"One Battle After Another" leads the SAG Actor Award Nominations
Wednesday, January 7, 2026 at 8:30PM by Eric Blume
Going lead was a risky move for Chase Infiniti, but it's paying off.
SAG Award nominations (for the newly-rebranded “The Actor Awards”…oy vey) were announced today. As usual, they are pretty lame.
The key thing to remember here is that the voting body for the SAG Awards consists of about 160,000 members. This number includes a large number of people who, for example, might have stood in the background of an insurance company commercial, or did a promo spot for a dishwater detergent brand. So, let’s just say these are not the most… discerning… group of people, if you know what I’m saying. And while there is some crossover between SAG Award voters and Oscar voters, it's not as big as you might think...
It's basically why you see no actors from Sentimental Value, no Wagner Moura. Actors who will absolutely be getting Oscar nominations in a few weeks. The majority of these 160,000 voters are not watching international films and their tastes are purely commercial. Almost none of the performers from foreign films who received Oscar nominations in past years (Antonio Banderas, Fernanda Torres, Sandra Hüller, Penélope Cruz) were recognized at the SAG Awards.
They also don’t watch a wide variety of movies, or a large number of them. There is a very small number of total titles mentioned in the nominations overall… they watch less and then pick their choices from those few films. So much so that One Battle After Another broke the record for most SAG nominations for a single film project ever - a cumulative even nominations across six categories.
Let’s take a look at the main awards:
Cast Ensemble in a Motion Picture
- “Frankenstein” (Netflix)
- “Hamnet” (Focus Features)
- “Marty Supreme” (A24)
- “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
- “Sinners” (Warner Bros.)
To the point of watching very few films, they evidently all caught Frankenstein, because its inclusion here is a real surprise. Even if you’re a fan, as I am, you don’t in any rational state of mind think that it includes some of the best acting in a film this year. It’s exciting that Elordi’s wonderful performance has officially caught on, but outside of him, the acting is… serviceable at best. It’s a bit of a preposterous nomination. The other four films are firmly entrenched in the Best Picture conversation, so no surprises.
Male Actor in a Leading Role
- Timothée Chalamet, “Marty Supreme” (A24)
- Leonardo DiCaprio, “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
- Ethan Hawke, “Blue Moon” (Sony Pictures Classics)
- Michael B. Jordan, “Sinners” (Warner Bros.)
- Jesse Plemons, “Bugonia” (Focus Features)
Chalamet and DiCaprio are locks for Oscar noms, and Jordan would at this point be a surprise snub if he’s excluded. The nomination is great news for Ethan Hawke, as his film is tiny. All this nomination means is that people are seeing Blue Moon, or at least have heard about it and are voting because they like him. That’s what he needs to translate this into an Oscar nomination. Plemons is probably one of the biggest surprises of the day, not because of his performance (which is spectacular), but because Bugonia is a bit of a wild card in the race overall. This is helpful for him, but Wagner Moura will definitely be on Oscar’s list next month, and Joel Edgerton is surely ranking sixth or seventh anytime he’s not making the cut: they’re the other two big contenders here. At this point, it would be a bit of a shock to see Dwayne Johnson or George Clooney go the distance.
Female Actor in a Leading Role
- Jessie Buckley, “Hamnet” (Focus Features)
- Rose Byrne, “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” (A24)
- Kate Hudson, “Song Sung Blue” (Focus Features)
- Chase Infiniti, “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
- Emma Stone, “Bugonia” (Focus Features)
I’m still surprised to see Chase Infiniti make the cut here: I personally think it’s a result of overall love for One Battle, and perhaps that will carry her to Oscar as well, but I’m still not convinced. Buckley and Byrne seem like the two most likely to be recognized by AMPAS, and it seems there’s enough sustained love for Emma Stone to get her fifth (very well-deserved) career nomination. Hudson is a real wild card: I could see her making it but can also see her tanking beyond this. Renate Reinsve will make Oscar’s list for sure. The question is if some of the actresses not included here can take that fifth slot: Amanda Seyfried, Cynthia Erivo, Jennifer Lawrence, Tessa Thompson. Right now it’s not looking great for those four ladies, but perhaps BAFTA (which has a much, much higher crossover rate in voters) will help clarify with their longlists.
