The Greatest Love Story of All Time?

Rating: Null/10 (22 January 2006)

Two cowboys find romance one summer on Brokeback Mountain and spend the next twenty years trying to recapture it. This film, directed by Ang Lee, is certainly the most highly-acclaimed film of 2005 and will certainly be as big a winner at the Academy Awards as it was at the Golden Globes. However, is it, as some claim, the greatest love story ever told? The answer is a resounding no, and let me tell you why.
I have three problems with the film, which are the story, the acting, and the film-making. Let me deal with them in reverse order. This film is horribly paced. It takes way too long to get started, and once it finally does it moves at a glacial pace. This is becoming more and more of a problem with films today. When I was growing up, if a film was two-and-half or three hours long, it was a given that it would be good because the studios wouldn't put out a film that long unless it dealt with epic events or themes which couldn't be contained in a mere two hours. Nowadays excessive length simply seems to be a sign that the filmmakers didn't find the story. Now, I look at long films with a bit of dread. Loved the scenery, Ang, but let's get on with it. The make-up department was also a problem. It did an abysmal job of aging Ledger, Gyllenhaal, and Anne Hathaway. When Ledger sits down with his daughter at the end, they seem more like brother and sister! The make-up definitely took me out of the movie.
Next, the acting. One major problem: Heath Ledger. He does to "Brokeback Mountain" exactly what he did to "A Knight's Tale," "The Four Feathers," "The Order" and "The Brothers Grimm." And that ain't pretty. He doesn't have the charisma necessary to be a movie star, or the talent necessary to be an actor. He makes Keanu Reeves look like Lawrence Olivier. Here, with the monosyllabic Ennis, Health tries the less is more school of acting which has served men like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood so well, except that he exaggerates his less to the point that his less is much more than more. He struck me as utterly false with each of his little gestures or guttural pronouncements. I like Jake Gyllenhaal better, but he seemed a little awkward here. Whether that was intentional or a result of uncertainness of his behalf as an actor, it seemed to suit the character. However, poor Jake was not able to generate any romantic chemistry with Heath Ledger. (That's no crime, I haven't seen an actress able to do it either!)
The story. This is not a great love story. Great love stories are tales of sacrifice. No one sacrifices anything in this film. Wait a second, let me correct that, both Ennis and Jack are willing to sacrifice the love and respect and trust of their spouses and their children in a vain attempt to periodically recapture a magic moment in their youths, but neither of the men is willing to sacrifice anything for the other. This is not "Casablanca" love, this is "Citizen Kane" love  love on your own terms. Granted, the men face formidable obstacles to their "love," but in a great love story, the lovers overcome their obstacles or die trying. Romeo didn't walk away from Juliet because his family didn't approve. He died instead. Geez. Come on. Men certainly lived together in 1963, albeit less openly than now. They've been doing it for thousands of years. Ennis loved the life he openly projected more than he loved Jack or he wouldn't have made the choices he did. And Jack Did he even love Ennis at all? Despite his much stated desire for them to settle on a ranch together, it seemed his commitment to Ennis was little more than skin deep. His attitude was clearly revealed when he admits he was with other men because he only got what he needed from Ennis three or four times a year and he needed it more. What was he referring too? Love? I think not. Ennis loved him year round in his own way. What Jack only got three or four times a year was sex. That's a very adolescent view of love. I assume Annie Proulx managed to bring more depth to their relationship in the book than Ang Lee managed to do in this movie.
This film was an examination of selfishness. Unwilling to make a commitment to their "true" loves, they dissipated their passion in unfruitful unions which deprived their partners and children to the attention and love they deserved. Didn't their spouses or children deserve better? Granted, many homosexual men marry for appearances, or in a misguided attempt to deny their sexuality, but that doesn't make them heroes or martyrs. I would have a preferred to see a movie about the two old homosexual ranchers Ennis heard about in his youth who were murdered by their judgmental neighbors. Those guys sounded like real men who really loved each other and were willing to sacrifice for each other. There was potential for a great love story there. But not here.
I found myself withholding judgment on this film until the very last scene. I was hoping that in one of the final scenes with his daughter Ennis would reveal something of himself that would make his life something more than a lie. I was hoping he would do something courageous worthy of his love for either Jack or his daughter, but he didn't.
A disappointment.