User reviews

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.

This quiet and gentle movie sneaks up on you and by the end you are left with an appreciation of how little difference there is between the quite disparate lives of the two protagonists. With a few differemt turns, circumstances, and choices an intelligent man can easily become a bohemian. I think it is for this reason that Joseph Mitchell, a staff writer for "The New Yorker" magazine, became drawn to Joe Gould, a somewhat mad homeless man with occasional flashes of unique insight and a flare for histrionics. Gould claims to be writing an "Oral History of the World." Mitchell admits to sympathizing with Gould's statement that he is at home "among the cranks and the misfits and the one-lungers and the has beens and the would-bes and the never wills and the god knows whats." Indeed, how could you not be a little interested in a man who could write that? And Mitchell comes to identify with Gould in another significant way, and that way is in fact Joe Gould's secret.

In the process of writing a profile of Gould for his magazine Mitchell develops a relationship with Gould that results in Gould's ultimately becoming somewhat of a pest. As Gould says, "When you lie down with dogs, you have to live with fleas." In a dramatic scene Mitchell gives Gould an honest appraisal of the status of his "history" that creates a rift in their relationship. But the bond is never completely severed as some of the final scenes indicate.

The period setting of New York City in the early 1940s lends an air of nostalgia. This is a movie that Woody Allen could have made if he could ever dial his nervous anxiety back several notches. The music is suitably subdued and melancholic. The casting is perfect and the performances are excellent. Every aspect of the filming gives evidence to a loving commitment.

This is a movie about dreams realized and unrealized. In a letter to Mitchell, one of Gould's friends states that, "the City's unconscious may be trying to speak to us through Joe Gould. The people who have gone underground in the City, the City's living dead. People who never belonged any place from the beginning, people sitting in dark bar-rooms, the ones who are always left out, the ones who were never asked." Such words leave you with an unspecified yearning. Maybe a yearning to read Mitchell's original "New Yorker" articles "Professor Seagull" and "Joe Gould's Secret" upon which this movie was based.

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.

The subdued temper of this film will appeal to enthusiasts of 82 Charing Cross Road, and the homage to the New Yorker is explicit. Beyond this, it must be seen by those - like myself - who have found themselves dissappointed by the work of Ian Holm, whose promise has always seemed greater than his very English voice and style. When - as in Wetherby - he is well cast, he can be a gem; but in so many films he has seemed to the English ear of this writer to be like Hopkins weakly cast, and unpersuasive in his adaptation to the role.

It is therefore an occasion for cheering to see Ian Holm at full, serious professional power, extremely well rehearsed for his part. Here his performance has the spontaneity and vigour one expects from the Russians; it is hard to imagine he achived this without a study of the manic, disturbed characters of which his subject is one.

He moves a notch up the ranks; let us hope he is now offered a belated accumualation of serious work.

Split decision on this one. I always find the interplay of humans and dialog as quite interesting so I generally liked this movie for the characters of Joe Gould an troubled but gifted writer and Joe Mitchell the established NY magazine writer. In my opinion well acted and set well. My wife found it confusing and rather disjointed. Our two votes were 7 and 5 respectively so we compromised on 6. We would both recommend this movie however. See it and see what you think.

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

"Joe Gould's Secret" is a self-involved drama which is entirely focused on one peculiar eccentric who is either a fraud and a bum or a walking encyclopedia of the collective wisdom of New York city dwellers and no one seems to know which. The film is well crafted but the irascible Holm character may begin to wear on some viewers as the film meanders tediously toward its anticlimactic conclusion.

With all the garbage that's been coming out in the theaters recently, I've taken to staying home and renting movies that never made a big splash at the box office. With Joe Gould's Secret, I lucked out and enjoyed a movie that was better than I could have imagined.

All the performances, most notably Ian Holm's, are stellar. The scenes of 1940's New York will fill you with nostalgia, even if (like me) you were born well after that time. Occasional appearances by the always wonderful Susan Sarandon and Steve Martin only heighten the pleasure of a perfectly-acted, -filmed, and -directed gem of a movie.

But, in the end, it is the character of Joe Gould -- brilliant, mad, heartbreaking -- that makes Joe Gould's Secret so perfect. He is the farthest thing imaginable from the "cute homeless guy" stock character of your typical insulting Hollywood script.

