THE HOAX

[Tony]

I've just finished reading "Hoax" by Clifford Irving: it's really well written, and actually quite an exciting read. I highly recommend it as background material for "F For Fake".

And here's the URL for a fascinating recent hoax, this time in the classical music world, from the British magazine Gramophone: the article is called "Masterpieces Or Fakes? The Joyce Hatto Scandal":

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/newsMai....ionID=1

(There is also an article in today's New York Times.)

And here's a web-site which exposes the hoax with audio samples and wave pictures:

http://www.pristineclassical.com/HattoHoax.html

And here's a list of famous fakers published by the London Times today:

Faking it?

1. Hans Van Meegeren was jailed in 1946 for collaborating with the Nazis after it emerged he had sold a Vermeer to Hermann Goering. He revealed that he had forged it, and proved the point by painting a new “Vermeer”, embarrassing art experts

2. Elmyr de Hory conned people with his forgeries of Modigliani, Matisse and Picasso in the 1950s and 1960s. He was the subject of the Orson Welles documentary F for Fake

3. George Harrison was ordered to pay ABKCO Music $587,000 (£400,000) in a plagiarism case, after it emerged that his 1971 hit My Sweet Lord bore a striking resemblance to He’s So Fine by the Chiffons.

4. Glenn Brown’s version of a sci-fi novel’s cover, shown as part of his 2000 Turner Prize display, made an illustrator claim for breach of copyright

5. Jean de Sperati, a master forger, had more than 1,500 stamps auctioned at Sotherby’s earlier this year

Of course, they forgot to mention one of the biggest hoaxes of the 20th century: Welles's "War of the Worlds".
:;):

[Tony]

I just saw a sneak preview of Hoax; pretty good, but not great. Alfred Molina is fantastic as Susskind the researcher, Gere is very good as Irving. Some real bs in the film though, which I recognized as I've recently read "Hoax", the book the film is "based" on:

SPOILERS WARNING:

Don't read any further if you plan to see the film.


Nonsense added to the story:

1. The guys break into the pentagon to steal files on Hughes.
2. Irving lives in New York, not Ibiza ( becuause Irving says they were too cheap to film in Europe).
3. Irving and Susskind steal Dietrich's manuscript from under his nose.
4. Irving and Susskind have a big argument at the end.
5. Hughes sends files on Nixon wrong-doing to Irving, using Irving as a blackmail method to force Nixon to approve a large business merger Hughes wanted at the time worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but which the Nixon administration had been stalling on.

ALL TOTAL BS, and really not necessary to add to an already fascinating story.

But: Nixon apparently was very paranoid about what might be in the book with regards to illegal loans and campaign contributions involving his brother before the 1960 campaign totalling several hundred thousand dollars, and it seems he thought Irving had leaked the book to the Democratic Committee to give McGovern ammo for the 1972 election: it would be Checkers 1952 all over again, and this was one of the reasons he ordered the Watergate break-in; although this seems the most far-fetched, ironically it seems true, according to a few sources I've checked.

It's an enjoyable yarn, but the young people of today who make up the majority of movie-goers don't know history from 5 years ago, let alone 35 years ago; this movie will play well with any boomer who remembers the Irving affair, so it should do well in rentals.

I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

On cliffordirving.com, you can read the fake autobiography if you send $5 in an envelope to Cliff; also, he says the film is a "hoax of a hoax", and is particularly upset about the fight in the film betewwn himself and Susskind; Susskind passed away a few years ago, and Irving insists they never had a fight. Also he feels that Molina playd Susskind as a comical oaf, when in reality he was a serious researcher. I like Molina in this role though, and actually thought he was very close to the way Irving portrays him in the book.

Oh yeah: no cameo by Welles on Ibiza and no mention of F For Fake, because... well, no Ibiza ,and can you imagine what they'd have to pay Beatrice to use Welles as a character?

[Glenn Anders]

Tony: Thank you for this splendid report.

I would agree with all you have to say, except to note that THE HOAX was also shot in several locations in Puerto Rico, so Irving's remarks seem invlalidated. As we all know, many places can stand in for somewhere else in movies today.

Mr. Irving, an interesting character, and a consummate egotist, should only be given limited credence as an authority, even on his own life.

