The bleeping Globes

A few thoughts after the annual atrocity that is the Golden Globes:

* Meryl Streep’s win likely means nothing when it comes to the Oscar race. Streep could play a postage stamp and she’d win a Golden Globe for it. She’s won eight of the things, but only two Oscars.

This is no knock on la Streep — she’s the most extraordinary actress in film history. But “The Iron Lady” is one of her weakest films and as she herself said so graciously, it’s been a rich year for female leads. I’m guessing (and yes, hoping) that it’s still Viola Davis with Michelle Williams right on her heels.

* What was all that stuff Antonio Banderas said? And did he mean any of it?

* Sweet to see the great Peter Dinklage win for “Game of Thrones,” a role that would seem written for him if it wasn’t written long before Dinklage surfaced. And the Martin Henderson he referred to was not the star of “Torque,” it is apparently a dwarf actor in Great Britain who was recently assaulted in a pub and seriously injured.

* I’m not a fashionista, but what was that fuzzy stuff on the bottom of Tina Fey’s dress?

* Don’t expect Martin Scorsese to win the best director Oscar for “Hugo,” as thoroughly wonderful as the direction on that film was. As always, the Globes drift toward big names with the aim of drawing big ratings, and having an unknown Frenchman named Michel Hazanavicius (“The Artist”) would have done little for celebrity watchers. Hazanavicius isn’t an Oscar lock by any means, but he’s still the favorite.

* Is Claire Danes simply too good for movies? Just asking.

* And not having heard either, was Madonna’s song really better than Elton John’s song? Or did they both just get nominations so they’d up the glitterati quotient?

* Finally, this was probably the most bleeped Globes show ever. When Gervais gets bleeped you expect it. When Streep gets bleeped it’s bleeping crazy.