Jupiter's Wife is a documentary that caters to your sense of thought and inquisitiveness about the way the homeless live. Why are they homeless? Who are they? The film maker uses the life of one person in Central Park NYC, Maggie Cogan, to illuminate us. Michael Negroponte shows us a life that has made unexpected turns and in the end reveals much more than what we originally thought, a complex story that untangles itself as Michael deciphers Maggie's mythological life explanations. He also flashes images of his own family life which help us make a transition from our normal existence to that of Maggie's. In the end I was left with a sense of understanding and profound melancholy over Maggie's plight.
11 Reviews
An unusual portrait of schizophrenia
planktonrules22 August 2008
This is a very unusual documentary film. A film maker (Michel Negroponte) happens upon a mentally ill homeless lady (Maggie) who lives in New York's Central Park and befriends her--getting her to agree to be filmed over a period lasting several years. It is interesting to see the lady, as she clearly has schizophrenia and it's an interesting portrait of her life. Despite her being homeless and having a very tenuous hold on reality, Michel does not seem to get her assistance or call in competent psychological help. Instead, and this is the part that is pretty weird, he spends years trying to tease out what this woman's prior life had been based on her irrational though occasionally metaphorical speech as well as by making friends with people who know her. In some ways, his invasive following of the woman with a camera seems rather bizarre (perhaps exploitative) and his need to discover the truth about her made me occasionally wonder if BOTH of them were perhaps ill! Still, despite Michel's strange obsession and desire to make sense of Maggie's life, it is interesting and shows you the often marginal existence the severely mentally ill often have.
This is a great film for a psychology or social work class or for anyone who has a family member who is struggling with severe mental illness.
This is a great film for a psychology or social work class or for anyone who has a family member who is struggling with severe mental illness.
Please ignore the drug comment
mbovingdon128 April 2009
The post above that references drug use as a potential cause of Maggie's illness is incorrect. Drug use CANNOT cause schizophrenia(paranoid type). Please ignore her misguided and misinformed post; it is at best asinine and at worst willfully and wantonly misleading.
Please watch this movie for two reasons: 1. it is a compelling look at how mental illness interacts with the realities of life, and how our society is woefully unwilling to provide social services and necessary care that these individuals need. 2. As a cautionary tale to all documentary film makers (you will understand why after watching it).
Please watch this movie for two reasons: 1. it is a compelling look at how mental illness interacts with the realities of life, and how our society is woefully unwilling to provide social services and necessary care that these individuals need. 2. As a cautionary tale to all documentary film makers (you will understand why after watching it).
The Tendency To Fantasize
nineXtwelve21 October 2004
When I first saw it on the DVD shelf at the library, I thought, "Oh, another bag lady movie." But the blurb on the case made it look different. And it is. Maggie is a compelling case study. "Mild schizophrenia" is what she says her diagnosis is. But that doesn't wrap it up. It's her smile, her cheerful reaction to her disastrous situation, her playful imaginings, that distinguish her. We might pass off her fantasy life, where she dwells in a world of demigods and movie stars, as a weakness revealing her inability to deal with her personal problems. But it turns out that there's an element of truth to her stories. Then, an uncanny incident of clairvoyance makes you wonder. Is she as crazy as she seems? Or is she in contact with some cosmic order of reality? Is her mythologizing of the people in her past an escapism or a reaching out to a more elevated essence of things? We all fantasize, if only while dreaming. Maggie's commitment to fantasy is scary to contemplate, but only different in intensity to what we all indulge in. Film maker Michel Negroponte approaches his subject sympathetically, with admirable control and lack of judgmentalism. His documentary is skillfully structured without calling attention to the techniques employed. He gives us Maggie, and she haunts us.
Interesting, enjoyable but very lacking in content...
nancy-gail22 April 2012
I was very intrigued by this woman's story and history. However I kept wanting to know more details which would have seemed to be easy to provide yet the director did not. What was provided gave us a peek into this woman's life and story but that's all. I searched on Wikipedia for more info on her as it appears she is still living. She has an entry but it only sums up the sparse info from the film.
None the less I found the film inspiring. People cope in different ways from the events in their lives. All in all Maggie Cogan appears to be surviving and is happier than many non-homeless people. Again... really wanted to know much more about her.
