Joe Gould's Secret

This is a story of one very unusual and several fairly interesting characters - no more and no less. Some reviews talk about how well the film captures the look and feel of 1940 New York, but Tucci kindly does not hit you over the head with atmosphere; there are no "do you get it? You realize who that was supposed to be?" scenes. Instead he merely nails down the milieu so precisely that it becomes unobtrusive, and allows you to focus entirely on the characters and their story. Likewise he seems to ignore who in the cast is a star, in favor of who is right for each role. The result is not quite a touching story, nor an inspiring one, nor a tragic one, but a satisfyingly believable as well as intriguing one. Not a documentary, by any means - it is far more creative than that - but fine story-telling. No individual and no event is larger than life, but all are handled with respect and just enough affection. The fact that the story is true is almost incidental; from what I can tell, memorable characters such as Harold Ross (and of course Gould) are portrayed with great accuracy, but what really counts is that they work as characters.

Don't worry about what the secret is. Just get to know these people. You'll like them.

It's no accident that the opening scene of "Joe Gould's Secret" is an all-American family having a normal conversation over breakfast. The head of this household, author Joseph (Joe) Mitchell (director Stanley Tucci) is about to have his world turned upside-down by a person whom he's at first merely intrigued by, but then finds himself friends with: Joe Gould, a homeless beggar who "speaks seagull." Gould (Ian Holm) is himself an author, claiming to have recorded a staggering volume recounting the conversations of strangers he calls the 'Oral History' or simply 'O.H.' One portion of the OH is his own thoughts on these conversations, which he keeps with different people he knows all over New York City. The other is the actual conversations, which he claims to have hidden away under lock and key. Gould won't let anyone read it because it's too personal to him. Over the course of the story, Mitchell starts to suspect that these writings don't even exist. He also finds that he's got a lot more in common with this mentally ill tramp than he'd care to admit.

The heart of the story is the friendship between Gould and Mitchell. Both men are well portrayed and given great depth by the actors who play them. That the script is the best of any produced this year doesn't hurt either. Mitchell treats Gould as a story he's writing, as merely an interesting character for people to read about, and not a human being. Mitchell thinks he's done Gould a great service, but finds that all he's done is take away even more of Gould's humanity. Most of his `friends' treat him in a similar fashion: they love how he entertains them with his craziness, but when it comes to helping him, the most they're willing to do is make a contribution to the "Joe Gould fund." Holm's performance is mesmerizing. Behind all of Gould's ravings is a sadness that he always manages to keep just below the surface. Holm brings across several levels of a man's personality, sometimes in no more than a glance. His work here is a perfect, once-in-a-lifetime achievement I hope he is remembered for.

There is much more to Joe Gould's Secret than a message about how we treat the homeless in America. It has so many levels, you could watch it several times and find a different story in it each time. Tucci has several points to make, but doesn't do it at the expense of storytelling. His love and understanding of the story and characters shines through, like a kid finding a stray puppy, running home with it, and announcing, "look what I found!"

Grade: A

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.

What a line that was.

Likely the best movie I've seen in ten years. Joe Mitchell's clear, lucid writing comes through so well one wonders why this hasn't been done before. Being familiar with the stories on which this film is based helped.

Ian Holm brings Gould to life, and Tucci plays the bemused, then overwhelmed journalist wonderfully well. (I could quibble about his "generic southern" rather than North Carolina accent, but that really is just a quibble.)

It made me think (always a sign of any good work of art) about the brief celebrity brought onto persons by well-meaning journalists. We see a slice of their lives, their 15 minutes of fame, but their lives continue on, following their daily routines, which may now be altered by their brush with fame.

It also brings out the dance between madness and genius. How many mumbling street people have we seen and passed, never realizing that there is a life, perhaps wisdom, lurking beneath the tattered clothes, sheltered in their cardboard boxes?

I like movies that are well-written, and this one certainly is. And the New York of the 40's and 50's is a character in the film to. To see the Village Vandguard's sign, knowing that beneath this sign passed Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Coltrane...

Highly recommended.

This is one of those marvelous movies where almost nothing happens. Noone dies, noone gets blasted by aliens, noone get mushed by Bruce Willis or Harrison Ford. Just a quiet movie about an interesting guy (damn, Ian Holm is good) who doesn't do much. The scenography is awesome, and the details of the surroundings are pretty good. Anyone with an understanding of the pre-beat scene in NYC (or curiosity, ferchristssake) will love this quiet, interesting movie. Some of the characters could have been painted with a little more color. One becomes curious about the photographer-wife, the beat-artist (Saranden), and the sleazy publisher (Steve Martin, ferchristssake), but our questions remain questions.

If you like quiet movies, thoughtful movies, you'll thoroughly enjoy this one. Rent it.