Shattered Glass

Rating:
Summary: Disheartening story because it is TRUE
Review: Hayden Christensen caught a LOT of flack for his wooden and stiff acting in the Star Wars Prequel(s). But in "Shattered Glass" (as well as another previous Christensen film "Life As A House") he proves he actually can act, and rather well at that.
"Shattered Glass" is the true story of Stephen Glass, reporter for The New Republic and freelancer for Rolling Stone and other magazines. Glass fabricated the majority of the pieces he wrote for The New Republic, and that little fact seemed to go unnoticed until a reporter at an on-line magazine dug a little deeper into one of his "stories". That set up the chain of events that saw Glass' house of cards come tumbling down in spectacular fashion.
Christensen seems a perfect fit for this role, and plays him with a mixture of charm, hustle, and insecure whininess. I'm tempted to forgive Christensen for his Star Wars acting performances now because it appears Christensen was, in Episode II, victim of decidedly weak and stiff dialogue and also at the mercy of a director who knows his way around special effects but not around bringing out decent performances from actors. Who cares if the script is weak and the acting is silly and wooden so long as the effects look cool, right George Lucas?

What makes "Shattered Glass" even that much better is the work of the supporting cast. Everyone is wonderful, particularly Hank Azaria and Peter Saarsgard.

This film isn't getting much distribution outside of the major markets, so I hope you get a chance to catch it on the big screen somewhere before it goes to home video. Even small films like this one just play better and have better impact on a large screen.

Rating:
Summary: Stop the presses!
Review: As a professional journalist, I know how hard it is to get your sources to trust you. Dishonest reporters like Stephen Glass make it all the harder for honest reporters. That's why I was surprised to end up feeling some sympathy for the lying little weasel at the end of Billy Ray's "Shattered Glass." As played by Hayden Christensen, Glass is a recognizable human type, different in degree but not in kind from people we know in our everyday lives. Padding around the New Republic's offices in his stocking feet, offering constant compliments and endless little kindnesses, Christensen's Glass (at least at first) is the lovable kid brother we all wish we had. Even knowing all about him coming into the movie, we can't help but like him. So it hits us just as hard as his movie colleagues when Glass' treachery is finally revealed. For Stephen Glass will do ANYTHING to be loved and admired--even sacrifice his own honor and the reputation of the magazine he works for. Even after Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard), Glass' editor, has come to realize what a pathological liar Glass is, Glass still can't help playing for sympathy, like a puppy who had an accident on the rug. Christensen's superb performance dominates the movie, but Sarsgaard also is excellent as Lane, a dogged and honorable newsman who sees through Glass (pardon the pun) long before most others do. There is also great work from Chloe Sevigny as Glass' closest friend on the New Republic staff; Hank Azaria as Michael Kelly, the likable and charismatic editor forced out in a dispute with his publisher; and Steve Zahn and Rosario Dawson as the Forbes Online reporters who first discover the holes in Glass' tapestry of lies. The film makes suspenseful, compulsive viewing throughout, as Ray guides us through the internal politics of the New Republic and shows us how those politics made it possible for Glass to get 27 wholly or partially fabricated stories into the magazine. As good as the film is, however, it feels too narrow; we never get a picture of the story's larger significance. Ray tells us that the New Republic is an important political magazine, "The In-Flight Magazine of Air Force One," but he never makes us feel it. An extra scene or two, showing political bigwigs refusing to talk to Chuck Lane and other New Republic reporters, would have gone a long way toward making us feel the full impact of Glass' lies. But what's actually on screen is impeccable, and it's rare in these days of overlong, bloated epics that a movie leaves us wanting more.

Rating:
Summary: Well-acted true story ... Recommended!
Review: This is a movie about Stephen Glass (a bright young journalist at the New Republic whose star was rising in 1998), his charm and his fall from grace. Depicting the story of the events that almost brought a prominent political magazine (The New Republic) down is no easy job, but the cast of this film did a great job at it.

I believe the movie was shorter than it should have been. Character development could have been given more emphasis. I liked it, though. It's a testament to the fact that you really cannot trust anything you read, even in a reputable publication. You have got to do your own "fact checking" these days (thank God for the Internet).