Male Actor in a Supporting Role
- Miles Caton, “Sinners” (Warner Bros.)
- Benicio Del Toro, “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
- Jacob Elordi, “Frankenstein” (Netflix)
- Paul Mescal, “Hamnet” (Focus Features)
- Sean Penn, “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
Del Toro, Elordi, Mescal, and Penn have shown up everywhere and at this point, it would be a bit of a surprise if they didn’t make the Oscar slate. I’m certain that Stellan Skarsgård will make the Oscar list too, and the category feels fairly locked. If that IS our Oscar Supporting Actor lineup, those are five stunning (mostly lead) performances, but we shall see. I think at end of day, Miles Caton, Delroy Lindo, Adam Sandler, Andrew Scott and several others will be sitting this one out.
Female Actor in a Supporting Role
- Odessa A’zion, “Marty Supreme” (A24)
- Ariana Grande, “Wicked: For Good” (Universal Pictures)
- Amy Madigan, “Weapons” (Warner Bros.)
- Wunmi Mosaku, “Sinners” (Warner Bros.)
- Teyana Taylor, “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
Since at least one of the Sentimental Value actresses (Inga or Elle) will be on the Oscar list (I’m still thinking both of them), this race is still pretty volatile. It appears Madigan really will be able to pull off her nomination (and a win maybe, too???) as she’s shown up everywhere. Taylor seems set for her nom as well. Mosaku and A’Zion are less likely, their inclusion here an indication of the guild’s affection for their films overall. Both could also make it, surely (Mosaku has been named throughout the season, and A’Zion could be this year’s Monica Barbaro), but it’s a tight race. I’m wondering if Grande will be able to sneak by, seeing the fade-by-the-day lack of support for her film. And I think it looks pretty dead for Gwyneth Paltrow, Glenn Close, Emily Blunt, and Regina Hall.
Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture
- F1” (Apple Original Films/Warner Bros.)
- “Frankenstein” (Netflix)
- “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” (Paramount Pictures)
- “One Battle After Another” (Warner Bros.)
- “Sinners” (Warner Bros.)
No big surprises here either. It’ll be curious to see if the voters go the way of the pictures they loved overall, or more in the F1/MI direction, which included many more actual stunts.
TV Categories
Since the SAG Nominations are so reflective of the recent Emmy Awards, with really no surprises whatsoever, there’s no need to go category by category. There’s nothing to say about these performances that hasn’t already been said, and none of the eventual winners will likely be particularly exciting. Not that there’s not superb acting in every single category, but to Nathaniel’s point, the way the TV cycle plays out, it feels like we’re talking about the same batch of nominees for a good solid year. Perhaps Michelle Williams will be the surprise winner for her incredible job in Dying for Sex? Ah, probably not.
What do you make of this year's SAG nominations? Sound off in the comments.
Reader Comments (31)
Regarding the nominations process: The SAG-AFTRA Nominating Committee is two separate groups, one for film and one for television, with 2,500 members in each committee, totaling 5,000 members for nominations each year.
As a former nominator (with friends on this year's committee), I assure you we are not the yahoos Eric would have you believe. It's the winners that are determined by the "about 160,000 members" (those who actually vote) who are "not the most discerning group of people." No argument here.
I know they don't nominate (or watch) non-English movies, but I thought Sentimental Value would be an exception.
Nominating Frankenstein when Isaac and Waltz are Razzie-worthy is...a choice.
They nominated Grande (gross), but at least they snubbed Erivo and the ensemble. So, yay.
I don't get the love for Sinners at all. And I don't believe any of you saying any of these people are award-worthy. They barely get anything to do. Miles Canton gets a singing scene. Wunmi Mosaku's entire role is exposition. And Michael B. Jordan is not good. The only way you can tell the twins apart is because one of them moves and talks like Butcher from The Boys. It's all very one-note. The lackluster screenplay doesn't help at all, either.
No one can convince me that Ethan Hawke is good in Blue Moon. The most annoying, cartoonish, over the top, grating performance of the year. It's like nominating Leslie Jordan for The Help.
