“I’m not used to winning!”

That was Kate Winslet’s flustered reaction to her first Golden Globe win Sunday night, in the best supporting actress category for the Weinstein Company’s “The Reader.” Then she gave a long acceptance speech.

When she took a Globe in the best actress category for “Revolutionary Road,” the brilliant, beautiful star was all but undone. Nevertheless — she gave a long acceptance speech. 

Well, it’s the actor’s singular moment, these events — no cries of “cut!” or “stop, there’s a shadow on your face!” No co-stars flubbing. So a certain amount of going on and on can be forgiven. Especially in the case of Miss Winslet, who has been up for the Oscar five times — five times before she was 30! — and walked away from each gala evening awardless.

Maybe she can even be somewhat cavalier when she accepts an Oscar at the Kodak Theater on February 22.  Actors should be more like Meryl Streep, laid back and bemused. Well, with two Oscars and 13 nominations under her belt, she can afford to look laid back.

Before you ask — I have no inside info on Kate’s chances. I just have a feeling this has to be Winslet’s year. As Shirley MacLaine said famously when she took her Oscar for “Terms of Endearment": “I deserve it.” (I will let the experts correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Winslet’s double win at the Globes unprecedented?)

And back to speaking of Miss MacLaine. It was a thrill to see her at the Globes, looking so fine and merry. I doubt she thought she had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning for her off-the-mark-but-hugely-entertaining turn as Coco Chanel, in the Lifetime TV movie. But there she was, all dolled up and reminding the plastic ladies around her that there’s no crime in maturing. Why, you can work forever, if you keep a recognizable face.

——————————

Scribes far more couture-conscious than I will trash or praise what the ladies wore. I noted nothing truly offensive — not even Renée Zellweger’s gown, which is already a big story on AOL’s ridiculous home page. It seemed somehow to compliment her endearing, quirky personality. (I know Renée and nobody is dearer. The dress simply ate her.)

I took no great umbrage at any of the wins. I would have preferred Kyra Sedwick over Anna Paquin … John Hamm over Gabriel Byrne … Mary-Louise Parker over Tina Fey (I love Tina, but Mary Louise Parker’s pot-selling mom on “Weeds” continues to be one of the most brilliant and under-sung performances on the tube). I had no quibble whatsoever with Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti for  HBO’s “John Adams.” Miss Linney is grievously underawarded in my opinion.

I was very happy to see Colin Farrell up there with his Globe for “In Bruges.” Despite his infamous hard-living in the past, he looked very much like the eager, intelligent  young man I interviewed back in 2000 for "Tigerland." (I remember it well. He was slouched on a couch, giving off a confident, “I know you think I’m sexy” vibe, mixed with an endearing, insecure PS vibe:  “You, do think I’m sexy … right?” I’m so happy he survived peroxide and “Alexander.”)

I was not surprised “Slumdog Millionaire” took best motion picture drama. The “Slumdog” buzz has been tremendous. There is a huge groundswell of affection for the film. (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” which most people I know thought would take the Globe, might be just a bit too curious for a lot of people.)