Joe Gould's Secret (2000)

A Marvelous little film
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.

Brilliant evocation of an era
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.

A psychological slant
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.