I haven't seen Song Sung Blue yet, but I don't think I have to to know that Kate Hudson getting nominated is a joke.
Glad Byrne made it.
Happy that Plemons showed up somewhere.
Still speechless about "Sentimental Value", by far the best ensemble of the year.
It's really shocking, although foreign performances usually don't get SAG noms easily, but some did (Sandino Moreno, Cotillard, Gaston e Saldaña last year).
Good Surprises: A’zion. And I still believe in Paltrow making the cut.
And Hudson (she's not really a surprise, she's in all the way, with Byrne, Buckley and Reinsve).
Bad Surprises: B. Jordan, Plemons, Infiniti, Grande.
Unbelievable snubs: Sentimental Value Team, Clooney, Sandler. Even Edgerton, I never liked him, but she's fine in "Train Dreams", he's best (only?) performance to date.
Happy snub: Erivo!!! A little bit of sense in the world.
I can say Lead Actor and Suporting Actress are unpredictable. There's will be Surprises.
But at the Oscars, in the end, Lead Actor will be a tough race among Chalamet and Hawke.
Supporting Actress not so sure, but I see Madigan vs Lilleaas.
Those looking for trusted anti ageing treatment in Hyderabad will find this guide helpful. It highlights advanced techniques, expert dermatologists, and personalized care plans.
Just here to say “hi” and remember the ensemble cast of “Father mother sister brother”. Poor little movie. Too deep and quiet for this decade where everything must be shout. At least me and Alexander Payne love you.
At first Teyana Taylor was deemed "too disgusting, too sexual", now Wunmi Mosaku is "too expositive". There's something wrong about these statements. Is it because they are black women? Not a word has said about the "disgusting Sean Penn" or the "expositive Jacob Elordi" this season...
SadMan said it all except I don't agree about Mosaku,tought she was Best In Show after O'Connell,I don't remember one thing Caton did in the film.
Elordi is giving me “Aaron Taylor Johnson in Nocturnal Animals” vibes. Granted he’s doing well but unless he keeps winning I don’t consider him locked.
I hope there’s a world where Grande gets the boot to make room for the gals from Marty Supreme, Sentimental Value, etc. Her appearances in this category feel so reheated in the microwave to me, and it’s not a supporting role in the first place. What on earth does Hollywood owe her? See how easy it is to leave Erivo off your lists?
Not to sound conspiratorial, but I think there are Hollywood living-room in-groups who can make Hudson (and now a bigger stretch, maybe Paltrow) happen. Both seem very popular with their generational peers. And who knows, maybe Hudson beats Byrne for the Globe and this becomes a two-way race we didn’t expect. I think a charming Globe speech could make her competitive for the SAG win.
I also just can’t imagine watching (and loving) Marty Supreme and not tossing a vote to Paltrow, maybe that’s just me. Clearly voters are having that reaction.
Frank Zappa, an honest apology to you if indeed that is how the nominations work. I asked three separate friends in SAG about the process, and that is not the information I received (perhaps they are yahoos). But absolutely sorry for my error...please accept.
That said, the SAG nominations each year are always very mainstream and odd. Even when we get a surprise, they are off-the-wall choices like Naomi Watts in St Vincent or Sarah Silverman in I Smile Back, etc. The lack of any international presence year after year in an increasingly global industry (not to mention actors not recognizing some truly astounding acting in non-English films) is really embarrassing. I stand by that!
@Antônio: Um, what? lol
Teyana Taylor's performance is incredible. She gives you a layered, complex and complicated character in only 20 minutes of screentime. Of course, she's helped a lot by a good screenplay, which Sinners does not have. Wunmi's role is pure exposition, yes. She's just there to explain what vampires are. She gets a paper-thin backstory about her dead son that's barely mentioned or explored. Is she bad? Not at all. I never said she was. She's working with what she has. But I don't think anyone in that movie is award-worthy. I do think Michael B. Jordan is not good. Not terrible, but not good, either.
As for Sean Penn, he's great at playing this caricature of an evil, pathetic man, which is all too real lately. I think the movie has a very clear opinion about his character. Teyana's more complex, I think the movie is more ambiguous about her.