It's a thought-provoking movie and I recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: The Man without a Face
Review: Shattered Glass is a tough sell to anyone not in the journalism business for it's concerns, as put forth in the movie, are so esoteric as to be almost Byzantine in nature. Nothing that Stephen Glass does is illegal, hurts anyone but himself, so we are hard pressed to feel any compassion for him or for his story.
Probably the best way for this type of film to go is to emphasize the inherent integrity and honesty issues of Glass's supposed crimes against journalism. But the director, Billy Ray's mise en scene is so scattered and ill focused that none of these important points are made clear enough for us either to root for JOURNALISM or for Stephen Glass or for anyone, for that matter.
What Glass does is basically write fiction and pass it off as fact. His stories also magically get through the exhaustive process (this is mentioned time and time again) of fact checking at The New Republic. He seems to accomplish this on the basis of his personal charisma, good looks and good nature and his irritating habit of apologizing for things like a 5-year-old child. (Am I in trouble, do you want me to resign? he moans constantly to his editor). It is obvious, Glass has issues but once again the filmmakers fail him by not explaining/showing anything about his personal or work history so as to put his so-called crimes in perspective.
Hayden Christensen as Glass is a ball of nerves, sweaty forehead and blue button down shirts. As a hero or a villain he lacks the internal fortitude to gain our respect: he's a whiny wimp and not even a charming one at that.
The main question here is: why did he do it? It is never made clear in the film itself and only after reading the Vanity Fair article on which this film is based did I find out that he did it to get ahead, to have as many stories published under his byline so as to make himself a journalistic Star. Ok, so maybe this makes sense but it is told in such a gray, serious manner you'd think Glass was committing a crime against the state or that he was a spy a la The Spy Who Came In From The Cold.
I realize that in these times we need our heroes more than ever and that issues of integrity and personal honesty are important concerns. But Stephen Glass is not anyone that we can look up to or down on really with any kind of worship or disdain. He's too boring. If he did what he did to become a Star, I'll take the antics of Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Hannity, Britney Spears, J-Lo and Ben Affleck anytime, any day over this shlub.

Rating:
Summary: One of 2003's very best movies. Highly recommended
Review: This is a gem of a movie, which is among 2003's very best, should have received more commercial, acclaim than it did when it was initially released. Although I did not see it during its theatrical run, am I ever glad that I listened to a friend of mine who loved the movie when he saw it at the movies. It's so good that I am going to buy it and I am not a big DVD buyer.

Although many of you are already familiar with this hard to believe true story, as it received much press and even appeared in the television show "60 Minutes," nothing you've heard can prepare you for this movie as its strength lies in its sublime acting, and even more importantly in the way the story is framed by writer and first time director Billy Ray in such a way that makes for a quite a suspenseful and thrilling ride.

Possible spoiler ahead, but does not reveal too much! However, if you've never heard of Steven Glass or the events that this movie chronicles, you may want jump to the next paragraph as not knowing anything in advance could make your movie experience may even more pleasurable (if that is even possible). In a nutshell the movie tells the story of a journalist at The New Republic" magazine, who had the unique talent to come up with and chronicle colorful stories that were a shot in the arm to a traditional magazine that was a must read mainly for policy-makers (yes, even Presidents) and other politicos. Even those of you who know that Mr. Glass will not be remembered for his reporting but for the series of events that led to his ultimate downfall, will enjoy what is in essence a universal story about ambition, power, manipulation, reinvention and that we should not always believe what hear or even see in print. This message is especially important with the advent of the internet.

For those who skipped the previous paragraph, it's safe to read now. The movie brilliantly chronicles the ups and downs of a young journalist (played by Hayden Christensen in one of the year's best and underlooked performances) of a high-brow political magazine. At the start I mention that the movie's main strength lies in the manner in which it frames the movie, and I won't give it away.

One interesting fact that you will find out in the director's commentary (which is an invaluable extra on this DVD) about the movie's greatest strength is that was originally not told in its eventual framework and was a last minute decision made when the original structure failed to impress anyone, including the director himself. From seeing the movie, you'd never know that to be the case, and it's one of those inside stories that to me represent the very best of DVD extras. If it had not been for an additional couple of days of shooting after the initial wrap, we could have seen what I think would still be a great movie, but certainly not as good as what we get to see. While the release has no deleted scenes or outtakes (which is for the best as there is usually a reason for their exclusion from a film), I was overjoyed to hear the director's commentary over the entire movie as it is a lesson in filmmaking from a guy who was directing his very first movie. The commentary was so interesting that I wound up in essence seeing the whole movie twice as I saw it and immediately jumped into the commentary and I could not stop until it ended. Thank God that the movie is very tight an just a little over 90 minutes.

As I indicated above, Hayden Christensen's performance as Stephen Glass is as good as there was during 2003 and shows that he's not a one trick pony. He should in no way be judged solely on his wooden work in the underwhelming "Star Wars" series as there must be a dumbing down bacteria in water of where George Lucas is filming this trilogy. Peter Sarsgaard who portrays Chuck Lane, Glass' editor of The New Republic, gives one of the most nuanced and brilliant performances ever captured on film. He plays a guy you want to dislike but you just might find yourself rooting for before the movie ends. Sarsgaard would have been a major movie star in the '70s, yet I hold hope that this performance makes other directors see what a goldmine he is. The performances would be considered outstanding even if they were not based on real people, but become much more brilliant when one considers how hard it is to walk the line between caricature and an honest portrayal of real people, especially when some of the real people in the story were actually present during the making of this film.

