|
The Hoax Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
There is a core belief system in people like me that is greatly offended by industries that are supposed to noble and artistic, such as publishing, that turn into soulless money making machines. These are industries, we believe, where quality and passion should trump schlock such as "The Secret." So when I sat down to watch "The Hoax", a film in which an aspiring author takes the capitalistic publishing world for a ride, I was firmly in the corner of the deceitful one. For it is a beautiful thing to watch as Clifford Irving (Richard Gere, fugitive from the law) recognizes these people for what they really are (stuffed suits whose sole purpose is to sniff around manuscripts looking for commercialism), and then use their lust for cash against them. Obviously he is not out there making a point or taking a stand, he is there to cash in and get famous, but no matter. Greed begets greed, so if McGraw/Hill needs somebody to blame for the creation of Irving then they need look no further than the mirror.
Director Lasse Hallstrom finally turns out a winner here after leaving two sloppy messes all over the 2005 Oscar season ("Unfinished Life" and "Casanova"). Far breezier than his usual stiff exercises, "The Hoax" tells one of those amazing stories that we only believe because we know that it actually happened. Feeling mad with anger after having his fictional work rejected Irving comes up with the perfect concept for a best seller, a wholly different kind of fiction. He will make up interviews between himself and famous recluse Howard Hughes, and then sell it as a sort of autobiography. McGraw/Hill, eye on the box office, bites and the game is on. Irving pulled off some truly amazing stunts that led me to believe that him pulling this ruse off for so long was nothing short of a miracle. He is dishonest to the core, but the ways in which he fools the world are simply artful. But as time ticks by Irving learns that cheating on his wife is one thing, faking his way into a fortune another, and impeaching the President a whole different Solar System. Since the Hollywood Code says so Irving is brought down in the end, and yes I know that is how it really happened, just to say that films about real life renegades who get away with murder are few and far between. Money got the best of him and no matter how you cut it depositing Hughes' checks into a Swiss bank account was not a smooth move.
The acting is also quite impressive here, especially from the two main stars. Gere plays Irving as Gere only minus Father Time, and still manages to navigate his way through this challenging role. Alfred Molina is also very believable as his sidekick who loyally helps him through his stickiest moments despite remaining a doormat throughout. In the end I had no ill will towards Irving. If he wants to make his fame and fortune on the back of Howard Hughes why would I care? Hughes had more than enough of both and didn't seem too enamored with either. Furthermore, late in the film when another character decides to launch her career off of Irving's back, and subsequently sink his ship, I didn't feel bad for him either. [..]
Rating:  -
i sat in the darkness watching this movie going on the screen, but i didn't feel any connection with it. yes, this hoax is indeed a hoax, but it had happened long long time ago, i seriously doubt people would still be interested. it's like the roman empire, once it's gone, it's gone. you think there would be more people who really care about howard hughes? he's only for the old timers who once lived through that era. did you see signs, logos, names or brands nowadays still carry howard hughes name? except for the old timers in hollywood or those who might be interested in finding how clifford irving, a literary con-artist, conned those moronic publishing media guys, made and ended up themselves like big jokes in the last century.
to me, this movie is literally a failure just like a bad mystery. why? because we already knew almost everything about it. the interesting part of a mystery is that we couldn't guess 'whodunit' until the last page or the last moment. but this so-called 'hoax', except shot it very seriously and performed quite good by all the actors, is nothing but a mystery we already knew the answer. it's a mystery novel we start reading from the last page backward.
the only feeling i got when i watched it was: how it possible this clifford irving guy could have fooled so many main stream media guys? unless they were really and actually fools? it just seems highly impossible or, well, the general public common people have become wiser today? because all of those people involved in this hoax and conned by clifford irving just look too comically stupid. you must admit that once the mystic 'whodunit' effect lost from page one, the whole on-going of 'what's going on?' would become totally pointless except time waste, and the whole movie just turned into a bad and boring comedy. why? because it seems only clifford irving was the smart con who outsmarted every one half century ago.
this 'hoax' is by far the most uninteresting 'hoax' i've ever seen and could have you cared less, lesser or even the least.
Rating:  -
When I saw the trailers for The Hoax I was not all that interested in seeing the film. I recalled when Clifford Irving's book was announced and the subsequent scandal occurred and I was a little dubious about making a film about it. I was convinced to see the movie after reading about Richard Gere's performance and the talk lives up to reality. The film is beautifully acted by Mr. Gere, Alfred Molina and Marcia Gay Harden. At first, for a few seconds, I did not even recognize Ms. Harden because of the blond wig and the thick German accent that she uses for her character - Edith Irving.
The film is also far more entertaining and thought provoking that I would have thought. Instead of a gritty portrayal of one of the biggest frauds in the literary world it comes off with much more humor and elegance as Clifford Irving tries to keep one step ahead of his publisher's doubts and manages to parry serious questions about the authenticity of his manuscript. The film becomes a game for the audience to see how well Irving can pull off his scam. It was interesting how the film visually showed Irving's thought process as he is making up his lies, associating bits and pieces of scenes that occurred earlier in the film. For me the ironic bit is that the book would have been a good biography of Howard Hughes since Irving had to research Hughes' life so thoroughly and had access to the book Noah Dietrich had written about Hughes.