Elordi and Isaac are full of exposition, but they are the narrators of the movie. And, as far as I can remember, the original novel is mostlly like that. Is it a good script? No. I don't think that novel can be properly adapted. The only good version so far is the 1931 movie, which removes most things about the novel. That's not the actor's fault. However, Isaac is actively bad in the movie. Elordi does what he can, covered in that silly makeup. But him WINNING awards is hilarious to me.
So, what was your point again?
I say it every year, but SAG should have a Best Ensemble award for Limited Series/TV Movies.
@Sad Man: OK, you said she's "pure exposition" meaning she's a real supporting character, not a category fraud. I got it!
"All exposition" is one of the strangest critiques of a role I've ever heard.
First of all I don't think it's true—her flashback scenes are brief and she's doing heavy acting in some of the biggest plot turns/setpieces of the main story.
But even if the role were purely expository, what difference does that make at all? I literally cannot fathom how that would be a mark against the strength of a performance or the quality of a role.
Exposition is a very common critique. It can be done well. But you take away from the character and their story, because you are simply giving information/explaining something to the viewer, instead of developping the character. The actress is not at fault here. I do think she does the best she can. But it's very limited and that's why she doesn't shine enough to deserve a nomination. I do think she's far better than Caton or Jordan. I think she's probably my favorite of the cast.
Sinners is caught in the middle of wanting to be a drama and a horror film. It's succesful at neither. It's a great concept but it doesn't really do anything with that concept. The idea of vampires being these kind of cultural appropiaton agents is great. I don't think it goes beyond that.The movie throws too much at once, bites more than it can chew, no pun intended. I've said it before, but to me it's pretencious From Dusk Till Dawn.
I’ve been a devoted reader of this site for well over a decade, and I’m offering this comment in that same spirit of engagement and respect. That said, I did feel some disappointment in how SAG-AFTRA voters were broadly characterized here, particularly the implication that the voting body is largely undiscerning or dismissible.
I’ve served both as a member of a SAG-AFTRA nominating committee and as a general voter, and I can say from direct experience that many actors take this process seriously. As working performers, a great number of us deeply value film, television, and the craft of acting itself. While the union is large and diverse, that does not automatically equate to indifference or lack of care.
The absence of certain international films or performances from the nominations does not necessarily mean voters are “yahoos” or purely commercially driven. More often, it reflects the simple and unavoidable reality that art is subjective. Not every performance, no matter how acclaimed, resonates with every viewer. That subjectivity is baked into all awards voting, including the Oscars.
Where I personally feel more frustration is in years when African American performers or other performers of color deliver what I consider outstanding, nomination-worthy work and are overlooked. That’s where my disappointment tends to live most consistently, and where I think scrutiny is especially warranted.
I’m not writing this to castigate the author or dismiss the broader analysis, I still value the insights this site provides and continue to return to it because of its passion for cinema. I only wanted to add nuance from the perspective of someone who has been inside the SAG-AFTRA voting process and believes that, by and large, voters are engaging in good faith, even when their choices don’t align with critical consensus.
@Sadman-“ The idea of vampires being these kind of cultural appropiaton agents is great.”
oh s**t. You made me notice that Sinners stole from Only Lovers Left Alive!
I am hoping and praying Joel Edgerton makes it in. Truly his best performance in a powerful film (that I know has its detractors).
Re: Sinners -- My beef with it is four-fold. I did enjoy it on a surface level and thought the performances were good (especially Lindo and Mosaku) but..
1) It's a mild reheat of From Dusk Till Dawn, which coincidentally was on HBO last night.
2) "The idea of vampires being these kind of cultural appropiaton agents is great." -- this was barely explored in the film. If it had been more fully developed, the movie would deserve all the acclaim it's getting. But aside from a couple throaway lines, this allegory was not developed at all (as well as the adjacent concept of the vampire community being more accepting of "outsiders" and out-groups than the racist humans).
3) Michael B. Jordan was just meh. Can't believe this is the role he's going to get an Oscar nod for instead of something like Fruitvale Station (which was my top movie of 2013). There was no real differentiation between the twins, and his vibe/attitude/presence was too contemporary for the time period in which the move was set. He presented as Michael B. Jordan, Actor In a Period Piece, unlike virtually everyone else.