The important point seems to be that, like Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, you found much to like about THE HOAX. It would seem to be "a movie-movie," any histoical vagaries to one side. The fact is that our leadership has given us no more credible or complete an accounting of the origins of Watergate than it has about the JFK Assassination or the current fraud and corruption scandals.

Sneak previews have begun for THE HOAX here in San Francisco, but I think Todd Baesen failed to mail in my request. I look forward to seeing the film whenever I am able.

In any case, let me report that FADE TO BLACK opened last night in Spain, which means that it will be in U.S. theaters in a couple of months.

Along with Larry French's news that the deal to complete THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND was signed last week should give us all cause to rejoice.

Let everyone take a bow for his/her efforts, no matter how small, in bringing these three events about.

Thank you again, Tony.

Glenn Anders

[Tony]

Glenn!
Godd to see you back!
AND: it looks like my pessimism about "FadeTo black" was unwarranted, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

As for Peurto Rico, I agree with you: however, it still seems odd that they moved Irving's home from Ibiza to New York, when an Ibiza scene could include D'Hory (who is mentioned in the film) and would seem "exotic". Partially they wanted to establish Irving's situation of desperation, which in acuality was nothing of the sort: he had a lovely home and healthy financial situation on Ibiza, and, as he says in Hoax (the book) he threw it all away. Another inaccuracy Irving mentions is that in reality he had a contract for 4 books with the MsGraw-Hill when he came up with the idea of the Hughes project, but the film goes to great length to assert that he had no contract, that his last manuscript had been harshly rejected, and therefore he had to come up with something, and out of desperation thought up the autobiography. There's also a helicopter scene involving the disinfecting and evacuation of the upper offices of McGraw-Hill which is bizarre nonsense, and so on. If you were Irving (or anyone) and you saw such sensationalistic, and indeed nonsensical, unwarranted and unneeded BS added to your life story, you would write off the movie too, and accept that Hollywood is an entertainment industry and nothing else. Indeed, having read "Hoax", even I was very disgusted with what the movie makers did, as I was simultaneously entertained by the direction, acting and 'entertaining' script.

When it says "Based on Actual Events" it really means just that, and nothing more: history is just a "jumping-off point" for Hollywood.

[Glenn Anders]

I'll have to see the movie, but I can gather what you mean.

Maybe, Clifford Irving must live with the modern truth: We who live by hoax will be remembered by hoax.

The makers evidently really wanted to concentrate on the conflict between McGraw-Hill and Irving. That may be the reason to move the action to New York. It tightens the plot, and removes some complications (like D'Hory and our man Welles). If the movie does reasonably well, perhaps there will be other films closer to our heart's desire. Rather the way CAPOTE spawned INFAMOUS. We may get lucky yet.

[Terry]

Anyone else notice that one of the people in American Gigolo with Richard Gere is Nina Van Pallandt? That's one way to pass the baton (though Mister Pister might have another notion.)

Hey, I just found PB in F for Fake, after all these years! That's him wearing the big blue kerchief in the background during the scene where Clifford Irving's voice is being interviewed. That's great that after 100 active viewings I'm still finding things...

[Tony]

Store: what about those 68 "inactive" viewings?
???

[Terry]

As I don't ingest those substances any more, I'll never be able to access those state-dependent memories again to know just what it was I was experiencing. Nothing too important, to be sure.

[Tony]

:laugh:

[Terry]

Although on an unfortunate Vodka Night I did watch The Trial, and for the first time really appreciated the editing, which I found to be perfect. Perhaps I was in the same frame of mind as Welles when he worked on it?

[Tony]

I remember the first time I saw the Trial I was in college and they announced an evening showing in a classroom. It turned out to be a very large classroom with about 150 students packed in like sardines. The projection was just an old 15 mm class projector with lousy sound, and the print was atrocious and never focussed properly- BUT: I never saw a more beautiful and mysterious showing of the Trial.

Sometimes clarity is the enemy of art!!!

:laugh:

[ToddBaesen]

As with Orson Welles own movie about Clifford Irving, F FOR FAKE, I don't think anybody should get too upset when a film called HOAX, is not totally accurate with the historical facts. The press notes for the movie even point out all the fake moments that occur in the film, which Tony has described so well in his post above.

