Customer Reviews

Joe Gould's Secret

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What is history? Is it nothing more than the accounts we read in books of the exploits of various kings, queens, generals, armies, nations etc. as they wage war or deliberate peace throughout the endless millennia? Or is it - as Tolstoy implied - the sum total of the day-to-day actions of ordinary human beings eking out an existence on this unique little planet we call Earth?

These are the questions posed by Stanley Tucci's "Joe Gould's Secret," an intriguing little film based on the true story of a well-known eccentric who lived amongst and associated with the New York literati of the 1940's. This tale is really about two "Joes" - Joe Mitchell, a highly successful writer at "The New Yorker," and Joe Gould, a strange but alluring figure who shuffles his way around town begging for handouts, yet who claims to be a writer currently involved in authoring a monumental "oral history" of the world around him. Intrigued by this true eccentric, Mitchell decides to feature Gould in one of his magazine pieces. Thus, the two Joes spend countless hours together as Mitchell examines, records and tries to understand the lifestyle and thoughts of this most unique and extraordinary of individuals.

The best part about "Joe Gould's Secret" is that it allows the title character to remain something of an enigma throughout. It doesn't try to "explain" him or rob him of the ambiguity that makes him so fascinating a figure. In many ways, Gould fits perfectly the image of the artist we have come to romanticize and even glorify in our minds over the years. He is often gruff, irrational and temperamental, prone to wide mood swings and occasional violent outbursts, yet he is also capable of making profound insights and he possesses an innate ability to afflict the "comfortable" living in their smug little materialistic worlds - a tendency that endears him to the, perhaps, equally smug Bohemians around him. That he has to "suffer" for his art - he is virtually homeless and relies on the pecuniary contributions of his "friends" to get him by - only elevates his standing both in his own eyes and the eyes of many others. Credit the complex screenplay by Howard A. Rodman for being able to see that Gould may himself be suffering from delusions of grandeur that the people who admire him and the work he is doing simply reinforce - perhaps because they like to have a "colorful" character hanging around or because it makes them feel good to be minimally and patronizingly kind to a fellow human being (you will note that only one of his concerned "friends" or patrons is willing to provide him with a place to live - so much easier to hand him a few dollars and send him on his way). Even Mitchell becomes highly conflicted in his feelings towards Gould. Though at first intrigued by his eccentric nature, Mitchell, once the article is published and Gould has served his purpose, begins to see the man as little more than a daily annoyance, a time-consuming irritant to be gotten rid of. As Gould slips ever further into the realm of societal castoff, "Joe Gould's Secret" begins to take on the air of a profoundly sad human tragedy.

Yet, in the end, it is what Joe Gould stands for - his insistence that we shine a light on the forgotten members of the working class and the down-on-their-luck societal "losers" - that ends up making the strongest mark on both Mitchell and us in the audience. Though we are often appalled by the lifestyle Gould lives, we can't help but acknowledge the truth of his core conviction. Real history CAN be found every bit as much in the words, faces and lives of those people lurking in dingy pubs and toiling away in sweaty factories as it can in the royal courts and on the bloody battlefields that somehow preoccupy so many of the world's historians.

Ian Holm gives a brilliant performance as Gould, managing to appear both larger and smaller than life as the situation warrants. Whether he is rhapsodizing poetically about the meaning of life or extending his palm out in a poignant gesture of humiliating beggary, Holm makes Gould a completely believable and thoroughly unique character. Tucci, as Mitchell, the passive observer, has the less flamboyant role, but he manages to convey the seemingly contradictory nature of a man who wants both to remain skeptical and to believe in the "truth" of Gould and what he stands for.

"Joe Gould's Secret" transports us to a fascinating time and place and gives us much food for thought once we get there.

This historical comedy-drama is based on the true story of Joe Gould, a bohemian eccentric who was a fixture in New York's Greenwich Village from his arrival in 1916 to his death in 1964. Gould, who claimed to be a graduate of Harvard, would cadge drinks and subsist on catsup as he regaled patrons of neighborhood saloons with stories, poems, opinions, and his imitation of a seagull. In a 1942 New Yorker profile by journalist Joseph Mitchell, Gould spoke of his life's work, a book entitled An Oral History of Our Times, which he claimed would be eleven times longer than the Bible, contain a variety of overheard conversations from throughout the years, and document the decline of 20th century culture. Mitchell kept tabs on Gould, and tried to introduce him to publishers who might put his work into print, but nothing ever came of it, and it wasn't until Gould's death that Mitchell discovered the surprising truth about his friend.