4) The shoe-horning in of all the music content didn't work for me. Powerful as an individual scene, but unrelated to the rest of the narrative.
You're the most basic guild, Dee. You snubbed Rampling. You snubbed Jean-Baptiste. You swallow category fraud like candy. I bet 90% has never heard of Kathleen Chalfant. You watch three movies and four shows per year and you clearly don't know what an ensemble is anymore. You used to. Remember Waking Ned Devine?
Peggy Sue, by using the personal pronoun “you”, I hope you’re referring to SAG-AFTRA, because I’m a person who’s a member of the guild, I’m not THE guild. Also, we don’t know each other, so you have absolutely no idea of my movie knowledge. Let’s be clear with our intent when commenting, thanks. I do appreciate your opinion and enthusiasm.
Well this became very AwardsDaily quickly.
Dee A,nice to hear from someone with actual knowlege about the process and not someone with opinions about it or friends of friends,if you are adventurous and go outside the box say with a Helen Mirren Woman in Gold nod you are blamed for having poor taste and if you name check the frontrunners you are not thinking for yourselves
DK I completely agree regards Hudson but her film has just her to show for it and Hudson isn't as due a la Julianne Moore or beloved a la Sandra Bullock but I do see her winning the Globe,she's been talked about as a spolier for a few months now and it's coming to fruition.
I don't feel Buckley is the kind of actress who they want to give an award to,if they do it's based on her performance not who she knows or how many hands she shakes and gift baskets she receives.
I had high hopes for Paltrow but she's not showing up really and Odessa now has the SAG nomination Monica got last year and Timothee is bringing her along for the ride,I doubted 2 nepos from that film would make it it.
Why is not okay to dislike Sinners,it's an ok vampire flick with music and 2 or 3 good performances and MBJ has been better many times before..
Fabio I can't see an unknown Lilleas winning over a veteran like Madigan with an already cultural role.
Elordi's in I feel but I JUST can't see him winning just yet,he'd have to scoop SAG and Bafta to convince me,he stands out in Frankenstein because everyone else is so bad..
Indeed SAG doesn't go for foreign language films too often, but they definitely have, as recently as last year (Emilia Perez). I thought Sentimental Value would be another exception, but alas not meant to be. Renate and Stellan should be in, but I do wonder if enthusiasm for the film is low among certain key groups and Inga might miss. Pretty sure Elle is missing at this point.
Don't count them out just yet,Oscar is far kiinder to foreign language roles and SV is expected to be a key player but I do feel it's Paltrow/D'Azion that will be the 2 ladies from the same film nominees if there is.
Ugh. UGH. Ugh. Enter the comments bloodbath.
I have barely weighed in on the frontrunners (e.g., OBAA, Sinners, Frankenstein) because the season is long—over two months to go—and the knives have been out since April (in one case). But I expect to be wrestling in the mud (jello?) once the Oscar nominations are announced.
Good points made by the SAG members here!
One thing I’d add is that I’m glad whenever the groups retain what makes them unique: Globes are starf*ckers, SAG loves down-the-middle moviemaking, BFCA goes out on more critical limbs, BAFTA loves its British performers and films. Then the Oscars weigh in with a little from column A, B, C, D—plus occasional surprises of their own.
If anything, the groups have lost their individuality over the years. People who complain would prefer every awards body to copy and paste the Gotham Awards list.
"It's basically why you see no actors from Sentimental Value, no Wagner Moura. Actors who will absolutely be getting Oscar nominations in a few weeks."
Respectfully, it sounds like you're mad that they're not predicting the Oscars well enough: what difference does it make that those people will get Oscar nominations in a few weeks? All the more reason for SAG to do its own thing. If all these groups got out of the Oscar prediction business, we'd be better off.
Dee A., I thank you for your very intelligent and challenging comment on my overgeneralization on SAG voters...as I said to Frank Zappa, I offer a real apology to you. I honestly am not intending to insult anyone, but I see that I did, so I apologize true-heartedly. But as I also mentioned, I think it's fair to give the SAG committee some scrutiny in their continual, year-after-year ignorance of international cinema. Yes, they gave the big award to PARASITE a few year back and acknowledged the EMILIA PEREZ actresses...but otherwise, they ignore international performances entirely. I think it's fair to scrutinize that and draw some conclusions that a fair swath of members do not watch these films.
