about what could be called judicial tTann’,rnthat the federal courts have usurpedrnthe role of the people and lawmakers inrndeciding major issues. How do you feelrnabout that?rnB: I am the bold consen’ative candidaternfor compassionate conservatism! I willrnappoint great Republican SupremernCourt justices like Earl Warren, HarrvrnBrennan, Clarence Blackmun and RuthrnBader O’Connor. And I will niake surernwe hae diversit}’ on the Court.rnAt this point, we were interrupted byrnstaff members reminding the governor ofrnhis next engagement.rnC: Thank ‘ou, Covernor. This has beenrnmost enlightening for our readers.rnB: Remember to tell diem I am the conserrnatic candidate, the true, the bold,rnthe compassionate conservatie. That’srnhow we will \ in the Republican victory.rnClyde Wilson is a professor of AmericanrnhistoPi’ at the Vniversih’ of South CaroUna.rnObserving AmericanrnDecenciesrnby George AlcCartneyrnJoe Gould’s SecretrnProduced bv First Cold Pressrnand October FihnsrnDirected by Stanley TuccirnScreenplay by Howard A. Rodman,rnfrom an article by foseph MitchellrnReleased by October FihnsrnAmerican PsychornProduced bv Single Cell PicturesrnDirected by Man’ HarronrnScreenplay by Man’ Harron,rnfrom a novel by Bret Easton EllisrnReleased bv Lions Cate FilmsrnJ oe Could’s Secret is an unforced, unlurricdrnnarratixe filled witii the quietrnstrangeness of a Henr}- James’ ston,’. Stanle’rnTucci, the film’s producer, director,rnand co-star, renders events so that theyrnseem as equivocal as life itself. Onlvrnslowly do we realize this is a tale of arnsoul’s possession.rnThe film is based on hvo articles publishedrnby Ninv Yorker staff w riter JosephrnMitchell in 1942 and 1964. Both concernrnhis acquaintance with Joe Gould, arnwell-known Greenwich Village eccentric.rn(Tucci plavs Mitchell and Ianrnfiolm, Gould. As in Tucci’s 1996 film.rnThe Big N/’g/if, they are perfect togctlier.)rnOther than being descendants of familiesrndahng back to pre-Re’olutionary America,rnthe two men could not hac beenrnmore dissimilar. C^ould was a raucous,rnbumptious braggart from Massachusetts,rna Yankee self-promoter; Mitchell, a refined,rncourtK gentleman from NorthrnCarolina, an unassuming Southern aristocrat.rnMitchell encountered Gould in thernlate ^O’s while publishing a scries of profilesrnon New York characters. He wasrnhaiiig a cup of coffee in a diner whenrnGould came bustling in with his trademarkrnpasteboard folder and oversi/ed,rnfilth, hand-me-down clothes. Withoutrnas much as a hello to the proprietor, thernbald, bearded derelict demanded to bernfed for free. Served a bowl of soup,rnGould proceeded to cmpt- a bottle ofrnketchup into it. At the other cud of therncounter, Mitchell watched, his journalisticrnantennae aquiver.rnHe soon learned tiiat Gould had graduatedrnfrom Harvard in 1911 and hadrncome to New York to be a journalist, histcad,rnhe had gained notoriety on thernstreets of Grcenw ich Village as the geniusrnbum whose \ork in progress. ThernOral History of Our Tune, might one da’rnturn out to be a masterpiece. At nine millionrnwords and counting, Gould grandlyrncompared his work to Gibbon’s Declinernand Fall of the Roman Empire. He hadrnbeen at it since 1917, he explained, thernyear he had fully committed himself tornhis project.rnI would spend die rest of in life goingrnabout the cih listening to peoplern—eavesdropping, if necessary—rnand writing down w liate’er 1 heardrnthem sa ing that sounded revealingrnto me, no matter how boring or idioticrnor vulgar or obscene it mightrnsound to others. . . . 1 decided rightrnthen and there that I couldn’t possiblyrncontinue to hold m job, becausernit would take up time that 1rnsliould de’ote to the Oral History.rnMitchell was hooked. Gould’s projectrnbore a remarkable resemblance to hisrnown, but on a fer more ast scale. Thenrnhe read some of its chapters, whichrnGould had inscribed in dime compositionrnbooks. Disappointingh, he foundrnthem to be largeh’ the alcoholic vaporingsrnof a would-be social philosoplier,rnsprinkled with a promising sentence herernand dicre. Tlie’ were clearK the work ofrnan educated man, but the were ncitlierrnunique nor professional. Yet Gould hadrnmanaged to lune a few extracts publishedrnin little magazines sucli as the influentialrnDial. So Mitchell asked to see the re.st.rnGoidd, howeer, could not or would notrnproduce an otiier manuscripts. Instead,rnhe proposed to recite tiicm from memor’,rnassuring Mitchell he had “what thernpsNchologists call total recall.”rnThe wonder is that Mitchell bclieedrnin The Oral Histor)’ at all. IJltimateh, hernconcluded what we can tell quite carh’rnon in the film; Gould was a megalomaniacalrncon artist. For iiearK 40 ears, he fedrnhis stomach and his anitv b trading onrndie reputation of a couple of dozen e,ssarns, the supposed selections from hisrnmagnum opus.rnGould w as an extreme specimen of arntvpe: the professional raconteur one canrnmeet in an bar and grill across our intemperaternland. He told an endlessrnstream of stories and anecdotes withrnpreternatural panache. He had measuredrnthe heads of a thousand ChippewarnIndians, “the onh” civilized people left,”rnhe would routinely claim. He hadrnlearned to speak with seagulls and wouldrnwaddle and mew to show how it wasrndone. Gould had tire Ancient Mariner’srnglittering ee and ineantatorx xoice. Butrnthis kind of act can charm onh’ so long.rnWhen die e e dims and die oiee falters,rnthe stage-managing ego in the w ings 1)Ccomesrnall too ‘isible. It is ne er pleasantrnto witness such an unmasking. Certain-rnK, Mitchell felt no satisfaction when hernfinalK’ saw tiirough Gould’s imposhire tornthe naked, childish appetite for attentionrnbehind it. Such a rexelation in others hasrna discomfiting wa’ of mirroring our ow nrndeluded self-importance. In perhaps diernfilm’s most powerful moment, Gouldrnhimself gets a glimpse in tiiis mirror. Asrnhe sits alone on a subwa ear grimly writingrnabout die difficidtv of distinguishingrndie sane from the insane, we hear him inrn()ice-oer saing, “I hac a delusion ofrnJULY 2000/47rnrnrn