©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Life & Arts

Take ‘The Hoax' with a grain of salt

Richard Gere is at the top of his game as man 
who fooled publishing giant 

by CHRISTIAN PALMER
The Daily Cougar

The Hoax, which is the film adaptation of Clifford Irving's book of the same name, tells the story of how Irving turned publishing powerhouses McGraw-Hill and Life Magazine upside down with his infamous fraudulent autobiography of the eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes.

Lost yet? 

Like many stories of its kind, The Hoax faces potential danger as it deals in "real-life" events. The fact that it features a pathological liar as a protagonist just makes things all the more complicated. At times, viewers can hardly tell if they're witnessing "reality" or one of Irving's wild fantasies, because so much of the story is so far-fetched to begin with. After all, he completely duped the high-rise world of publishing with his "autobiography" of the extremely reclusive magnate.

Not to mention the events on the screen took place more than 30 years ago, so younger viewers especially may feel completely out of the loop -- and not just about the events. The entire feel of the film reeks of the 1970s. As far as establishing the setting, that is to be expected, but when the filmmakers integrate old film clips from the volatile time period into the background, it begins to look too bold and tacky. 

Not quite so tacky is Richard Gere as Irving. Whenever you think Gere, the kind of wormy, seemingly amoral anti-hero that is Irving doesn't exactly come to mind. Unfortunate as it is, the man is typecast; Gere's roles are usually somewhat more glamorous, or at least don't involve him going to prison. For the character, he assumes a fake Hughes "accent," fake nose and fake hair -- how fitting.

The real criminal here, though, is his sidekick and "associate," Dick Suskind (Alfred Molina). He steals every scene he's in. It is much easier to sympathize with him as Irving takes advantage of him time and again. It doesn't hurt that he's hilarious. 

It may seem a bit pretentious for this film to suggest that the publication of the Hughes autobiography may have prompted President Nixon's men to break into the now-famous Watergate Hotel in 1972. But for some reason, it doesn't seem all that outrageous a claim when taking into account the primary source for the film.

Though this one may be a little difficult to navigate, it remains entertaining. If nothing else, it is an interesting glimpse into a criminal mind and the pressures faced by writers and profit-driven publishing houses. His crimes were by no means the worst of the century, but the bizarre story behind them is certainly worth the ticket price.

Send comments to dcshobiz@mail.uh.edu