congratulation for what u have been doing.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with all the posters who have said Michelle Williams ' performance is overrated, She delivered a powerhouse performance in the precious little time that she was on screen and held her own against Heath who was another revelation.

Best Supporting Actress must be the one categroy that breeds more Oscar outrages, even more thatn Best Picture. Kim Basinger for "L.A. Confidential"? The best supporting female performance that year, Sarah Polley in "The Sweet Hereafter" didn't even get nominated, probably because the 18-year old Ms. Polley declined to campaign for the award.

Jennifer Connelly? Pretty girl, but not great shakes as an actress and unlikely to repeat.

Marisa Tomei? An award so ridiculous that it generated rumors that presenter Jack Palance had gotten it wrong. Her other Oscar nominated performance was the weakest link among the fine performances of "In the Bedroom" and likely had more to do with Harvey Weinstein's legendary prowess as an Oscar campaigner.

Mercedes Ruehl in "The Fisher King"? Who IS Mercedes Ruehl?

Two-time winner Diane Wiest. Has she ever done anything outside of a Woody Allen picture? Unbelievable!

I never thought Marcia Gay Harden would ever be heard from again after her seriously underwhelming "breakthrough" performance in "Miller's Crossing." I never saw "Pollock," and was later surprised to find out that the terrible actress from the Cohen Bros. movie was now an Oscar-winner! I did see "Mystic River" and wondered how Harden, who turned in a mediocre performance as a long-suffering wife could cop a nom when Laura Linney, who is one of the finest actresses of her generation and who was superb in her role, was ignored. (And she was ignored again by the Academy after delivering one of the two finest female performancs of the year in "The Squidf & The Whale"; Joan Allen's in the Sally Potter picture "Yes" was the other performance overlooked by the Academy. The anti-New York bias of the Academy is not just parochialism run amok but downright ridiculous!).

I could go on, but why bother? It just shows that untalented actresses giving mediocre performances in heavily promoted (and heavily campaigned for) films seem to cop the Best Supporting Actress Award. This means put your bet on Michelle Williams ("Brokeback Mountain") this year!

Jesus, Tom. You were already told on the board that Reese Witherspoon DOESN'T play the role of "long-suffering wife" in Walk the Line. But you included her in this article? You don't respect the advise of your board members?

http://goldderbyforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/2246025764/m/8301095282

I don't know what is worse, Brokeback Mountain or Tom O'neail trying to promote the film and its stars.

Michelle Williams was horrible in the movie and she does not deserve to win.

I guess techincally Katharine Hepburn in THE LION IN WINTER suffered, but not because she didn't deserve it. Eleanor didn't suffer as a wife, she suffered as a political opponet to Henry II. I wouldn't compare her character in that to any of the other mentioned. Rachel Weisz in TEH CONSTANT GARDENER doesn't really compare either.

It is interesting to see that you have mentioned this factor because I believe that this factor will be decisive in the Best Supporting Actress, which, curiously, can be said as having a suffering wife and an opposite. In the latter there is Rachel Weisz, who despite winning two major awards I do not believe will triumph because of this factor (her speeches were also rather dull, especially SAG). Up until 40 minutes of the film her character is a mystery and we believe that she didn't care for Ralph Fienne's boring diplomat. Although we discover that she was distant in order to protect her husband, many people may have kept the wrong impression.
On the other hand is Michelle Williams, who actually has many Oscar theories going for her. Besides being the suffering wife, she is also married to a nominated actor (when that happened, the wife usually won) and she stars in the frontrunner for Best Picture. Also, her performance is crucial for the movie's sucess because it serves as a window for people who hate Brokeback's lovers, because it gives them someone to relate to and use a symbol for all the bad thing homosexualism (or adultery) represent. If you want to honor the film for its acting but not its theme, than Michelle's the choice, and this is why I think she will prevail.

Don't forget Amy Adams. Though she has some charm, she's suffering through that odd marriage to Johnny, basically resorting to using an old picture for masturbation and talking to George instead of Johnny after her drama at the hospital.

And Catherine Keener is the long-suffering friend of Capote's mechanisms. You can see it on her face in every scene.

i'm a trifle suprised you didn't mention THE quintessential "long-suffering" wife, the LSW by whom all others are judged: luise rainer in "the great ziegfeld." she played real-life LSW (a two-fer, iconic role and biographic oscar-bait) anna held, first wife of broadway impresairo ziegfeld. her scene when she calls her ex on the phone to congralate him on his new marriage to billie burke? she set the standard for the all future oscar-craving actresses.. people write off her win now, but at the time, it was jaw-dropping.

I think the top four categories are pretty much locked at this point, and the surprises, if any, may come from the supporting categories. In the Supporting Actor category it seems it's between Clooney and Giamatti, and probably Clooney because I think he'll lose the screenplay award to Paul Haggis. I think Hollywood wants Jake Gyllenhaal to mature a little bit before he gets a real chance at Oscar, so the award will be him getting the nomination this year. Though Michelle Williams is "new" she has actually been around awhile, and done her share not only of television, but in quite a few independent films. She's in the hot movie of the year, and they might want to award at least one actor in this movie. I initially thought it was finally Catherine Keener's time, but there's no buzz behind her performance. Maybe it's too subtle, or just overshadowed by Hoffman. Amy Adams has a lot of buzz, but she's really new, much more so than Williams, and she's not in a hot movie this year. Then there's Rachel Weisz, who's emerged as the surprising frontrunner. I think this performance is nothing special, and blow for blow, Williams is better. Weisz is someone that for whatever reason Hollywood hasn't warmed up to that much. Her acceptance speeches for the Globes and SAG were boring and lame. Ans then there's the ingenue factor. In the past little know actors like Geena Davis (at the time), Marisa Tomei, and Mira Sorvino have pulled upsets in this category, and they all had that ingenue quality that Williams has. If anyone saw "The Baxter," they would know that she actually gave two wonderful performances this year, and one very comedic. I'm predicting Williams pulls the one upset of the year on Oscar night.