Thematically rich film even though it has trouble juggling everything smoothly. Tucci never really prioritizes his themes and as a result, the profoundness of the "secret" is obscured. I was still won over however because, well, because these topics are just not given enough attention in mainstream films. On the surface, it appears that Tucci is examining the tumultuous relationship between the two Joes, but the real subject is the equally chaotic relationship between artists and their artistic endeavours. Tucci examines how artists endure much suffering for their work and as a result, they tread a fine line between genius and madness. He also seems to be saying that if the artistic impulse is not reined in, it can potentially become destructive because the truth that artists feel compelled to convey is much too complex and diverse to be expressed merely by the simple tools at the artists' disposal. In fact, Gould's oral history reminded me of the director's rushes at the end of Assayas' "Irma Vep" -- an unrestrained vision gone haywire, short circuited by the futile attempt to express grand and divine ideas in a conventional format. Tucci touches upon other themes as well, such as the difference between patronage and commercialism, the root of artistic inspiration, the responsibility of journalists for their subjects, etc. but they do not really go anywhere. When the "secret" is revealed, in a most nonchalant manner, by the closing captions of the film (the "secret" is actually multi-layered -- there is another "secret" on the story surface, readily apparent just from the plot), a chill went down my spine. Consequently, it made me re-examine the whole story and although "Joe Gould's Secret" is a good story, it isn't the main story nor the most compelling one, or otherwise the film would have been called "Joe Mitchell's Secret". It's puzzling why Tucci approached the story the way he did, but this movie is still a winner, and it's nice to finally watch a film that is bloated with ideas. The detailed set-pieces of New York in the '40s are also a treat to look at. Ian Holm gives the performance that is conspicuously remarkable, but it's Stanley Tucci's performance, which is nearly invisible next to Holm's, that becomes more noteworthy upon reflection, particularly after pondering the meaning of the film's closing captions.

I watched "Joe Gould's Secret" without knowing that it was based on a true story, but was not surprised when that turned out to be the case because this 2000 film from actor/director Stanley Tucci rings true. Tucci plays Joe Mitchell, a columnist for "The New Yorker" magazine in the early 1940s who had a chance encounter with a Greenwich Village bohemian eccentric named Joe Gould (Ian Holm). His reporter's curiosity piqued, Mitchell asks around a bit and finds that Gould claims to be writing an epic Oral History of New York, an almost daily record of the conversations he has each day with the forgotten ordinary folks of the great metropolis (the Oral History has to be capitalized; that is clear from the way Gould and his friends talk about it).

The notebooks containing this million-word history are secreted around the city with the various artist friends who provide Gould patronage by listening to him and making monetary contributions to the Joe Gould Fund. The rationale for their indulgence is articulated by the painter Alice Neel (Susan Sarandon) who tells Mitchell, "I have always felt that the city's s unconscious is trying to speak to you through Joe Gould."

Mitchell discovers that Gould is a walking contradiction, capable of both quick bursts of anger and madness as well as perceptive insights into the human condition. He proves his credentials at being a superb listener by doing a Henry Higgins and telling Mitchell he was born in North Carolina based on a single sentence. Mitchell writes two articles about Gould for "The New Yorker." The first, "Professor Sea Gull," makes Gould even more of a cult figure about the New York intelligentsia, and a publisher (Steve Martin) is interested in at least reading the Oral History. But Gould refuses to let excerpts be published, saying it is all or nothing, and declaring it will only be produced posthumously. Years later, after Gould died, Mitchell would write a second essay, from which this film gets its title. However the delicious irony of this film is that the secret that lies at its heart belongs as much to Mitchell as it does to Gould.

Holm has the flashy part as the brilliant madman, but it is Tucci's Mitchell that is the pivotal performance. "Joe Gould's Secret" is more about how Mitchell sees Gould than we do in watching the film. There is a scene early on when Mitchell tries to explain to his editor why he might want to rewrite an article that has already been accepted for publication. Mitchell gropes without success for the words to speak out loud and his editor can only laugh and point out that it is a good thing this Joe writes better than he talks. But the exchange is significant because it speaks to the depths of Joe's emotions and intellect. We see or hear little of what Mitchell writes; most of the voice over narration has him quoting the words of Joe Gould. So it is the looks on Tucci's face, the way he sets his body, the pace of his walk, that give us our only clues to the deep rivers of his heart, mind, and soul. "Joe Gould's Secret" is a film in a minor key, but it is a nice little gem all the same.

