I was very dissapointed in this movie. I do not expect every scene from the book to be in the movie, however I do expect the main pertinent facts to the remain the same. nothing about this movie was similar to the book except for the names. Taking the movie on its own merits it still left me unimpressed, I think the differences were so glaring it was hard for me to focus. anyone else out there read the book and was disenchanted with the movie?
shareI had a thrift shop copy that didn't "make the cut," so to speak, when I last moved and had to deal with a ton of unread books. It sounds like I missed out on a great read.
May I ask how it was different? I'm curious if the "hallucinatory" scenes in the movie and the abduction of Irving by Hughes' agents were also in the book, let alone true.
Everything is different except for the bascis of the story, things like names and the fact that he tried to perpetrate the hoax.Even Irving has come out and publicly derided the movie as inaccurate.
my advice, go get the book and read it, its a fun read.
It's worth noting that Irving's book was widely derided for being a wildly inaccurate self-aggrandizing fantasy by some of those involved in his attempt to defraud his publishers, and that Irving's main complaint about the film was that it was a hoax because it made him, his wife and his mistress look dumb. Considering he got caught faking Hughes' 'autobiography' - which he still sells on his website - he's not exactly in much of a position to complain about credibility.
"This time it's no more Mr. Passive Resistance!"
Trevor,
I would be much more apt to believe a story written by someone who lived it. I dont feel the book was self-aggrandizing at all. He actually was rather self deprecating in the book. At any rate , any non-fiction story is always going to be a he said/she said. I found the book much more interesting and fun than the movie. I have not quit watching alot of movies in my life, but the hoax was one of them.
I'll admit not reading the book, so it may well be better: however, I was entertained by the film.
I'd actually be less inclined to take a fraudster's account at face value, even if he was claiming to come clean (even if Irving's account wasn't so criticised). The autobiography or memoir can be a revealing form because it often reveals the author's self-image or the way they wish to be seen, but they always need to be seen in that light rather than taken at face value. Whether its outright invention and fabrication or sins of ommission, fraudsters tend to romanticise even when supposedly coming clean. Even people with real achievements often shoot their credibility in the foot with outrageous claims (Robert Peary claimed for years that Greenland was a new continent he had discovered called Pearyland) or write collaborators out of history (Roald Amundsen refused to even name his brother as the person who saved his life in his last book because they were in a financial dispute at the time). I tend not to look for the absolute truth in memoirs but an insight into the author's mind.
After the film came out, I found Irving's complaints about it particularly revealing: he claimed that the fraud was an 'adventure story' and was particularly angry at the low quality of the lies that 'movie Clifford' told in the film because they made him and those around him look stupid. In the process he also revealed that he was flattered to be played by someone as good looking as Richard Gere but was angry at the makeup job...
I've no doubt that the film is probably no more accurate than the book, which the producers probably only bought to prevent any claims being made against their own project. Certainly it's no more believable that Irving's version as he tells it in interviews (many contradicting his court testimony), especially once Nixon and Watergate are thrown into the mix - but I did find the way it portrayed a fraudster who got so caught up in his own fiction that he began to believe it himself quite believable even if details along the way (would Nina Von Pallandt really have said of herself "I'm shallow"?) unlikely. And I can't help having a sneaking admiration for the filmmakers putting one over on Irving in a perfectly legal way.
"This time it's no more Mr. Passive Resistance!"