Do yourself a big favor and see this movie.

This is the most annoying, if not the worst movie I've ever seen. Miss it if you have low tolerance for annoying actors who overdo it, especially if very fake and inconsistent southern accents drive you batty. Tucci needs to hire a real southerner, or get a voice coach, if he intends to make his character plausible. That's not a Tennessee accent, Stanley, it's from Mississippi (and Mississipians should be insulted by his performance as well). The only decent actors in the movie were everyone BUT Holm and Tucci. (Sorry to disappoint their fans). The movie was so annoying I took an unnecessary bathroom break which I extended by gazing at the clock at the concession stand and looking at the movie posters in the lobby. Finally I plodded back to my date (who was also hating it but was determined to use up the $7) and let myself be tortured for the remaining hour. The only good things about the movie were Susan Sarandon and my box of popcorn.

This is a well made and acted adaption of Joseph Mitchell's two pieces on Joseph Ferdinand Gould,a New York character from the 20's into the early 50's who claimed to be writing the "longest book in the English language,Joe Gould's Oral history." He haunted Village bars and coffee houses cadging drinks and handouts to sustain his existence.He says "We all suffer from delusions,his is the delusion that he is Joseph Ferdinand Gould.Tucci is excellent as Joseph Mitchell,but Ian Holm steals the show as Joe Gould,although he looks a little too well fed.Trivia:early in the film when Tucci is in the Minnetta Tavern,we see a painting of the REAL Joe Gould! What a shame this movie didn't get a wider audience,which it richly deserves.

The first half of this independent film is masterful. Ian Holm holds court and Stanley Tucci rounds up the admirers. It is fanciful, whimsical, intriguing, and based upon a true story. The last is the rub, alas, because the true ending is terribly anticlimactic and gives the film nowhere to go. 25 of the last 30 minutes are spent listening to Tucci's pointless ramblings and pseudo-justifications as he speaks in a ridiculous accent. Too bad, because the New York backdrop is used to terrific advantage, and Holm is magnificent.

I read Joseph Mitchell's marvelous collection "Up in the Old Hotel," of which "Joe Gould's Secret" was a part, years ago and have always thought of it as one of my favorite books. I was so grateful that someone like Mitchell had made it his work to go around the city at mid-century and actually talk to people whose experiences of New York went as far back as the turn of the century, providing first-hand accounts of life in our fair city when things weren't so shiny and glossy as they are today. I always thought Mitchell a real hero.

Now after this movie I think negatively of him. Was he really so callous toward this subject, Joe Gould, from the get-go? In the movie he never seems fascinated, but ultimately annoyed -- he seemed patronizing and dismissive from the very first. He wasn't depicted as a probing artist at all -- just a workaday family man doing his job to bring home the bacon. I just don't believe this about Mitchell.

Will someone please make it illegal for actors like Stanley Tucci and Hope Davis to keep appearing in these cloying, precious little indies? I am so sick of them, particularly of her, what was at first her appealing acting style, the same in movie after movie after movie, now makes me want to shoot the screen. To me they seem to make these movies to feel good about themselves, "aren't we cool that we find these interesting subjects and make movies about them," -- not to make the best translation into film form that they possibly can.

Ian Holm was terrific and it was fun to see NYC at that time depicted. The New Yorker editor seemed spot-on. But I'm mad to have my sense of a personal hero sullied by this film of suspect intentions.

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.

Starring one of the best actors in the world, Ian Holm; and Stanley Tucci, who also does a great job in this period drama based on a true story about one of the most unusual New York writers in modern history (Joe Mitchell), and his attempt to write a feature story on one of New York's most notable philosopher characters- a street person who is well-known in writer circles. Joe Gould claims to have written a massive volume that is the complete history of the world based on countless conversations he has heard from people- overheard in the street, and in conversations with friends and strangers. It is never revealed whether Gould really ever had such a manuscript, or if he was a total hoax- possibly somewhere in between. But the effect he has on Joe Mitchell (an actual top feature writer for the New Yorker during the 1940s), is profound. This is an outstanding drama- one of the best of a couple years ago (2000). <p>As reported on NPR after this film release, Joe Mitchell later unexpectedly stopped writing anything, and became a recluse himself. He would never reveal Joe Gould's secret to anyone. Now this film is inexplicably out of print on DVD, which adds a touch of irony to this important piece of American literary history.