Based on a true story, "Joe Gould's Secret" could well remain a secret, despite its stellar cast and story. Ian Holm plays Joe Gould, a Harvard graduate turned street-person eccentric whom the film portrays living in 1940s New York. Stanley Tucci delivers a brilliant perforance as the real-life Joe Mitchell, a writer for The New Yorker magazine, who stumbles into Gould and his vision of the magnum opus "oral history" he has been writing through his life. Susan Sarandon plays a magnificent role as one of Gould's contemporaries, an avant-garde painter in that fabulous nascent period between The Bohemians and The Beatniks. And Patricia Clarkson, in a role consisting of a little more than a couple of cameos, acts the role of one of Gould's most generous patrons.
It starts out easy enough -- with Mitchell, the New Yorker writer, finding Gould at a lunch counter. Gradually a friendship is started between the two men. Mitchell eventually writes an article called "Professor Sea Gull" and fan letters containing a few dollars for the "Joe Gould Fund" start to arrive at Mitchell's office. Meanwhile, Mitchell is trying to get his hands on what he thinks might be a Holy Grail of sorts -- Gould's opus "Oral History" in notebooks stashed a half-dozen at a time at various patrons' and friends' houses through New York. The actual treasure trove of the 9-million word History, consisting of 20,000 interviews, remains elusive and out of Mitchell's reach. Even after Gould's death, Mitchell keeps trying to find the farmhouse, where, wrapped in oilcloth, lie the rest of Gould's notebooks and the Great Oral History. Many years later, Mitchell writes his last New Yorker piece on what he has learned about the story.

Joseph Mitchell wrote"Human interest"pieces for the New Yorker magazine back in the 1930s...It was his interest in"Professor Seagull"aka Joe Gould,that led,long years later,to this film..Gould,either a con-man or a madman(and possibly both)claimed to be writing"an oral history of the world",a mammoth work alledgedly based upon conversations and observations of those Gould encountered on his travels around New York City..That ,perhaps,his manuscript might not be anything at all like Gould claimed,apparently did not dawn on Mitchell when he was writing his two New Yorker articles about him,and Gould,for his part,liked the attention the articles gave him which,in the end,contributed to Mitchell's estrangement from him..
This film,directed by and starring Stanley Tucci is a true gem.

I watched "Joe Gould's Secret" without knowing that it was based on a true story, but was not surprised when that turned out to be the case because this 2000 film from actor/director Stanley Tucci rings true. Tucci plays Joe Mitchell, a columnist for "The New Yorker" magazine in the early 1940s who had a chance encounter with a Greenwich Village bohemian eccentric named Joe Gould (Ian Holm). His reporter's curiosity piqued, Mitchell asks around a bit and finds that Gould claims to be writing an epic Oral History of New York, an almost daily record of the conversations he has each day with the forgotten ordinary folks of the great metropolis (the Oral History has to be capitalized; that is clear from the way Gould and his friends talk about it).

The notebooks containing this million-word history are secreted around the city with the various artist friends who provide Gould patronage by listening to him and making monetary contributions to the Joe Gould Fund. The rationale for their indulgence is articulated by the painter Alice Neel (Susan Sarandon) who tells Mitchell, "I have always felt that the city's s unconscious is trying to speak to you through Joe Gould."

Mitchell discovers that Gould is a walking contradiction, capable of both quick bursts of anger and madness as well as perceptive insights into the human condition. He proves his credentials at being a superb listener by doing a Henry Higgins and telling Mitchell he was born in North Carolina based on a single sentence. Mitchell writes two articles about Gould for "The New Yorker." The first, "Professor Sea Gull," makes Gould even more of a cult figure about the New York intelligentsia, and a publisher (Steve Martin) is interested in at least reading the Oral History. But Gould refuses to let excerpts be published, saying it is all or nothing, and declaring it will only be produced posthumously. Years later, after Gould died, Mitchell would write a second essay, from which this film gets its title. However the delicious irony of this film is that the secret that lies at its heart belongs as much to Mitchell as it does to Gould.

Holm has the flashy part as the brilliant madman, but it is Tucci's Mitchell that is the pivotal performance. "Joe Gould's Secret" is more about how Mitchell sees Gould than we do in watching the film. There is a scene early on when Mitchell tries to explain to his editor why he might want to rewrite an article that has already been accepted for publication. Mitchell gropes without success for the words to speak out loud and his editor can only laugh and point out that it is a good thing this Joe writes better than he talks. But the exchange is significant because it speaks to the depths of Joe's emotions and intellect. We see or hear little of what Mitchell writes; most of the voice over narration has him quoting the words of Joe Gould. So it is the looks on Tucci's face, the way he sets his body, the pace of his walk, that give us our only clues to the deep rivers of his heart, mind, and soul. "Joe Gould's Secret" is a film in a minor key, but it is a nice little gem all the same.

Tucci is an inspired director and actor. This film depicts with sensitivity and brilliance the relationship between a writer and his subject. The "grammar" of the film, camera angles, editing, symbolism, etc., is the best I've seen in years.However, it is much too artistic and subtle to appeal to a general audience. Tant pis! Congratulations Tucci! Please keep at it.