DK, I'm not mad that they're not predicting the Oscars well enough...but at this point in "the race" everything culminates in the Oscar nominations...that's what reader comments are almost exclusively about in these months (whether we like it or not), and so we are just engaging in the same conversation that most film websites are engaging in. As a writer for the site, I can only offer my personal view on the categories and how "the race" may look on Oscar morning. I do absolutely love your comment about how each group has its own unique vibe that they stick to year after year...I hope we can make fun of that in good spirit too.
I really appreciate everyone respecting each other...which is why I apologize if anything comes across as disrespectful. The world is so out of control right now, and this is really a time where we need to be kind to each other and look after each other. I consider this site a sacred space where decent, passionate cinephiles come to have spirited, fun discourse. Please know all writing comes from this warm place, but we also don't want to be squishy either. I really appreciate everyone's commitment to the site and their positive, team spirit. Peace, all.
Thanks for the replies, Eric! I think Dee and I were responding to the ::shots fired: tone of your first two paragraphs...
One thing to note about SAG and international film: Though nowhere explicitly stated, the awards tend to honor the year's work from members of the Guild, and in many cases that does not include the actors in international productions (not the case with Banderas, Cruz and this year's Sentimental Value and Wagner Moura, of course). Which makes Parasite's success with the nominating committee and the full voting membership all the more noteworthy.
I like when awards go their own way. I hate seeing the same five time after time, even when it's for some baffling choices.
Genuine question; do SAG-AFTRA memebers not have much access to the international films?
“I really appreciate everyone respecting each other...which is why I apologize if anything comes across as disrespectful. The world is so out of control right now, and this is really a time where we need to be kind to each other and look after each other. I consider this site a sacred space where decent, passionate cinephiles come to have spirited, fun discourse. Please know all writing comes from this warm place, but we also don't want to be squishy either. I really appreciate everyone's commitment to the site and their positive, team spirit. Peace, all.”
I agree wholeheartedly EricB, thank you 😊
If you’re not berating the same film/performance as everyone else then you are not in this website’s good graces. I loved Sinners - sorry not sorry.
I’ve never liked chalamet in anything, so the constant nominations and ‘overdue’ status is disappointing. Why people think he is good I will never understand. And I’ve never understood Buckley’s appeal either - another one I’ve never been impressed by.
I’m one of the few (or only one) happy for Grande. I’ve always said and stick to it that she is on another level in both Wicked films and no other performer can reach her.
All I wanted was a surprise Ensemble nomination for Black Bag - phenomenal film!!
@TonyL you are berating Timothee based on not liking him and that's not what anyone else is doing,they don't like Sinners as a film for whatever reason,either they didn't find it impressive or maybe overrated or maybe been there done that,it's not a personal vendetta against Sinners,it's a preference which we are all inc you entitled to.
Why so salty at the rest of us just because our views don't align with yours,there are some Sinners fans here.
I loved Twinless and Dylan O'Brien in it and Nina Hoss in Hedda but i'm not berating anyone for preferring Hawke or Jordan or Mosaku and Fanning over them etc,I don't get it but it's their choice.
I don't get the Chase Infinit praise or nominations,I don't get The Guillermo directing nods but each to their own but i'll say if I don't agree.
EricB—all good!
Only thing I’d add: Snubs like these are data points to consider, sometimes two points make a line. So if all the Sentimental Value actors reappear at BAFTA except Fanning, that would look bad for her—and good for A’zion or whoever takes “her place.” (I’d much rather go into nominations with SAG + BAFTA than GG + BFCA nominations.) Point being, maybe it wasn’t “Fanning’s place” in the first place, all the cards just weren’t on the table yet.
The SAG noms don’t mean Sentimental Value gets 0 acting nominations, but they might suggest 3 instead of 4—etc. Or not!
All to say, I prefer to look at these data points as tea leaves to read vs. outliers to dismiss. All the groups have their biases and Oscar shares them all to varying degrees in different races in different years.