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.

Joe Gould comes across as an annoying and irritating character.

Unfortunately, the character has no warmth to it. Instead, it grates on the viewer.

The movie started OK, but as the Gould character came into itself, its shenanigans became too much to bear. The incessant bickering, the tantrums, the mood swings were just too much. At one point, the character was vandalizing a phone booth, and it was just not believable that the barkeeper did not kick his ass out of the establishment.

Also highly irritating is the fake accent employed by Stanley Tucci for his Mitchell character. For some reason, it just doesn't work.

All in all, I pretty much hated this movie, and could not wait for it to end. Some movies are not great, but are serviceable. After about 15 minutes, the Gould character makes this movie completely unwatchable.

Todd

The movie was wonderfully thought provoking. We'd like to see it again because this is one of those movies that would offer you something new each time you watched it. The range of human emotions seemed wide but well contained in the 1950s setting with the most fascinating assortment of characters...Stanley Tucci was uniquely easy to observe. We seemed to compare him and his actions with every other character..the sober but hilarious boss, the high strung secretary, the street person named Joe Gould, his wife, Joe's other benefactors. Were we supposed to think this movie was about Joe Gould?

I hated this movie. Yes, Ian Holm is a treasure generally but he overacts in this one. The slice of bohemia aspect never comes to the fore. Nor does the erstwhile theme of artistic exploration. Tucci accomplished all he hoped to accomplish here in The Big Night. In that film we had a visceral appreciation for the joy of "creating," in that case great meals. And there were aspects of the interaction of art and commerce there were explored. Here, Tucci returns to some of those themes, but the return is a mess. Why does Gould not write? Why does Tucci's character ultimately stop writing? What does this tell us about the creative process? Beats me.

I just caught this "little" gem on the IFC. They are currently showing it in heavy rotation, around the dinner hour.

Other reviews have given a great overview, so no need to repeat. If you enjoy intelligent movies that actually have something to say, DO NOT pass this one up. -And don't worry, this is not a dry, artsy-fartsy movie. There is quite a bit of subtle comedy. In fact, the movie could correctly be classified as a comedy, although miles away from any Jim Carrey effort.

If you are a huge fan of said Mr Carrey, then you will likely hate this movie. It is quite deep, and demands a lot of attention and thought from its audience.

One thing I want to mention, that I haven't seen written previously, is how brilliant I think the whole concept of Joe's "oral history" is. This concept is spot-on. Formal history is simply a glorified, selective record written by the powers that be. It's written by the winners and often bears little resemblance to the truth. True history is the collective thinking, over time, of the general masses. What we think is what is, and that's different for everyone. Wonderful.

Great acting, great directing, fine cinematography, good plot, and excellent lighting! A great little movie..comparable to Big Night in many ways. Stanley Tucci is emerging as a great artist. A thoroughly enjoyable film. If you are into intelligent, humane humor with strong irony mixed in..be sure to see this movie.

While it is not surprising that Joe Gould's fabulism captivated men's imaginations and kept them enthralled for decades,Joe Gould's secret is that he was a sexual predator and was arrested numerous times. Prize-winning journalist and Harvard professor Jill Lepore's detailed biography, "Joe Gould's Teeth' delves into Gould's compulsive obsession with sculptor Augusta Savage, and eludes to a suspected assault. His decades long harassment of her caused her to leave New York City to escape his attentions. Lepore reveals that Gould was ultimately diagnosed as a psychopath. It is sad to see beloved actor Ian Holm used to revise such a perverse history. One notable critic referred to the movie as "Stanley Tucci's lovingly crafted film." Indeed it is.

This story of how a writer for the New Yorker encountered Joe Gould and was ultimately overwhelmed by him is true. I quite liked the film while watching it (Ian Holm is great, as is Susan Sarandon), but the more I thought about it after the fact the more I liked it. That's a good sign, I think. It makes an oddly good pairing with "Cradle Will Rock".