Skip to main content

He offered me a prune.


The Hoax
(2006)

Lasse Hallström has made a career from safe, unremarkable but respectable projects. The kind of thing fare that occasionally gets a few Oscar nods, particularly if the Weinsteins have anything to say about it. His work inspires neither passion nor ire (although Chocolat is a rare exception that many seem to either love or loathe), yet that’s just the kind of galvanising sensibility this picture, based upon Clifford Irving’s attempt in the early 1970s to publish a fake autobiography of Howard Hughes, needed.


The Hoax deserved someone with a real eye for satire, who could traverse the absurd border between fact and fiction and had an ability to integrate those questions about what was made up and what was real into the spine of the movie. The story of Irving’s fabricated tome is fascinating, one with the added cachet of a hotly contested conspiracy theory trailing it. According to this, Hughes hijacked the narrative in order to bring down one-time ally President Nixon. One might be forgiven for concluding the executives at publisher McGraw-Hill, who to be fair were not overly credulous of the notion that this not-so-hot author had the ear of the world’s most renowned recluse, were provided with all the alarm bells they needed. Only a couple of years before his Hughes book, Irving had released Fake: the story of Elmyr de Hory: the greatest art forger of our time. Now he was putting his research into practice, just in a more literary field.


One might have expected Irving, the great gazumper, to be sanguine about the changes William Wheeler’s adaptation made to his novel of the same name (after all, who’s to know how much of the novel is true and how much is Irving’s invention?) So when he dismissed the picture as “a hoax about a hoax”, complete with “absurd” versions of himself (Richard Gere), his wife Edith (Marcia Gay Harden) and co-author Richard Suskind (Alfred Molina), awash with made up passages, one might take that as the height of charlatan’s compliments. That is, if the alterations add to the impact of the story as a whole.


Because there is a sense that The Hoax could have reached for more, that it could have been more playful with the boundaries of the fiction it sought explore. This did happen in a film made at the same time as the events depicted were occuring, Orson Welles’ F for Fake, apicture the late great Robert Anton Wilson found endlessly fascinating, actually featured the real Irving. He appeared ostensibly because Welles’ “documentary” was about Elmyr de Hory, but the subject shifted and evolved when the story of Irving’s hoax became public during the course of production. Wheeler clearly has designs on blurring the lines of truth more than we see in Hallström’s rather literal interpretation. For instance, Irving assumes the role of Hughes as he gets into character, complete with moustache, his psyche gradually inching towards the delusional. Of course Irving would claim this was baloney, and when Hallström ends a scene where Irving is talking to a character only to show that he is talking to himself, you can’t help but agree; it’s the sledgehammer subtlety of a director who has no ability to let his audience use their imaginations (see also Ron Howard).


The problems with the picture are two-fold, and mostly gather steam during the second half as Irving’s deceit is subject to greater and greater scrutiny. On the one hand, the conflict between the conspiring trio is quite understandable. It needs more juice than just the grand adventure Irving describes the events as, because there should be a level of tension; otherwise, it’s all too easy. But he’s right about Edith being rendered dull; Harden can’t do anything with her, and she becomes a one-note cypher (as is Julie Delpy’s manipulative bit-on-the-side). Molina is great fun, and steals a number of scenes early on with his nervous interjections before bemused executives (“He offered me a prune”). But later, Suskind’s backing-out and the countermeasures taken by Irving feel overly contrived; it’s the sort of thing that could only work if the director was clever enough to comment on the fakery of the contrivance itself. It’s a sequence that starkly focuses in on Irving’s sociopathic qualities, which may be partly why he wasn’t so keen on it, but it does so unnaturally.


The other issue is with Hughes himself. Irving has dismissed the package of files that arrives unsolicited at Gere’s door as a complete invention. That may be so, in which case Wheeler deserves credit for a stroke of narrative genius that outdoes his subject. Once you introduce the idea that the fakery is tarnished with unwitting truth, you’re left with a hall of mirrors of distortion and uncertainty. The suggestion that Hughes would allow the book to proceed for his own ends is immensely attractive; the way in which it is subsequently linked to the Watergate break-ins, just after the threat to both Hughes – through the dropping of the TWA lawsuit - and Tricky Dicky – through ultimately preventing the publishing of a book that might damage him – has subsided, renders the billionaire a supreme arch-manipulator and knocks Irving’s small-time con into the shade. Which seems, in the context of creating a context for Irving, wholly appropriate. Irving is, after all, a man who has dined out for decades on the strength of a lie, yet gets stroppy over others not telling it just right.


It’s in the sequences involving McGraw-Hill that the picture works best. The cast are a treat to watch, from Hope Davis as the editor who began missing meetings with Irving now finding herself pouncing on his publishing goldmine, to Stanley Tucci and Zelijko Ivanek as piqued and derisive editors respectively. Irving’s spinning of the prune scene is a lovely moment, where we are as captivated as the attentive execs. Later, as the haranguing becomes too much, Irving comes right back at them, knowing he has nothing to lose, and his triumph is a delight. In part the pleasure is seeing this elite hoodwinked, but it’s also the hilarity of so-called expert opinion being completely undermined. Irving fakes Hughes’ handwriting. And they sign off on it. Later, after a close associate of Hughes has truth tested the finished autobiography, he congratulates the disbelieving Irving for writing the genuine article.


Gere, gimlet eyes keenly studying the terrain for how best to turn events to his advantage, is more alive here than he has been in years; he’s having some fun, which isn’t like him. Unfortunately, the make-up department aren’t doing him any favours with his wavy dyed hair. I kept expecting a flash-forward 20 years to explain why he looked so silly, and it never came. In general, there’s a failure to make this a believably ‘70s milieu; the daft wigs and hair and costumes look like they’ve been donned just for the picture (which again, might have worked if there wore a more self-reflexive tone; as it is, it just seems half-assed).


A defter hand might have drawn the threads out into something more encompassing, a statement on our general predilection for self-deception (Fincher perhaps, or Oliver Stone before he ran out of steam). Or, just in terms of the exuberance of Irving’s enterprise, I could see the Coens pulling this off with aplomb. But Hallström can never quite steer his ship away from the favoured territory of lightweight and undemanding. It still might be the best American film he’s made, though.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.