MovieChat Forums > The Hoax (2007) Discussion > Clifford Irving's Take on 'the Hoax'.......

Clifford Irving's Take on 'the Hoax'......


Here is a letter I am copying from cliffordirving.com......

THE MOVIE

Many people have said that the take-home
message of the movie, "The Hoax," is:
"Clifford Irving forced the resignation
of President Richard Nixon and brought
down a corrupt White House." I want to thank
Woodward and Bernstein for helping me in
that mission. Now I'm working on a plan to do
the same for the current administration. I've
also offered George W. Bush the chance to have
me write his authorized biography. He's thinking
about it, as best he can.

I was hired by the producers as technical
adviser to the movie, but after reading the
final script I asked that my name be removed
from the movie credits. I didn't want anyone
to believe that I had contributed to such a
historically cockeyed story where the main
character, almost by coincidence, happens
to bear my name. It's hard to believe that
sophisticated Manhattan publishers would
fall for the nonsense this guy spouts in order
to convince them that the moon is made of
Stilton cheese.

As played by Richard Gere – an actor I admire –
Movie Clifford is desperate and humorless,
a washed-up hack writer who lives in a
conservative New York suburb. In fact I had
a multi-book contract with my publisher and
enjoyed the good life on Ibiza, a sunny Mediterranean island where I owned a beautiful fifteen-room farmhouse. Movie Clifford has the energy of a not-too-bright psychopath. If I were that man, I'd shoot myself.

The movie misses the point that the Howard Hughes hoax was a live-action adventure story concocted by two middle-aged hippie expat writers and a Swiss heiress. Edith, my then-wife, a woman of great zest, is portrayed as a dull hausfrau; and Nina van Pallandt, my Danish mistress, as barely one level above a New York hotel hooker. Dick Suskind, witty friend and co-conspirator, is offered to the public as a self-righteous, sweaty buffoon. The scenes that deal with Movie Clifford feuding with Movie Dick, getting him drunk and hiring a bargirl to seduce him, are totally fictional. The Hughes people mailing the package of files to me is also made up.

Oh, yes – another friend said, "The movie made me want to read your Autobiography of Howard Hughes." And she did. And she loved it.

I also recommend reading the Hyperion paperback edition of my book, "The Hoax," available in airports and book stores. You'll quickly grasp that it's a true story, and, if the author is allowed to say so, a thrilling tale. The movie is best thought of as a hoax.



here is the link if you believe I am lying....


http://www.cliffordirving.com/movie.php

reply

Anyone believe him?

reply

me or clifford?

reply

Geez, guys, you can't just copy an entire page from someones website and publish it here without his consense! Ever heard of the term copyright violations???

reply

I cited it and posted the link... are you being a troll... or extremely sarcastic?

reply

Both!

reply

glad to see that Clifford Irving is still an entertaining writer, and still spinning webs of self-aggrandizing halftruths and lies. But I suppose he's right, this movie is just as much a hoax as anything else. As long as you don't take it as absolute gospel truth, which I doubt few people will, it's fine as a film. I can see why Irving would dislike some of the charicature aspects of the way some people are depicted because they were personal friends of his, but I don't see why we should care.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

Did Hughes ever read it? If so what did he think? I'm thinking that it's comprehensive.

What is the best biography of Hughes?

Meanwhile I'll check Wikipedia.

reply

[deleted]

Haha, POETIC JUSTICE!

Look at the situation: In 1971 Irving writes a web of lies & passes it off as truth about Hughes, a man who never gave his consent. It's exposed as a fraud. Decades later, Wheeler & Hallström do a movie which is a web of lies about Irving, says Irving who, like Hughes 40 years earlier, refuses to give consent. But in this case the movie is generally accepted as truth.

Poor Mr. Irving. Well at least he still has that multi-book contract, 15-room Mediterranean mansion & Swiss heiress wife, right? Oops 0 for 3.

When I saw this movie I had a respect for Irving, thinking the guy finally figured out how to cash in on the debacle by doing a movie about it. But as it turns out, he was too dumb to milk that opportunity like he should have (endorse the movie, go on tour, write a new book, etc). Instead he's ranting on his website & trying to plug his 30-year-old paperback "The Hoax".

Does anyone suppose Wheeler & Hallström planned it this way? The movie itself becomes the final chapter in Irving's hoax?

reply

Maybe he thought the movie and the controversy it caused will push him back to the big time.

He just went back to obscurity.


Its that man again!!

reply

"Haha, POETIC JUSTICE!

Look at the situation: In 1971 Irving writes a web of lies & passes it off as truth about Hughes, a man who never gave his consent. It's exposed as a fraud. Decades later, Wheeler & Hallström do a movie which is a web of lies about Irving, says Irving who, like Hughes 40 years earlier, refuses to give consent. But in this case the movie is generally accepted as truth.

Poor Mr. Irving. Well at least he still has that multi-book contract, 15-room Mediterranean mansion & Swiss heiress wife, right? Oops 0 for 3.

When I saw this movie I had a respect for Irving, thinking the guy finally figured out how to cash in on the debacle by doing a movie about it. But as it turns out, he was too dumb to milk that opportunity like he should have (endorse the movie, go on tour, write a new book, etc). Instead he's ranting on his website & trying to plug his 30-year-old paperback "The Hoax".

Does anyone suppose Wheeler & Hallström planned it this way? The movie itself becomes the final chapter in Irving's hoax? "

Wow, interesting analysis, rooprect.

I'm not concerning myself too much with what is and isn't true in the film version of the Hoax. The film is a lot of fun, and it comments on how people can make up their own truths. Or believe what they want to believe (or find profitable to believe). Every character in the film comes out looking like a liar - we the viewers have to stitch together some kind of truth about life and how the world works, based on all of these unreliable narrators. I thought the whole thing was well done and a lot of fun.

reply