Rating: 
Summary: Nice try, but awfully polite.
Review: This film certainly deserves 4 or 5 stars for intent & integrity. But it's awfully sanitized, stylized & sentimentalized. Joe Gould was a beast in every sense, though a charismatic one certainly. Ian Holm is a great actor & has been in many of my favorite films of the last 20 years (Kafka, Brazil, Naked Lunch, Fifth Element, etc) & he looks like he's having fun here, but this role is no stretch for him. I never thought I would say (or think) this, but I preferred Robin Williams in almost the same part in Fisher King. If they do a film about Alice Neel, God bless her, I hope it's a documentary.
Rating: 
Summary: A literary genius.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Nice try, but awfully polite.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Brillliant performance by Ian Holm
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: What rough beast?
Review: Watching this film, after having grown up with the Cummings version of Joe Gould (EE is mentioned peripherally, but does not appear in the film), I learned a great deal, and was profoundly moved by the interaction between the two characters and how it changed both their lives. I will not reveal the ending, except to say that it is something the film slowly builds up to, and it would not have the same impact without the rest of the film. Yes, as others have said, the pacing is a bit slow, but it really had to be that way - if you want to see a fast-paced film, try a search for Clint Eastwood. If you want to see a film about a successful and functional eccentric (albeit one with a tragic family), try Crumb. For a great tragedy about the lives of two writers and how they touched one another, this film will do nicely.
Rating:
Summary: fascinating true life story
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: fascinating true life story
Review: 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.
|