There is really not a single performance that is not solid and it shows what great things can happen when a writer-director gives his all and is supported not only by a great cast but a crew that makes him look so masterful. In the commentary Ray gives specific credit to several experts in their field who also supported him as a first time director. Even as a seasoned movie buff, I was surprised at my lack of appreciation of the people who make good directors look even better. Whether it's lighting, framing, scouting, or casting, the commentary made me want to know much more about the role of the people who we never get the public recognition that those in the forefront do. The director's commentary (maybe out of homage to journalism) highlights the few artistic liberties that he took in making this movie, which were supported by Chuck Lane, who also comments and expands on the words of Billy Ray.

The last 5 minutes of the movie are worth seeing time and time again. Although this may not mean anything right know, pay close attention to the group of people that Glass is speaking to as there is more than irony in those scenes. No, there is no big shock that is revealed, but something entirely more subtle and honest to the movie's structure. This is a must-see film which easily earns 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: Well acted and a good thriller. It's like a thriller without the murder.

Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT
Review: After missing this one in the movie theatres, I made a point to rent this one when it came out on DVD. I now want to purchase my own copy--and I will be revising my Favorite Movie List.

Shattered Glass revolves around Stephen Glass, former reporter for The New Republic Magazine during the 1990's. Glass achieved outstanding status as a reporter. Turning out great story after great story, everyone thought Glass an outstanding journalistic talent.

Too bad he did not write fiction at the time. It turned out 17 of his features for TNR turned out to be either partially or totally fabricated.

His tapestry of lies unraveled in May of 1998 as a writer for Forbes Online, Charles Penenberg (Steven Zahn) tried to do a follow-up story on Glass' latest piece called "Hacker Heaven." Unable to find a website for a fictitious software company, nor credible phone numbers for any of the sources, Penenberg contacted TNR editor Charles Lane.

At this point, Lane starts to have his own doubts and does his own investigation. As he uncovers the truth, Lane discovers that Glass not only fabricated the whole Hacker story, but may have done the same with other stories. Of course, the fiction ends as Glass is fired.

The independent movie has so many strengths going for it. First and foremost is the cast. Hayden Christensen plays Glass who uses his childlike charm and innocence to dupe superiors. Christiansen, who played young Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars is able to spin his yarns and congratulate himself for it. As Glass, Christensen tenaciously sticks to his lies even when proof flies in his face. A quick wit even tries to modify lies to suit his own needs. The charm works more as Christensen uses his innocent and sincere voice to issue hollow apologies.

Another outstanding performance is Peter Sarsgaard who plays new TNR editor Charles Lane. Sarsgaard provides the most subdued, yet powerful performance. Often, experts tell us 85 per cent of all communication is non-verbal. This is where Sarsgaard has a true strength. He displays diappointment, concern, skepticism, and downright anger without flamboyant gestures or pitch and tone in voice.

Another noted performance is Hank Araria, who usually does many voices for "The Simpsons." In real life, Azaria shows some real acting credibility playing the wise and insightful Michael Kelly, Lane's predecessor at TNR. Kelly went on to serve as editor for the Atlantic Monthly and was killed in April 2003 while coveirng the war in Iraq. In fact, Shattered Glass was dedicated to Kelly's memory.

Probably the ultimate muscle for Shattered Glass is the accuracy for what really happened. Although I liked the 1999 release of The Insider, writer director Michael Mann sacrificed the truth in order to "add drama" to the story. That does not happen, though, in Shattered Glass. In this case, writer/director Billy Ray tells it like it happened--as if knowing journalism's main goal is to search for the truth.

The conjectural end (which I will not reveal) probably has the greatest dramatic affect on the whole movie. While some in the audience might feel sympathy for Glass and his duplicitous methods, others will feel betrayed, angry, and skeptical. Still, it struck me that Glass' habitual lying actually took him to another realm where he believed his own lies. Within the mind of Glass, he DID do a story on Young Republicans acting like reprobates. Glass believes he DID do a story on a hacker kid who was cut a deal by a software company.

Who knows the real intention of the movie. Was it to chastise Glass--or other fabricators like Jayson Blair? Or maybe to rebuke the journalist profession? Or did the movie intend to slap the motion picture industry for leaving truth at the studio gate? In any case, Shattered Glass works--and it works well.

