I was glad to see Adam Swiderski use Syfy’s Blastr site to post an enthusiastic endorsement of the nomination of Peter Dinklage for an Emmy Award in the Supporting Actor In A Drama Series category. Not withstanding my personal feeling that the whole Emmy system gets really confused when trying to draw a line between “drama” and “comedy,” there is certainly no doubt in my mind that Game of Thrones should be treated as drama and that Dinklage’s contribution deserves all the recognition it can get. Still, I am not sure I would go as far as Swiderski did:
Can a swords-and-sorcery epic compete with the likes of Don Draper? We're not sure...but if Peter Dinklage doesn't bring home the prize for his perfect portrayal of Tyrion Lannister, then something in the system is just broken.
The problem has more to do with the competition than with Dinklage’s own merits. I have never thought much of Men Of A Certain Age, so I have not paid very much attention to Andre Braugher since his really substantive contributions to Homicide. Similarly, I have not been drawn to The Good Wife; but it is always a bad sign when one show has two candidates in the same category (Josh Charles and Alan Cumming). As to John Slatterty in Mad Men, I have grown tired of him and his character; and, as far as I can tell, the script has been written to induce that sense of fatigue, On the other hand I have to say that Boyd Crowder (in Justified) is one of the most complex and fascinating characters I have encountered on television; and I am an awe of how Walton Goggins has managed that complexity. Much as I agree with Swiderski on the quality of Dinklage’s work, my current preference is probably leading toward Goggins. I would also guess that Goggins will be a long shot among the odds-makers; but I have never been known to follow the crowd in my preferences!