articles
H is for 'Hoax' | by Cole Haddon | San Antonio Current, Apr 10 2007
The Hoax — or, as I like to refer to it, director Lasse Hallström’s latest attempt to recapture the magic of Chocolat — chronicles the misadventures of author Clifford Irving who, in the early ’70s pulled off what might be the greatest hoax in U.S. publishing history. With moxie and what must have been genetically enhanced balls, Irving sold an autobiography by recluse billionaire Howard Hughes to his publisher (Irving had never met Hughes) and, on several occasions, Hughes’s people had assured the publishers it was a hoax. Irving was just that good of a con artist.
William Wheeler’s script is brought to life via Richard Gere, under Hallström’s direction. The Current sat down with all three recently to discuss how one goes about adapting a novel called The Hoax by the very guy who executed the hoax in question. If that last sentence didn’t quite resonate with you, take a second and reread it: “by the very guy who executed the hoax.” It sounds preposterous, but the filmmakers actually turned Irving’s own fiction “tell-all” into a movie and, strangely enough, managed to eke out more than a bit of truth in the process.
Richard, how familiar were you with the story before you read the script?
RG: I actually remembered it. This was early ’70s — 1971, I think it was — and it was on the cover of Time magazine. It was a big deal, bigger than anything else. So much so, that I can remember when I made American Gigolo, a few years after that, Nina Van Pallandt — [Irving’s lover during the period in question] — was in the movie with me. She played my madam. I thought she was a quality person, kind of private. But I remember asking her about it, and she didn’t want to talk about it.
How did you research the role of Clifford Irving?
RG: We had a lot of source material. We had a couple of 60 Minutes Clifford was on, before and after the fraud. The strongest one was this film Orson Welles made, F for Fake, which is supposed to be about Elmyr de Hory — who was probably the greatest art forger of the 20th century. He lived in the same community as Clifford in Habita [Spain]. Clifford is really the center of that movie. They were close friends. Clifford [talked] about the nature of fake, because he had actually written a book called Fake about Elmyr de Hory. Why this wasn’t a light bulb coming on for [his publishers]? Any rational person should have said, “Ah, this doesn’t feel right to me.” But at every point, people were so needful that this be true, had something to gain by it being true, they suspended their disbelief.
William, was it difficult finding some truth in a memoir by a man for whom the truth is open to interpretation?
WW: It was very tricky, because there were things that were facts and there were things that were untrue, but most were somewhere in between. It was sort of a story about history, that was someone else’s opinion.
Were you bothered when Irving disassociated himself from your movie?
WW: It depends on the day. If we check his website, maybe he likes it today.
And you, Lasse. Were you disappointed by Irving turning against you? He’s told the New York Daily News, “They asked me a great many questions. I replied in depth. They ignored most of what I said.” On top of that, he claims you depicted him as a scumbag and, if he had actually been that person, he would have killed himself.
LH: I’m waiting for the next beat in that, him coming back to loving it —because he loved it when he saw it the first time. I now hear he’s turned on it. But it’s happened throughout. He’s not totally reliable. Richard and I almost consciously avoided meeting him before the film, because whatever position [Irving] takes, he’s very convincing and charming. But I don’t know if it’s the true position, and that position keeps changing.
WW: I have to say, it’s ironic since he completely appropriated Howard Hughes’s life and lied about him. A lot of people find it ironic that he says Hollywood changed the truth about the hoax. What are you talking about, Clifford? It there was truth to this hoax, I worked hard to find it and it was very difficult to find.
LH: Maybe he’ll come back to liking it. I don’t know.
Lasse, do you think Irving will ever reveal the whole truth behind his hoax — including why he did it?
LH: It’s about truth. I don’t think I can trust a piece of information that comes from him. It’s a terrible thing to say, but it’s how I feel.
Richard, what’s the greatest hoax of our day?
RG: Oh, our president. Absolutely.
William Wheeler’s script is brought to life via Richard Gere, under Hallström’s direction. The Current sat down with all three recently to discuss how one goes about adapting a novel called The Hoax by the very guy who executed the hoax in question. If that last sentence didn’t quite resonate with you, take a second and reread it: “by the very guy who executed the hoax.” It sounds preposterous, but the filmmakers actually turned Irving’s own fiction “tell-all” into a movie and, strangely enough, managed to eke out more than a bit of truth in the process.
Richard, how familiar were you with the story before you read the script?
RG: I actually remembered it. This was early ’70s — 1971, I think it was — and it was on the cover of Time magazine. It was a big deal, bigger than anything else. So much so, that I can remember when I made American Gigolo, a few years after that, Nina Van Pallandt — [Irving’s lover during the period in question] — was in the movie with me. She played my madam. I thought she was a quality person, kind of private. But I remember asking her about it, and she didn’t want to talk about it.
How did you research the role of Clifford Irving?
RG: We had a lot of source material. We had a couple of 60 Minutes Clifford was on, before and after the fraud. The strongest one was this film Orson Welles made, F for Fake, which is supposed to be about Elmyr de Hory — who was probably the greatest art forger of the 20th century. He lived in the same community as Clifford in Habita [Spain]. Clifford is really the center of that movie. They were close friends. Clifford [talked] about the nature of fake, because he had actually written a book called Fake about Elmyr de Hory. Why this wasn’t a light bulb coming on for [his publishers]? Any rational person should have said, “Ah, this doesn’t feel right to me.” But at every point, people were so needful that this be true, had something to gain by it being true, they suspended their disbelief.
William, was it difficult finding some truth in a memoir by a man for whom the truth is open to interpretation?
WW: It was very tricky, because there were things that were facts and there were things that were untrue, but most were somewhere in between. It was sort of a story about history, that was someone else’s opinion.
Were you bothered when Irving disassociated himself from your movie?
WW: It depends on the day. If we check his website, maybe he likes it today.
And you, Lasse. Were you disappointed by Irving turning against you? He’s told the New York Daily News, “They asked me a great many questions. I replied in depth. They ignored most of what I said.” On top of that, he claims you depicted him as a scumbag and, if he had actually been that person, he would have killed himself.
LH: I’m waiting for the next beat in that, him coming back to loving it —because he loved it when he saw it the first time. I now hear he’s turned on it. But it’s happened throughout. He’s not totally reliable. Richard and I almost consciously avoided meeting him before the film, because whatever position [Irving] takes, he’s very convincing and charming. But I don’t know if it’s the true position, and that position keeps changing.
WW: I have to say, it’s ironic since he completely appropriated Howard Hughes’s life and lied about him. A lot of people find it ironic that he says Hollywood changed the truth about the hoax. What are you talking about, Clifford? It there was truth to this hoax, I worked hard to find it and it was very difficult to find.
LH: Maybe he’ll come back to liking it. I don’t know.
Lasse, do you think Irving will ever reveal the whole truth behind his hoax — including why he did it?
LH: It’s about truth. I don’t think I can trust a piece of information that comes from him. It’s a terrible thing to say, but it’s how I feel.
Richard, what’s the greatest hoax of our day?
RG: Oh, our president. Absolutely.
« Back