Rating:
Summary: Shattered Glass - Insight into World of Magazine Journalism
Review: There have been a handful of well-publicized scandals in the media over the past few years involving reporters making up key details in their stories. In 2003, Jayson Blair, a reporter for the New York Times, was caught plagiarizing and making up stories, and just a few months ago, producers at CBS were accused of and subsequently relieved of their jobs for embellishing the facts on a report about President Bush's service in the National Guard. In 1998, a similar state of affairs befell a young reporter at The New Republic, "The Inflight Magazine of Air Force One." Shattered Glass tells the story of Stephen Glass, a 24-year old reporter with said publication. Hayden Christianson, who most may know best as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vadar in the Star Wars prequels, plays Glass. Peter Sarsgaard plays his foil and envious co-worker Chuck Lane, who never seems to have as juicy of a lead as Glass.

Shattered Glass presents a snapshot of what the competitive atmosphere is like working for a political magazine. Glass certainly feels this competition, but his motive for fabricating stories appears to be an uncontrollable need to lie with a touch of overwhelming ambition. The first plot twist occurs when The New Republic's beloved editor Michael Kelly (played by Hank Azaria), who has his staff's loyalty and supports Glass at the first sign he made up story details, is ousted and replaced by Lane.

In the post-Michael Kelly era, one of Glass's next ideas involves telling the story of a teenage computer geek who hacks his way into a software company and posts naked pictures of women and the salaries of its employees on their website for all the world to see. What makes the story newsworthy, Glass says, is that the software company then hires the kid as a security consultant in order to stop him.

Meanwhile, at Forbes.com, reporter Adam Penenberg (played by Steve Zahn) is investigating some of Glass's facts. A simple "google" search doesn't turn up the software company Glass has written about, which strikes Penenberg as odd. Forbes.com decides to write an article about the discrepancies in Glass's article, which further pressures New Republic editor Lane to get to the bottom of Glass's stories. Ultimately, it is revealed that out of 41 pieces Glass wrote for The New Republic, 27 were phony.

Christianson plays Glass as a likable, self-effacing, humble guy who remembers everyone's name and is eager to please. It is difficult to understand the pathology that compels Glass to create bogus stories, especially at such a highly-scrutinized level where his work is being read by not only his competition, but Congress people, other assorted political types, and, well, the President of the United States. What makes Shattered Glass interesting is that it shows the effort Glass goes through to make up even more deep, involved lies to cover his tracks. It would have taken less effort to do the real research in the first place than to create bogus backstories for his fake articles. But Christianson plays him so sympathetically that you just want to give him a hug and say it's okay. Lane as played by Sarsgaard is also appealing because you appreciate his professional skepticism and the fact that he gives Glass what he deserves--the boot.

While the Jayson Blair and CBS News scandals fade from memory, one begins to wonder how truly widespread these types of cases are. Because of the high-profile nature of The New Republic, the New York Times, and CBS, how skeptical should we be about our **local** media?

The DVD includes a 60 Minutes interview with Glass, which ironically, was the offender in the Bush-National Guard case.



Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking despite its flaws
Review: After watching the DVD my knee-jerk reaction was "Uhh... nothing great." But four days later I'm still thinking about the movie. First the complaints: It's a low budget film packed with a long line of no-name actors who will most likely remain that way.

But, despite the less-then-wonderful acting (epically by the lead) it held my interest. It soon became obvious the Glass was a pathological liar, but still I felt for him... wanted him to NOT be lying. I also felt and related with the editor who lacked the support of his writers despite his unseen humility and loyalty. I also related to the other writers who enjoyed Glass's light-hearted spirit and believed until the evidence was overwhelming that he is innocent.

In short, despite the low-budget feel of the film, the director did a fine job of developing his characters and letting us relate with all of them. Is it worth purchasing and adding to your personal collection? No. But it's worth watching, once.


Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Debut
Review: This movie has evaded my radar for quite some time and after watching the movie, I really have to say that this is definitely one of the most under-rated movie of the year. The production is slick and the performance appears almost seamless. What's even more amazing about this movie is that we are talking about real journalists and that all incidents here are based on real events that happened years ago. Perhaps, what people don't notice is that this movie is produced by Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner, two of powerhouses in Hollywood film-making. Buyers be aware that there are two DVD versions lurking around, one of them is a straight out movie offering and the other contains all the extras that you would expect from DVD collection these days and one of the must see feature is the interview with the real Stephen Glass and Chuck (the then editor who had him fired). The other reviewers explained thoroughly about the content of this movie and I'm here to reaffirm what they said that this is truly an outstanding debut that's compelling to watch. Keep up the good work!