I'm surprised no one mentions Joe Gould's obvious psychological problems. His own mother recognizes his difficulties when he is a very young boy. Gould's brilliance was as profound as his lack of boundaries and thought disorders. The dreadful trouble 'other' people eventually have when a person is not able to recognize normal adult 'self' boundaries is slowly and agonizingly developed in the film by all who care for him, especially in Joe Mitchell and the amazing Patricia Clarkson. Joe M's sense of guilt about his own desire to withdraw to more normal distances and responsibilities grows with each encounter following the publishing of the article. He slowly realizes Joe G's affections and dependencies on him and Gould's inabilities to follow up on his success to make a better life for himself. Ian Holmes is absolutely magnificent in his portrayal of madness!!!!! Stanley Tucci's emotionally profound moments build to the incredible conversation scene in the psychiatric hospital with the now medicated and more personally aware Joe G. who speaks of himself 'as a mad person'. Joe M. realizes how much he missed/did not see of Joe G's 'total self' experience when he wrote. He used Joe G's madness for his own clever aggrandizment and had no full awareness of the man or of the impact his relationship and his writing would have on this man's delicately built 'positive' life style. The most 'whole' description of Joe Gould's value was spoken by Susan Serandon: "Joe G's gregarious, exhibitionistic, grandiose, scattered but profound communications of his experience with his 'friends' (as in the party scene) she recognized as speaking for the universal 'unconscious' of the unseen people of New York City AND its artists. She valued the awareness he brought to those who were capable of allowing themselves to listen with their hearts and connect to him."
Another parallel Tucci brought out in the film was the deadening of the brilliance of Joe G. by the 'cure' of the Hospital meds, comparing it to the deadening of Joe G.s fragile lifestyle as his connections to Joe M./others disintegrated.
I wonder if Ian Holmes and/or Stanley Tucci have had personal experience with madness in their lives, as their ability to see into all of these people is so deep? If not, their artistic ability to see into souls, others and their own, is to be applauded, as is this incredible film, which ever way it was made.
Given the gradual and painful awareness of his role in Joe G.'s disintegration. it was not probably, in real life, a necessary outcome for Joe M. that he could not write again, but Stanley Tucci makes it crystal clear why it WAS EMOTIONALLY SO for the real Joe M.

Was he a brilliant and misunderstood bohemian, or merely a mentally deranged hobo with scant moments of lucidity? This is one of the questions broached by this thought provoking period piece based on a true story. Joe Gould (Ian Holm) became a local legend of sorts in the 1940's and `50's as he lived on the streets of Greenwich Village in Manhattan during that section's most outlandish and offbeat era. According to the legend, Gould was writing the "Oral History of the World" supposedly scratching down his thoughts and the conversations of common folks in composition books. This story follows the relationship developed between Joe Gould, a Harvard graduate cum decadent; and Joe Mitchell (Stanley Tucci), a prominent writer for New Yorker Magazine during the period, who wrote the book on which this film is based.

Gould was generally well liked, and he could be charming and engaging when doing his bohemian act for the locals, who were wont to enjoy the raw humanity of it. Thus, despite his disheveled and odoriferous attributes, he was often welcome at parties given by affluent socialites. He had a symbiosis with the neighborhood, a mutually parasitic relationship where he used them for their money and they used him to indulge their desire to consider themselves avant-garde by consorting with free spirits.

He easily manipulated various residents into contributing significant alms, which he would promptly squander on alcohol. This became even truer after Mitchell wrote an article about him in New Yorker Magazine and his celebrity mushroomed. The film tells his story without over-romanticizing him and unabashedly presents his dark side (bordering on sociopathic) marked by alcoholism, temper tantrums, belligerent outbursts and generally disturbed behavior.

Stanley Tucci's direction of this film again bears his trademark attention to human details, presenting a very perceptive look at the human condition. As always, his work with the actors to get the right feelings on film was excellent. He also captured the period precisely in his use of costumes, props and Greenwich Village locations, most of which are unchanged from 50 years ago. He does a good job of peeling away Gould's façade, which begins with a look at him as a colorful and interesting character and reveals him ultimately as grossly imbalanced.

If there were criticisms of Tucci's presentation, they would have to be about pace and content. The film isn't excessively long, but at times, it feels that way. Though this was a wonderfully in-depth character study, it trod over the same ground repeatedly, rather than offering an array of fresh perspectives.

The acting was exceptional. Ian Holm gives a brilliant performance as Gould. It is difficult to imagine a more complex and demanding character. Holm was engaging, charming, cantankerous, belligerent and occasionally insightfully deep. Holm was fully immersed in his character and he gave a truly inspired portrayal. Stanley Tucci was also very good as the sullen and impassive journalist. His southern accent was only passable, but his genteel southern style was excellent and his conflict and concern came across as genuine.

This film requires a patient and intelligent viewer. I rated it an 8/10 on the strength of the acting and the insightful character study, despite its sluggish pace. If you enjoy human-interest stories and probing character studies, I would recommend you try it.