Rhea Seehorn is an actress best known for her collaborations with Vince Gilligan. While she has had guest roles in shows like “Veep” and “The Twilight Zone,” she first came into prominence for her instantly iconic turn as Kim Wexler in the “Breaking Bad” prequel “Better Call Saul.” Her sharp wit, perfectly calibrated restraint, and devastating physicality made her a favorite of many from the get-go. Oddly, it took years for the Television Academy to catch up, only nominating the beloved scene stealer for the final season of the show. In retrospect, “Better Call Saul” was one of the Emmys’ biggest blind spots, never winning a single trophy despite six seasons of excellent television. For fans, chief among those snubs was Seehorn herself, who many believed should have been a shoo-in for a Supporting Actress Emmy after the baity tape that was “Waterworks.” Yet she shockingly never managed to win a single award anywhere for the AMC series.
Three years later, she worked with Gilligan once more to lead a show in a role written for her. Seehorn was remarkable in “Better Call Saul”, but in “Pluribus,” she is on a whole other level. Carol Sturka is a difficult protagonist for some because of her surliness. Still, Seehorn gives this lonely, broken woman so much depth and nuance, coloring her character’s trauma with a single line reading. While she was a captivating supporting character in a vast ensemble in the Saul Goodman prequel, she anchors the entirety of “Pluribus,” even carrying nearly an entire episode with no scene partner. She utilizes her unique screen presence to create yet another iconic character, and the awards bodies are finally taking note.
After three consecutive nominations at the Critics Choice for “Better Call Saul,” Seehorn won her very first trophy for “Pluribus,” besting reigning Emmy winner Britt Lower for “Severance.” She also managed her first nomination and win at the Golden Globes. At both ceremonies, “Pluribus” was nominated for the top series prize. However, any dreams of a winter sweep were dashed at the Actor Awards, which is arguably the most important winter precursor. In a shocking upset, Keri Russell beat Seehorn for “The Diplomat.” The Netflix drama series did receive a nomination for its ensemble while Seehorn was the sole mention for “Pluribus,” but this loss is nonetheless a stumble for the latter’s Emmy trajectory.
Yet despite that loss, I still firmly believe Seehorn is the frontrunner for the Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series Emmy for the simple reason that she has a lot more in her favor than her competitors. Currently, the only actresses who could potentially upset are Zendaya for “Euphoria,” and the aforementioned Keri Russell for “The Diplomat,” but both ladies have quite a bit against them.
Before the embargo for the third season of “Euphoria” dropped, Zendaya seemed like a fierce threat for the Emmy. She won two back-to-back Emmys for the HBO drama, besting tough competitors like Laura Linney for “Ozark” and Melanie Lynskey for “Yellowjackets.” She is also having her biggest year yet, with “The Drama,” “The Odyssey,” “Dune: Part Three,” and “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.” Her star power has risen significantly over the years, and her hardware for “Euphoria” is proof of her respect among her peers. But as much as the industry may love her, I highly doubt she will be able to overcome this season’s truly terrible reviews. “Euphoria” is still a water-cooler show the internet is obsessed with, but the discourse around this season is largely negative, from both critics and audiences. Acting Emmy winners usually hail from shows nominated in series—though Zendaya’s first win happened despite “Euphoria” missing the lineup—and they rarely come from shows that are this panned. Unless the industry is significantly more infatuated with this show than everyone else, I remain skeptical of Zendaya’s chances at winning.
Meanwhile, Keri Russell won an industry award over Seehorn and could be well-positioned for an Emmy. She also has a similar narrative to Seehorn; it is absolutely baffling to many that she never managed to win an Emmy for “The Americans.” But interestingly, the winter precursors are much bigger fans of “The Diplomat” than the Television Academy. The show’s first season was nominated for series at the Critics’ Choice, the Golden Globes, the WGA, and the PGA after only receiving a lone actress nomination for Russell at the Emmys. Then, season 2 was nominated at every major winter precursor, and even landed nods at the Critics’ Choice, the Golden Globes, and the Actor Awards for Allison Janney, despite the legendary actress appearing in only 2 episodes. The Emmys remained unmoved and gave the show only one additional nomination for its expansion: Outstanding Drama Series. With an Actor Award win under the show’s belt and the show only missing out on a WGA nomination this go-around, surely this season should receive more than two Emmy nominations? However, this trend of the Emmys being far less enthusiastic about “The Diplomat” than the winter precursors makes me skeptical of a Russell win. It feels unlikely that the show will be able to secure an above-the-line win after an underwhelming performance in its previous season.
This brings us back to Seehorn, who has a solid combination of the Golden Globe and the Critics’ Choice and, more importantly, hails from a show that should be strong with the Television Academy. “Pluribus” might have performed weaker than “The Diplomat” in the winter, but it is better positioned at the Emmys. It only missed out on top honors at the DGA and the Actor Awards, and both snubs are explainable. Shows with late release dates are snubbed at DGA all the time, and I remain quite confident in Vince Gilligan receiving an Emmy nomination for the stunning first episode of “Pluribus.” Meanwhile, as great as the cast of the show is, they can hardly be considered an “ensemble” when only three actors appear in more than half of the season. Even though “The Last of Us” pulled off a similar feat in its first season, it had many more recognizable actors with mini-arcs. Writers will likely go to bat for this show, as it was nominated a whopping four times at the WGA! And with its strong audience viewership and raving critical reception, I still strongly believe this is the second-strongest drama series in contention after “The Pitt.”
At the moment, Seehorn has the showiest performance, the strongest show, and the most acclaim out of her competitors. The only thing I can truly hold against her, aside from the Actor Award loss, is the fact that Carol Sturka and “Pluribus” as a whole have been a bit tough for general audiences to love. Carol is a deeply compelling and complex character, but she puts people off, both in the show and in real life, because she can be grumpy and rude. Similarly, “Pluribus” is a challenging show for some to get into because of its slow pacing. I suspect this was a factor in her loss at the Actor Awards, as that voting body tends to lean more populist than most. Yet with all that said, I still firmly believe that come September, we will be watching another delightful Seehorn acceptance speech. Simply put, her performance in “Pluribus” is not one that loses an Emmy.
Do you think Rhea Seehorn will win the Emmy the year? A nomination feels all but assured but do you think she’s winning or will one of her competitors take it? Have you seen “Pluribus” yet? If so, what did you think of it? Please let us know in the comments section below and on Next Best Picture’s X account and check out our latest Emmy predictions here. Please also be sure to subscribe to the Next Best Series Podcast, where we are conducting a number of interviews with Emmy contenders throughout the awards season and discussing the race over the next couple of months.
