The Hoax (B or 3/4 stars)
'The Hoax' is a biodrama directed by Lasse Hallstrom. Without realizing the media frenzy he'd concoct, Clifford Irving (Richard Gere) does just that when he sells his phony biography of Howard Hughes to a publishing house in the early 70's. He's even able to fool LIFE magazine along the way. The film starts with a lot of breezy fun. It's great watching Irving & his pal, Dick Susskind (Alfred Molina) attempt to pull-off their big scheme. The more they lie, the more bogus situations they get themselves into, & the more believable they appear! But things start to go wrong & the film delves into a dark region of self-doubt & serious ramifications. The acting is fantastic. The story isn't 'uninteresting', but its magnitude doesn't make me feel like I watched an overly important or meaningful film.
'The Hoax' is a mostly true/partly fictional account of the most famous literary scandal in 20th century America. I say 'partly fictional' because (like Irving's claims) the film, itself, takes liberties with the facts. I don't care enough about the material to be annoyed with the 'liberties'. Moving on. By way of good looks, cocky demeanor, bold personality, & sheer luck, Irving is able to convince McGraw-Hill's editor, Andrea Tate (a solid Hope Davis) & president (Stanley Tucci) that he (and Dick) really truly interviewed the recluse, Howard Hughes. Irving claims (many times) that he had interviewed Hughes in a number of secret locales, over a period of several years. He claims that Hughes came out to 'him' to tell his life story; hardly believable, but the publishing firm buys it.
This story was huge because in the early 70's, the fascination surrounding Hughes' descent into seclusion was as high profile as they come. Struggling in his career, Irving goes for broke by concocting what he'd hope would be a 'fantastical' best seller; and he succeeds ... for a while. With exception of his flighty foreign wife (an inconsistent Marcia Gay Harden), Irving had everyone fooled until Hughes finally surfaces to negate the best seller. He had never met Clifford Irving in his entire life. So Irving's life spirals downward. Although the film doesn't focus on it, it's also suggested that some of the book's content could have fueled the Watergate scandal that ended Nixon's reign. The way in which Irving & Dick compiled their information on Hughes (for the book) is simply stunning to watch.
It's hard to classify this film as either a comedy, a thriller, or a melodrama, because it encompasses all genres (that's both good & bad for the film). When it's funny (often enough), the script and it's actors' offers great comedic wit. The direction, writing, & acting are strong. Alfred Molina is fantastic as Irving's smart, but nervous accomplice. I enjoyed watching Irving's narrow escapes. And when 'The Hoax' turns serious, we're drawn in like a moth to a light bulb. Though, I was never flat-out engrossed or sympathetic or felt much emotion for Gere's Irving otherwise. I liked the film's gripping questions of what's real, what's phony, why do we lie, & why do we deceive? It kept me fairly interested. But I say 'fairly' because I found myself 'trying' to care more about the film than I actually did
The weakest aspect of the film is the final act. The hoax within a hoax concept runs off the tracks a bit & preposterous psycho-melodrama sets in. It's here where we start to reflect & think, 'what's the real story? Is this film just exploiting Irving to make $$ for Hollywood? Or is this JUST how the chips fell for him?' Any way you spin it, you have to credit Richard Gere for giving an arrogantly charming, confident, yet paranoid performance. The film has its moments of 'sitting-at-the-end-of-your-seat' entertainment. It's intermittently involving. But it's Gere who creates an Irving who's more complex than he probably is for real.
'The Hoax' is a mostly true/partly fictional account of the most famous literary scandal in 20th century America. I say 'partly fictional' because (like Irving's claims) the film, itself, takes liberties with the facts. I don't care enough about the material to be annoyed with the 'liberties'. Moving on. By way of good looks, cocky demeanor, bold personality, & sheer luck, Irving is able to convince McGraw-Hill's editor, Andrea Tate (a solid Hope Davis) & president (Stanley Tucci) that he (and Dick) really truly interviewed the recluse, Howard Hughes. Irving claims (many times) that he had interviewed Hughes in a number of secret locales, over a period of several years. He claims that Hughes came out to 'him' to tell his life story; hardly believable, but the publishing firm buys it.
This story was huge because in the early 70's, the fascination surrounding Hughes' descent into seclusion was as high profile as they come. Struggling in his career, Irving goes for broke by concocting what he'd hope would be a 'fantastical' best seller; and he succeeds ... for a while. With exception of his flighty foreign wife (an inconsistent Marcia Gay Harden), Irving had everyone fooled until Hughes finally surfaces to negate the best seller. He had never met Clifford Irving in his entire life. So Irving's life spirals downward. Although the film doesn't focus on it, it's also suggested that some of the book's content could have fueled the Watergate scandal that ended Nixon's reign. The way in which Irving & Dick compiled their information on Hughes (for the book) is simply stunning to watch.
It's hard to classify this film as either a comedy, a thriller, or a melodrama, because it encompasses all genres (that's both good & bad for the film). When it's funny (often enough), the script and it's actors' offers great comedic wit. The direction, writing, & acting are strong. Alfred Molina is fantastic as Irving's smart, but nervous accomplice. I enjoyed watching Irving's narrow escapes. And when 'The Hoax' turns serious, we're drawn in like a moth to a light bulb. Though, I was never flat-out engrossed or sympathetic or felt much emotion for Gere's Irving otherwise. I liked the film's gripping questions of what's real, what's phony, why do we lie, & why do we deceive? It kept me fairly interested. But I say 'fairly' because I found myself 'trying' to care more about the film than I actually did
The weakest aspect of the film is the final act. The hoax within a hoax concept runs off the tracks a bit & preposterous psycho-melodrama sets in. It's here where we start to reflect & think, 'what's the real story? Is this film just exploiting Irving to make $$ for Hollywood? Or is this JUST how the chips fell for him?' Any way you spin it, you have to credit Richard Gere for giving an arrogantly charming, confident, yet paranoid performance. The film has its moments of 'sitting-at-the-end-of-your-seat' entertainment. It's intermittently involving. But it's Gere who creates an Irving who's more complex than he probably is for real.