None the less I found the film inspiring. People cope in different ways from the events in their lives. All in all Maggie Cogan appears to be surviving and is happier than many non-homeless people. Again... really wanted to know much more about her.
Wow.
averyb21 January 2000
A powerful image of homelessness and psychosis, in this movie we are presented with a paranoid schizophrenic who cannot let go of her delusions. We are brought into her world and are allowed to see an intimate portrayal of this woman. It is not exploitive. It is merely a powerful portrait of a very real person with very real problems, who chooses to deal with them by adopting an unreal view of her world.
The film is thought provoking and simple, although the emotion it evokes are far from simple. The filmmaker himself says he cannot give a Hollywood happy ending, and he does not. It is a postmodern biography of stark realism.
The film is thought provoking and simple, although the emotion it evokes are far from simple. The filmmaker himself says he cannot give a Hollywood happy ending, and he does not. It is a postmodern biography of stark realism.
Very thought-provoking documentary
elizamichls6 May 2006
The first quarter of this movie went by so slowly that it almost put me to sleep. Fortunately, I hung onto it until the end, and I must say, it was one of the most thought-provoking documentaries I have ever seen. It made me more healthily skeptical about how much the modern sciences "medicalize" human behavior and make people fit under "boxes." Maggie's use of symbolism fit her own story that she was trying to weave, and it was sad that what others, specifically those who diagnosed her with a mental illness, could really look at was how it was not coherent with their own stories. Hence, they pushed her to fit into a box that supposedly deviates from that which is normal.
If you plan on watching it, make sure you watch it from beginning to end and pay attention to what Maggie says. You don't want to miss anything important.
If you plan on watching it, make sure you watch it from beginning to end and pay attention to what Maggie says. You don't want to miss anything important.
a real gem
amosduncan_200026 December 2006
I saw this when it came out; it's a memorable documentary of a sadness and hope. I have certain reservations about the narrator's intrusion into Maggie's story, but the material is presented honestly. The surprise ending is a real shocker. I would recommend this film to anyone, and I hope the DVD has some updates on Maggie's story.
I wonder how N.Y. City is handling homeless people now. They may have even less of a chance. Perhaps medication is helping people like Maggie. Look, The Movie's great, how many lines am I supposed to write? It was in focus, I could see everyone real clearly. It was not too long. On the other hand, it was not unduly short.
I wonder how N.Y. City is handling homeless people now. They may have even less of a chance. Perhaps medication is helping people like Maggie. Look, The Movie's great, how many lines am I supposed to write? It was in focus, I could see everyone real clearly. It was not too long. On the other hand, it was not unduly short.
If You Overlook Damage From Drugs, You Are Cheating Kids
cindytrells3 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I would like to add a detail that other reviewers are overlooking. It's easy to say Maggie Cogan, the protagonist, lives in a fantasy world. But what about damage she easily could have sustained while doing drugs in the 1960s and 1970s ? The narrator and Maggie mention it briefly. The filmmaker includes a black & white newsreel from 1967 that has been repeated in many documentaries on the Vietnam War and rock & roll. It's NOT the one you see about the young Maggie working as a horse & carriage driver for the Plaza Hotel in New York.
No, it's a newsreel of the first hippies in Seattle. They didn't have beads and headbands available to wear yet. You see them holding hands and cavorting in daylight in a Seattle park. A young woman's long blonde hair flies so wildly that you can't see any of her face. At any rate, the filmmaker includes this newsreel to show younger viewers that Maggie worked for the Plaza at the time of the counterculture. In the late 1960s you didn't know if someone's weird behavior resulted from drugs, love of music, anger about the Vietnam War or joy about the end of racial segregation. (You mean I can make friends with "those people ?" Wow!)
The viewer must presume that Maggie's drug use messed up her job, but of course the filmmaker can't possibly find Plaza Hotel personnel from the 1960s who would tell their side of the story. New Yorkers would find that intrusive. The point is ... would Maggie still have become homeless without drugs ?
Clearly, Maggie doesn't do drugs while she is homeless in Central Park in 1993. You can't get free samples from any New Yorkers. She is too old and physically weak for contact sport with a dealer.
So Maggie has been clean and sober for the long amount of time that she has been homeless when the movie starts in 1993. Maybe fifteen years ? But what about the damage from the 1960s and 1970s ? The odds that it was permanent are great enough that this film works as a great anti - drug movie for young people. Young people often say that a sudden fatal overdose is the only danger of using a drug. They overlook homelessness as a danger. Unless pay phones and Single Room Occupancy apartments return to Manhattan, then homelessness is as permanent as death for 99 percent of New Yorkers with issues. You are alone until you die slowly from exposure.
