actors' awards pages on IMDb but it's a group that seems to have always been very conscious about rewarding overdue veterans. Of course Kidman has won TV awards there but she doesn't have a film SAG yet and this year presents a perfect opportunity for them to remedy that. However, if she loses the race automatically becomes completely wide open.

They've  never been conscious about rewarding overdue veterans. Robert DeNiro has been nominated for multiple  SAG awards. Never won. He may never win, despite being a screen legend. SAG is too big a voting body to know who is "overdue" in enough numbers to matter. They generally need to like your performance more than the  other  4 nominees for you to win. I doubt anyone outside of Oscar predicting pundits or forums knows or cares that Kidman had never won a film award.  I'm actually more inclined to believe most SAG voters think Kidman already had multiple SAG wins, and not just a single win in the TV category.

Not starting a fight ...but I've always refuted this SAG "overdue" thing precisely because people tried to claim it with Denzel for Fences and it made zero sense. Casey Affleck in Manchester By The  Sea is not the type of performances that typically wins Best Actor at SAG. Low key, understated etc. Denzel was always a far more obvious choice for SAG voters on performance alone. He didn’t  need an overdue narrative to win there easily over his closest competition. Affleck was a critics performance that got pimped to insane levels (more critics wins than DDL in There Will Be Blood) and maintained industry momentum through that push. SAG just didn't bite for a performance that was never their cup of tea in the first place. Denzel had a pure showy actors showcase  full of meaty monologues. That's why he won.

People were just searching for reasons why Affleck lost there, instead of just acknowledging the obvious. Actors didn't think he gave the best (or most difficult) performance . Most SAG voters probably  thought they could do whatever Affleck was doing (mope, look sad) and thought what Denzel was doing just looked way harder to  pull off.

Streep gave a showy, transformative performance in Iron Lady.  She didn't need an overdue narrative there either for SAG to go for her over Viola Davis in The Help.

Dench probably won for Chocolat,  because Kate Hudson and Frances McDormand,  who were both strong enough to win, were splitting support with each other the whole season for Almost Famous. A scenario like that allows someone like Dench to sneak in and win.

Well, I understand and somewhat agree with your points but I do think that overdue-ness is still a factor as well. Maybe not the defining one but a factor nonetheless.

And Viola Davis did win SAG for The Help . Streep won for Doubt.

Will you at least agree with me that Ruby Dee was a total veteran win at SAG?

They obviously do give career awards  ^. 

People can say "the overdue narrative is overplayed" but it's not for SAG and it's not all the same either  - and while Jango is right - SAG don't scour IMDB to check who they "need" to reward - they do know whose name they've heard a lot at awards shows :

* Kidman has one for TV 1 - just one - she has at least 5 other SAG film nods before we count BtR in film - that's just off the top of my head. She's nothing like Chastain or Colman really - she doubles both - just for film nods......she's also older........

* SAG was Washington's only major precursor win. 

* It was Dee's only major precursor win.  

* De Niro has just 2 SAG nods (1 TV) lost both - he's not a logical "example" of them not giving it to a legend in film imo.  TLJ beat him anyway so, he's pretty old too and major too (and was 0 for 1 in film already), um. 

Now, if he's nodded for Flower Moon and doesn't get it......maybe.....

* They have also done odd age things periodically too - Rowlands winning in BSA for a non-Oscar nominated film role..........


If Kidman loses SAG (doubt it) it will be a specific and pointed diss of her - particularly if Chastain wins (doubt it) - who is like her on the surface aspects, better overall imo. I don't "think" so though........

* Again this is moving the goalposts - they may win a lifetime achievement award down the road but they all wouldn't be likely to win it at the same point would they?   .........It doesn't "boil down" to who missed the most times no one said that  - but it's a factor and when one of your actresses has 6 film nods and her closest rivals have 3.......it's a big part of the equation obviously.

I've made the case for Chastain a lot on here - here it is again - even though I don't believe it - I "think" it's Kidman and I don't see how atm anyone could predict otherwise?:

1. No clear front runner - or a front runner (Kidman) who only won a never as meaningless as it was this year Globe and the award from Australia which is her home turf award. 

2, A similar performance to the front runner in mimicry, transformation - so they are comparable at least.

3. A more acclaimed performance than the front runner going by critics awards (don't matter but......)

4. Arguably the actress of the year on TV and Film which SAG is aware of of course.

5. While Kidman doesn't have a SAG for film she won for TV recently, maybe they are looking somewhere else.....

6. Also Chastain's performance is better (not that this "matters" either) or at least like Will Smith's requires more things.......... and is more showy doing it too - she's broader - less imitative, and goes deeper across more behavior, ages, she sings (!), and she has a fuller total arc as opposed to Kidman's more focused one.  It has a lot of things I think actors specifically will respond too

It's not a strong case, but there's a small path there clearly ..........to pick Chastain would be a big "Nope" to Kidman.......if you like chaos, that would be chaos .......

Are people some people here a bit....slow

SAG is a huge, fractured body. They are not prognosticators or Awards Season Nerds. They have over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND voting members,  and the vast majority of them neither know nor care that Kidman has "only" won a TV award, that Denzel had never won before Fences or that Robert DeNiro has never won. Most of these people have day jobs and mortgages and more important  shit to worry about, and don't  keep tabs on who has won what before. The membership is too large and unfocused to care about that kind of bullshit. As a collective,  they literally just vote for what they like the most  the vast majority of the time. They give competitive career Wins the least of any major awards body.

Career Wins happen far more often in organisations with far smaller voting memberships like AMPAS,  for obvious reasons. The members in smaller organisations are more focused on keeping tabs on that kind of thing. 

I have Kidman winning here, which would be lame because 1) she doesn't deserve it and 2) because it will be the safest outcome to an otherwise chaotic and exciting race.

Nicole Kidman as Lucille Ball seems to be an industry thing, and it needs to be treated as such. Plus, she's already said that a vote for her is a vote for Ball so why even discuss this

Rooting for Jessica though