It was good to see Eli Wallach in the small role of Noah Dietrich and Stanley Tucci was good as Sheldon Fischer. Julie Delpy was good as Nina Van Pallandt, who was the only person who truly benefited from the scandal by subsequently launching a film career. It is interesting that Richard Gere appeared with her in American Gigolo. How ironic that he is now having a fictional affair with an actress playing her. The film is an interesting story about literary fraud but there also is a side plot that Howard Hughes used Clifford Irving's book to get what he wanted from the Nixon administration. I found this part of the story quite fascinating that Mr. Hughes could have realized that Irving's book could be used to get him over a difficult government law suite over TWA and then, once his goal was accomplished, disown the book. Unfortunately, The Hoax has not been showing on many screens so if one wants to see the film it may be a bit of a search for a theater.
Rating: -
Director Lasse Hallstrom's dedicated re-enactment of Clifford Irving's memoirs of his fraudulent autobiography of mysterious, antisocial millionaire Howard Hughes, "The Hoax", is his most impressive work since the 2000 film "Chocolat". Using film footage of the Hughes and also President Nixon and the tumultuous times of the 70's, he creates a sometimes comedic look back at this memorable scandal.
Richard Gere does well in his portrayal of struggling author Irving, a man obviously devoid of a conscience, who conjures up the idea of faking a Hughes autobiography. He figures that the reclusive Hughes would never surface to dispute the veracity of Irving's well researched but fictitious novel. Alfred Molina playing Gere's neurotic sidekick and co-conspirator Dick Susskind is magnificent in his role, giving the movie a comic flair. Marcia Gay Harden with dyed blonde tresses and a disturbing foreign accent was annoying as Irving's wife Edith.
Hallstrom did well in demostrating the extent of Irving's delusions, actually believing himself to be in contact with Hughes and his minions. 91 year old Eli Wallach, always a treat to see on the screen, was delightful playing old codger Noah Dietrich, once a right hand man of Hughes. The movie was insightful in tying in the effect of Irving's hoax, the machinations of Hughes himself who actually communicated disavowing Irving's chicanery and important current events and the day.
Rating:  -
Lying is an art form, a commitment requiring every subtle nuance to be perfectly executed. Not only does everyone have to believe the lie, the liar has to, as well; it won't work otherwise. In the early 1970s, author Clifford Irving demonstrated just how good of a liar he was by writing and publishing a fake autobiography of eccentric, reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes. His lie was eventually discovered, prompting him to write the memoir "The Hoax," a nonfiction work documenting his elaborate scheme. Richard Gere plays Irving in the film adaptation; since I know nothing about the real Clifford Irving, I can't say whether or not Gere's portrayal is accurate. However, I can say that he gives a fine performance, giving Irving an untrustworthy edge that becomes all consuming as the film progresses. And the film in general is fascinating--especially in the way that certain characters are so easily manipulated.
In reality, Irving concocted this hoax in 1970 while in Spain, visiting his friend, Richard Suskind. The film alters the events by having the scheme created in America, specifically in New York. Irving is down on his luck; his first book (ironically entitled "Fake!") sold poorly, and his publishers turn down his newest project. In hoping to make money quickly, Irving claims to be working on "the most important book of the century"--an "authorized autobiography" of Howard Hughes. While the folks at McGraw-Hill publishing jump at this, it means that Irving and Suskind (Alfred Molina) will be busy at work, creatively researching the topic. They travel the country, meeting with key figures, copying and/or stealing important documents. Irving forges handwritten notes, perfectly copying Hughes' unique penmanship. He even goes so far as to create recordings of phony interviews, all of which are based on the stolen information.
Thus begins a whirlwind descent into deception, the acquisition of money, and the fear of discovery. The film plays like a three act play, the first act marked by frenetic and, at times, comical attempts at gathering information. The second act is marked by legal squabbling, with "Life" magazine offering McGraw-Hill money for the right to publish a serialized version of the book. The third act is marked by the impending discovery of the hoax and the subsequent collapses. It was interesting how the events played themselves out, with each character deeply embedded in a web of lies. It's hard to imagine how anyone could still determine what was real and what wasn't; at a certain point, it's suggested--but never actually proven--that Irving was kidnapped and threatened by Hughes' personal security team. Anyone who could actually imagine being in that situation has a serious reality distortion problem.
Things come to a head when it's discovered that Hughes had paid Richard Nixon's brother, Donald, as a kind of personal favor. This information is eventually added into the Hughes biography. By the time it gets published, speculations arise that it contributed to Nixon's paranoia over the Democratic National Committee's stay at the Watergate Hotel (I personally think this is a bit of a stretch, but it sure made for good conflict within the context of the story). Such uproar only made for more legal disputes over the Hughes biography, so much so that Hughes made one final "public" appearance (via a live telephone conversation). It's made public that he had never met or even heard of an author named Clifford Irving.
Interweaving throughout is a subplot involving Irving and his wife, Edith (Marcia Gay Harden), whose relationship has barely healed after Irving's affair with a sultry aspiring actress (Julie Delpy). While traveling around the country, Irving reunites with his mistress, knowing full well that Edith doesn't have it in her to forgive him one more time. I got the sense that Irving wanted to get caught, despite being so enveloped by deception (not helped by the fact that Edith is very much involved with the hoax; she travels to Switzerland to cash Hughes' check). While he gets a psychological thrill from lying, he doesn't cover his tracks well enough for the lie to remain undiscovered. He doesn't count on his mistress to send him a note. He doesn't count on Hughes actually making a public statement, denouncing the biography. Yet both things happen, leaving Irving in a situation of his own doing. I never once felt sorry for him.
For that matter, I don't feel sorry for the real Clifford Irving. He's recently said that this film adaptation of "The Hoax" is a hoax of a hoax. That may be the case, but considering his track record, I don't feel he deserves to be taken seriously. And that's the truth.
|