The press notes also make it clear that the connection between Howard Hughes and Nixon that Clifford Irving may have inadvertingly stumbled onto was based mostly on indirect evidence, but is still food for thought. Did Nixon order the Watergate break-in to get a fake manuscript of Irving's book about the secret loans Hughes made to Nixon's bother?

Given what we already know what Nixon did, it's really not that much of a stretch to believe it, since nobody seems to have come up for a reasonable explaination of why Nixon wanted the Watergate offices raided.

And let's not forget that during this time, Orson Welles had done his own very satrical portait of tricky Dick Nixon's exploits along with Vice President Agnew, that appeared on the LP "The Begatting of the President." That may have caused Welles to be entered on Nixon's enemies list, just below Jane Fonda name, as well as having his taxes audited.


***


HOAX - (from the Production Notes)


A NOTE ON CLIFFORD IRVING AND WATERGATE


In THE HOAX, Clifford Irving’s story of bold deception collides with one of the biggest scandals of power and corruption that has ever hit the U.S.: the ill-fated and illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate Hotel – an event that would ultimately bring down
the administration of President Nixon and permanently change American politics.

Did Clifford Irving truly find himself, however unwittingly, as a player in the back-story of Watergate? Considerable evidence unearthed by producer Josh Maurer suggests he did. According to such sources as Senate Watergate Committee hearings, FBI files and the memoirs of former members of
Nixon’s administration, Nixon either read the galleys or was provided a summary of Irving’s unpublished book prior to June, 1972 – and erupted with concern over the fact that it highlighted shockingly accurate, theretofore top-secret information about illegal loans Howard Hughes had made to Nixon’s brother (Donald) in exchange for favors. “We were stunned - and intrigued - to discover the very real probability that this hoax prompted Nixon’s terror of a connection between the DNC and Howard Hughes,” says producer Leslie Holleran.

The arrival of Irving’s soon-to-be-published book coincided with a time when Nixon had ample reason to fear that the powerful Hughes, under pressure of government lawsuits and angry over nuclear testing in Nevada, might seek to destroy his administration. Adding fuel to the fire was the discovery
made by “the Plumbers” in the first Watergate break-in that DNC Chairman Lawrence O’Brien was on Hughes’ payroll. While no one will ever know how each of the many pieces of the puzzle factored into Nixon’s mind when he ordered the second break-in at the Watergate Hotel, it appears that the revelations in Irving’s forthcoming book were involved in the mix.

For example, in former White House Counsel John Dean’s book Blind Ambition he reports that:

“[Robert Bennett] came to see me. He wanted me to have the Justice Department investigate Irving. I passed, but I remember that Haldeman [H.R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff] wanted to find out what was in the Irving manuscript. And somebody from the White House got a copy from the publisher.”

Dean also quotes former Chief Counsel Charles Colson as saying: “Everyone figured Maheu [referring to Robert Maheu, a former FBI and CIA employee who was a key figure inside Hughes’ organization] might have supplied Irving with information one way or another... The way I see it, Haldeman was worried about that coming out. Another messy Hughes scandal.”

FBI files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act further confirm that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was sending Haldeman reports on the Irving affair. This is further corroborated by Senate Watergate Committee testimony, such as this confession from Nixon’s political adviser Charles “Bebe” Rebozo: “The concern was principally any disclosure that the president had received Hughes’ money… I didn’t want to risk even the remotest embarrassment about any Hughes connection to Nixon.”

The widely praised book Citizen Hughes: The Power, The Money and The Madness by Michael Drosnin, further builds the central thesis that Nixon’s driving concern was that the Democrats were being fed scandalous information by Howard Hughes’ inside organization – leading back to Clifford Irving’s book and its highlighting of the illegal loans. Finally, in his own memoirs (RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon) former President Nixon writes: “There was new information... that the Hughes organization might be involved. And there were stories of strange alliances.” One of the great true-life ironies of Clifford Irving’s story is that he found himself, however unintentionally, in the middle of this realm of strange alliances – all based on an alliance between himself and Howard Hughes that never happened!


__


FICTION: In the film, McGraw Hill employees and Clifford Irving are seen waiting for a helicopter purportedly holding Howard Hughes to land.

FACT: There were never preparations made for a helicopter landing at McGraw-Hill.