I recall doing a search of "maggie cogan" in the Lexis Nexis data base and finding a blurb in a New Jersey paper from about a year AFTER "Jupiter's Wife" was released. It said she had been forced to leave the apartment she shared with her beloved animals in Long Island City -- the one in which viewers of this film can see a cat riding on Maggie's vacuum cleaner while she vacuums -- and she was homeless again.
Such a tragedy couldn't have happened to a more fascinating person. She has every right to pursue her fantasies, but I am concluding that drugs made her unable to combine the fantasies with a job. If a person -- male, female, gay or straight -- cannot marry into money, then a job is necessary for survival. Like most fifty - year - old homeless people, Maggie's history is so hard to nail down completely that we don't know why her career driving horses and carriages ended.
The narrator, who depends totally on four people for information, says Maggie's best years on the job resulted in the 1967 black & white newsreel about her and the 1968 color videotape of her on "What's My Line?", but what happened in Maggie's life after that ? He says she got into drugs, left the Plaza horse job and then returned to it for a short while in the 1970s. Did her drug use mess it up the second time ?
We should tell juvenile viewers of this film that yes, drugs messed it up again and again, and they messed up everything eventually. The schedule Maggie has for fantasizing is a result of her being totally broke and unable to attract husband material. Presumably she wouldn't want to shack up with a homeless man or another man who would lie to her and hurt her. She still had a parent in 1993, but her decision to avoid the parent is understandable. Once the drugs make you a loner, then you are alone for life.
Why did Maggie move to Texas in the 1970s and then return to New York City ? It probably had to do with people she thought were friends and turned out to be anything but. Few substance abusers can avoid the harsh reality of "friends" who are actually enablers, and they disappear for whatever reasons you never find out. (Prison? Death? A new dealer?)
This film proves that every homeless person with a substance history sustained permanent damage to the brain. You can't prove that a schizophrenic who has gotten drunk or high still would have ended up schizophrenic without the sauce or the powder.
Use the film to demonstrate to young people that if you avoid drugs and binge drinking, then your chances of ever becoming homeless go way down. Look for natural highs. Notice how Maggie seems to enjoy nature ? Cannabis is just one plant. There is also the tomato plant, and the fern, and the ... What other warning can you possibly give a juvenile who watches "Jupiter's Wife ?" That you might end up fantasizing while you go to the bathroom in your pants, and nothing you do can prevent it ? That's a self - fulfilling prophecy. Pursue hugs, not drugs.
No, it's a newsreel of the first hippies in Seattle. They didn't have beads and headbands available to wear yet. You see them holding hands and cavorting in daylight in a Seattle park. A young woman's long blonde hair flies so wildly that you can't see any of her face. At any rate, the filmmaker includes this newsreel to show younger viewers that Maggie worked for the Plaza at the time of the counterculture. In the late 1960s you didn't know if someone's weird behavior resulted from drugs, love of music, anger about the Vietnam War or joy about the end of racial segregation. (You mean I can make friends with "those people ?" Wow!)
The viewer must presume that Maggie's drug use messed up her job, but of course the filmmaker can't possibly find Plaza Hotel personnel from the 1960s who would tell their side of the story. New Yorkers would find that intrusive. The point is ... would Maggie still have become homeless without drugs ?
Clearly, Maggie doesn't do drugs while she is homeless in Central Park in 1993. You can't get free samples from any New Yorkers. She is too old and physically weak for contact sport with a dealer.
So Maggie has been clean and sober for the long amount of time that she has been homeless when the movie starts in 1993. Maybe fifteen years ? But what about the damage from the 1960s and 1970s ? The odds that it was permanent are great enough that this film works as a great anti - drug movie for young people. Young people often say that a sudden fatal overdose is the only danger of using a drug. They overlook homelessness as a danger. Unless pay phones and Single Room Occupancy apartments return to Manhattan, then homelessness is as permanent as death for 99 percent of New Yorkers with issues. You are alone until you die slowly from exposure.
