Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Who Would You Like to Be Today?

Me, I'd like to be George Clooney. If today's Golden Globe nominations are any indication, it may just be the Year of the Clooney. He got 4 nominations from 2 different movies! Here's the complete list.

My thoughts:
  • Brokeback Mountain is starting to look like the movie to beat come awards time. I have a feeling it might get some combination of director, screenplay, picture.... Gee, I really need to see that one soon!
  • But, while Heath Ledger is nominated for Best Actor, I do feel pretty strongly that Philip Seymour Hoffman is going to win for playing Truman Capote. That might be the only win for Capote, but it's definitely well-deserved.
  • Which leaves Reese Witherspoon as the top contender for Best Actress. Joaquin may be a dark horse, literally, but I think Reese will walk away with that movie's top award.
  • George Clooney should win something out of all his nominations. I'm gonna guess best picture (best drama for the GG's, since they share the love across two categories) or best screenplay for Good Night and Good Luck. That would be an original screenplay, which leaves Brokeback Mountain open for the adapted screenplay award.
  • People I was happy to see nominated in any category: Rachel Wiesz, Paul Giamatti, Michelle Williams, Maria Bello, Felicity Huffman (twice! She's my runner-up for who I'd like to be today), Hugh Laurie, David Strathairn, Terrence Howard, Matt Dillon, Patrick Dempsey, Sandra Oh, and Steve Carell.

7 comments:

ScottE. said...

Brokeback opens on Friday in DC, Dupont 5 at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10pm. I'm going at 7! Bought tickets today....when they went on sale! Yes I'm a fag. Read the story if you can...pretty good. Currently available on the New Yorker as a special archive story.

Anonymous said...

Joaquin is not literally a dark horse. For him to literally be a dark horse he would have to be a dark horse, not a human being. Otherwise, nice blog.

Stef said...

Yes, Anon, thank you for the grammar lesson. Although I think Brunette could relay that, much to her chagrin, Webster's goes on both accurate and common usage of words, so that the word literally has come to mean the same thing as figuratively, because people keep using it as such. I ain't sayin' it's right, it's just the way it is... but, yes, I should have used "metaphorically" instead.

Anonymous said...

saw the LOGO channel half-hour piece on Broke Back Mountain last night. I am SO there.

"literally" means "figuratively" now? That's it. I'm quitting the English language. Solamente espanol para mi.
AS

Chairborne Stranger said...

Grammar rocks! And The view from 16th Street, too. Hiya, S!

Stef said...

Heya, CS. Thanks for the cheer! It definitely made me smile. I hope you're doing well and getting ready for whatever happens on Thursday. I'll be surfing over to your page in a moment....

Brunette said...

Damn Merriam-Webster and their common usages! I first read about that in a Gene Weingarten humor column (though the "literally" thing is true- look it up!) The example he gave was when he read that someone was "literally torn apart" by bad news. Gene: "Literally torn apart? Like by wolverines?"

At least MW still says that "irregardless" is incorrect. So they're not dead to me yet.

And how great would it be for Felicity Huffman to win an Emmy and a Golden Globe- for different roles- in the same year?