HOAX: Clifford Irving definitively reported to producer Josh Maurer that it was a fact, that was not included in the book, but later suggested it was fanciful.

***

FICTION: In the film, McGraw-Hill passes on Clifford Irving’s latest manuscript.

FACT: Irving actually had a 4-book deal at McGraw-Hill at the time of the ruse.

HOAX: Lasse Hallström notes that McGraw-Hill had previously published Irving’s book Fake!, about forger Elmyr de Hory, which perhaps should have tipped them off to his fascination
with the false.

***

FICTION: In the film, Irving is seen attending Truman Capote’s celebrity-studded Black & White Ball.

FACT: The real Black & White Ball took place in 1966 and Clifford Irving wasn’t there.

HOAX: Costume designer David Robinson put Richard Gere in a black cat-mask, just like Frank Sinatra wore at the real ball.

***

FICTION: In the film, Irving lives in Upstate New York and travels across the United States preparing his fake book on Howard Hughes.

FACT: Irving’s primary residence was Ibiza, Spain during 1971.

HOAX: Screenwriter William Wheeler condensed many events and dramatized interactions that actually took place via letters and phone calls. If Ibiza was used in the film, notes Wheeler, “the entire movie would’ve been a 90-min shot of a man on a telephone in Spain.”


***

FICTION: In the film, a hotel in the Bahamas is evacuated of all visitors at Howard Hughes’ insistence,

FACT: Hughes was living at Paradise Island in the Bahamas but no such incident was ever reported.

HOAX: The filmmakers wanted to emphasize a reality – the Hughes was obsessed with heavy security and avoiding the public eye. There are stories that he once insisted the lobby of Las Vegas’ Desert Inn be empty when he entered it.

***

FICTION: In the film, Irving steals portions of Noah Dietrich’s Howard Hughes book right out from under him in his own house.

FACT: Clifford Irving actually got access to Dietrich’s manuscript (published as Howard: The Amazing Mr. Hughes) through an intermediary, but when told he had to read the one and only copy privately and return it, he had it Xeroxed without permission so that he and Dick Suskind could use the reproduction as further information for their book.

HOAX: The scene in the film plays on the way Irving copied the manuscript illicitly.


***

FICTION: In the film, Dick Suskind is seen having an affair with a hooker.

FACT: The loyal Suskind never had such an affair.

HOAX: The filmmakers took Suskind even deeper into Clifford Irving’s world than he really went to push the dimensions of their friendship.
[B]

[Tony]

Here's the second review of Hoax I've read where the writer says it's Gere's best role ever; this one goes further and says its oscar-worthy:

http://www.recordonline.com/apps....4060312

[tonyw]

For those interested, Jonathan Rosenbaum has published a negative review of this film in the chicago Reader which is also available via a link on the Chicago Reader blogs on film.

[Tony]

I wouldn't call it a pan, but he has qualms as I do about the fictional bits:

The Hoax
Capsule by Jonathan Rosenbaum
From the Chicago Reader


As Orson Welles demonstrated in F for Fake (1974), the true story of novelist Clifford Irving, who sold a fraudulent autobiography of Howard Hughes to McGraw-Hill for a fortune, is a classic tale of consummate con artistry. So it's pretty perverse for William Wheeler, who scripted this feature, to get most of the facts wrong, inflating details that don't need any spin. (As Irving himself remarked, "You could call it a hoax about a hoax.") Director Lasse Hallstrom does an OK job with this dubious property; Richard Gere is less charismatic than Irving and Alfred Molina turns Irving's assistant into a buffoon, but the secondary cast (Hope Davis, Marcia Gay Harden, Stanley Tucci, Julie Delpy, Eli Wallach) is fun to watch.

??? I disagree in that Gere is much more charismatic than Irving, probaly too much so, and Molina is not a buffoon but a much-needed comic foil to Gere's charcter's earnestness: they're a spectacular team, and I hope they work together again soon. I would recommend the movie, but with the caveat that it's not a masterpeice, but is an entertaining yarn.

Last week in an interview Gere said he watched the interviews around the time of the hoax as well as Orson Welles's F For fake in order to prepare for the part; I think it shows.

Yeah Richard for giving a mention to Welles and F for Fake; he also says that Alfred Molina is the best lover he has ever had; it's a great interview:

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_11656.html