I recall doing a search of "maggie cogan" in the Lexis Nexis data base and finding a blurb in a New Jersey paper from about a year AFTER "Jupiter's Wife" was released. It said she had been forced to leave the apartment she shared with her beloved animals in Long Island City -- the one in which viewers of this film can see a cat riding on Maggie's vacuum cleaner while she vacuums -- and she was homeless again.
Such a tragedy couldn't have happened to a more fascinating person. She has every right to pursue her fantasies, but I am concluding that drugs made her unable to combine the fantasies with a job. If a person -- male, female, gay or straight -- cannot marry into money, then a job is necessary for survival. Like most fifty - year - old homeless people, Maggie's history is so hard to nail down completely that we don't know why her career driving horses and carriages ended.
The narrator, who depends totally on four people for information, says Maggie's best years on the job resulted in the 1967 black & white newsreel about her and the 1968 color videotape of her on "What's My Line?", but what happened in Maggie's life after that ? He says she got into drugs, left the Plaza horse job and then returned to it for a short while in the 1970s. Did her drug use mess it up the second time ?
We should tell juvenile viewers of this film that yes, drugs messed it up again and again, and they messed up everything eventually. The schedule Maggie has for fantasizing is a result of her being totally broke and unable to attract husband material. Presumably she wouldn't want to shack up with a homeless man or another man who would lie to her and hurt her. She still had a parent in 1993, but her decision to avoid the parent is understandable. Once the drugs make you a loner, then you are alone for life.
Why did Maggie move to Texas in the 1970s and then return to New York City ? It probably had to do with people she thought were friends and turned out to be anything but. Few substance abusers can avoid the harsh reality of "friends" who are actually enablers, and they disappear for whatever reasons you never find out. (Prison? Death? A new dealer?)
This film proves that every homeless person with a substance history sustained permanent damage to the brain. You can't prove that a schizophrenic who has gotten drunk or high still would have ended up schizophrenic without the sauce or the powder.
Use the film to demonstrate to young people that if you avoid drugs and binge drinking, then your chances of ever becoming homeless go way down. Look for natural highs. Notice how Maggie seems to enjoy nature ? Cannabis is just one plant. There is also the tomato plant, and the fern, and the ... What other warning can you possibly give a juvenile who watches "Jupiter's Wife ?" That you might end up fantasizing while you go to the bathroom in your pants, and nothing you do can prevent it ? That's a self - fulfilling prophecy. Pursue hugs, not drugs.
This Woman Needs Help
bgh4820 September 2006
Maggie Cogan is certainly more charming and "lucid" than many of the schizophrenic homeless, and yet I was frustrated with the fact that she was "enabled", partly by the filmmaker but more annoyingly by the upper West Side "friend" (wife of actor Astin Pendleton) to continue her weary existence as some sort of free independent spirit rather than as a woman suffering from a disease that should at the very least require her to be on medication to allow her to live with some semblance of "normalcy". Maggie seems to understand this enabling, even making a remark about a better class of garbage on the Upper West Side, but schizophrenia as far as I understand it does not affect intelligence. One hopes Maggie gets to live on her horse farm.
Neptune's Movie
tedg30 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
There is a story in this documentary, one about a very appealing woman. She's so open we immediately give our heart before we realize how sick she is. She's a mess, usually homeless, always hallucinating, fanatically fixated on her many dogs. That story is here and you may think it is what this film is about. If it were, I think it would be better.
Instead this is a film about the filmmaker. Our first shot is of him as a boy. The first facts we learn is that as that boy he played in Central Park and discovered many mysteries there. Then, incidentally he tells us of one he has discovered. The entire film is narrated by him in a thin, shaky, unappealing tone and cadence. We see her, but we hear him, always him: how he discovered her, discovered her true name, and past, and how she has a husband and children, about how he tracked down her friends, followed her dogs and so on.
She is interesting. Her story (especially the acid parts) is compelling. He is not, and his presence depresses.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
Instead this is a film about the filmmaker. Our first shot is of him as a boy. The first facts we learn is that as that boy he played in Central Park and discovered many mysteries there. Then, incidentally he tells us of one he has discovered. The entire film is narrated by him in a thin, shaky, unappealing tone and cadence. We see her, but we hear him, always him: how he discovered her, discovered her true name, and past, and how she has a husband and children, about how he tracked down her friends, followed her dogs and so on.
She is interesting. Her story (especially the acid parts) is compelling. He is not, and his presence depresses.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
