Customer Reviews

Shattered Glass

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

You can't trust anybody, and now, because of Stephen Glass, you definitely cannot trust the press. Mr. Glass snatched everybody's confidences and destroyed them with fabricated, fantastic stories. After his downfall, many newspapers and magazines found one or two inconsistencies with their writers, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe and USA Today.

This film proves that Hayden Christensen isn't just that whiny brat from the Star Wars movie. He's a whiny brat in this movie, too ... but he plays Glass with such sincerity and charm you cannot help but feel the tiniest bit sorry for his mistakes. But it's Peter Sarsgaard who really steals the show as Glass's editor at The New Republic, who, after taking over the magazine from the late, great, and heavily favored Michael Kelley, discovers his writer isn't as good as everybody thought. Sarsgaard melts down into a puddle of anger and anxiety. He tears into Christensen with unholy vengeance. He makes you squirm in your seat as Christensen tries to weasel underneath his thumb.

The largest flaw with this movie is totally up to audience interpretation. Some people believe this film glorifies what Glass did. In a way, that's true. It sets an example of "if you screw up, don't worry, you'll get a young Darth Vader to play you in the film, and Tom Cruise will produce." At the same time, Christensen plays Glass like a greasy sewer rat, and even when you're feeling a touch sympathetic, you can see Glass for the sniveling bastard he truly is. So while it at once condemns and approves, the film makes Sarsgaard's character the true hero, and therefore steals any and all of Glass's thunder.

The DVD features an interview with Mr. Glass, exposing him for the whiny, self-serving jerk he truly is.

I find it amazing that Stephen Glass managed to fabricate, what was it, 27 of the 41 articles that he wrote for the NEW REPUBLIC !??! Incredible.
This film analyzes the character who pulled it off. From his office environment, to the competetive High school of Highland Park, to his parents who would disown him if he fails to attend law school, to his seemingly theatrical displays of remorse, this is about a truly antisocial individual, one who has no respect for institutions, society, who lacks morals...and who is smart enough to fool the editing staff of one of the most prominent magazines.
A very interesting film, which should leave you with plenty of food for thought.

Shattered Glass is a good movie for anyone whose ever wanted to write, or lie. Either of those two desires will do for seeing this movie. Stephen Glass, a writer for the New Republic magazine begins to fabricate his stories unbeknownst to anybody at the magazine. He gets caught however when a writer for the online Forbes magazine tries to research the sources in the article and no one can trace them. The movie's great and has a lot of little stuff that's hard to catch such as at a party at Glass' apartment, he has two buckets for beer, one labeled A-M and the other N-Z, alphabatized beer. A scene where he's making up a story about a hacker is worth watching the entire movie for. Well written and defenitely Hayden Christenssen's best effort to date.

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.

I had a bad semester with students plagiarizing papers, catching a half-dozen of them. What was upsetting was not their audacity but rather their stupidity. It was not that the papers were clearly not their own work but rather than they did not meet the assignments, so that they would have received failing grades even if an internet search did not reveal their source in ten seconds. Every time I find another plagiarized paper and see how little effort they put into cheating I am reminded of something a professor told me years ago, which was that to get away with plagiarism you had to work so hard to cover up what you are doing that you might as well have done the work in the first place. With the case of "New Republic" reporter Stephen Glass you have to admit that he certainly put a lot of effort into making up sources and support for his stories, but with that much effort he could have just stuck to the truth.

Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) is the youngest writer at the "New Republic" and apparently knows everything he should be doing to be liked by his young co-workers. The story of how he was found out is paralleled with his talking to the journalism class at Highland High School, while his teacher beams proudly. While Glass tells the kids about the right way to get ahead in the wonderful world of journalism, we get to see whether he practices what he preaches in the real world. It becomes clear that what Glass comes up with are stories that are funny, bright, and clever, filled with characters who seem too good to be true, from one about a convention of political novelties enjoying the Monica Lewinsky scandal to Young Republicans turning a National Convention into a drunken frat party.

The reluctant hero of the film is Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard), who becomes the young editor of the "New Republic" when Micheal Kelly (Hank Azaria) is fired). Glass is worried Lane is jealous of his ability to come up with great stories, but, of course, that is not the real problem, which emerges when Glass comes up with his latest great story on Hackers. The story is all about a teenage hacker who hits a company and then gets paid off to back off and leave the company alone. The story is so great the editor at the on-line magazine for "Forbes" demands to know of his reporter, Steve Zahn (Adam Penenberg), why he did not get the story first? Zahn is ticked off that he did not, and when he tries to do a follow up on the Glass piece it becomes clear there is something very wrong here, although the truth is so beyond belief that they people are thinking there has to be something else going on with the article.

The result is like watching a building fall down in slow motion, because you keep thinking that the whole house of cards Glass has constructed is going to quickly fall apart. But then at one point Glass explains to the class the complicated process by which stories are written, checked, rewritten, verified, and rewritten again before seeing publication. The irony is that this process could not catch Glass in his web of lies before the stories were published and then slowed down the actual process of revealing his deception. Of course, Glass is scrambling to plug the holes in the dike and it takes a while for Lane and the rest of the "National Republic" staff to accept what is going on with this guy they all seem to like so much. You have to appreciate how much friendship got in the way of these people seeing the flaws in Glass and underscores why this is a story worth telling, even if you do not want to be a journalist when you grow up.

The extras on this DVD are the "60 Minutes" interview with Stephen Glass, which features Chuck Lane, who does a fascinating commentary track with director Billy Ray. The pair talk about not only where things come from and the accuracy of what we are seeing on screen, which is a reasonable concern given the topic, but the real world concerns of trying to understand why Glass was doing all of this. This is one of the best commentary tracks for a feature film I have heard in several months and anybody who watches the movie has to treat themselves to this bonus as well. Ironically, after his down fall Glass went on to write a novel, "The Fabulist," which is supposed to be fictional story of a pathological liar who makes up newspaper stories but which apparently has more truth in it that most of the articles he wrote for the "New Republic" and other publications.

I'm not a fan of anything, but I had to rate this movie. I saw it last night, and can't get it out of my mind. It's a thoughtful exploration of the ethical foundations of journalism, as much as it is a so-awful-hide-your-head portrait of a pathological liar.

This is an amazing movie. It's real. That's what's so amazing about it. I kept looking at my husband and asking, Is this really real? What was this idiot thinking? Shattered Glass is the story of a respected, well-liked, and ambitious journalist for The New Republic who apparently made up - out on cardboard, water, and thin air - whole stories that somehow passed by the batteries of fact-checkers. This guy, an inexplicable pathological liar, I guess, makes Jason Blair of the NYT look like a cartoon Pinocchio by comparison.
Amazing. Watch it, and then, the next time you read a riveting feature article in some well-respected newspaper or journal, ask yourself if it's possible that at least some of it is pure eyewash.
Sheesh.

I love The New Republic magazine and have a subscription. But I started reading it a mere two years ago, well after the scandal of 1998, in which a Stephen Glass, a boy-wonder reporter, was proven to have fabricated no less than 27 stories. How could this have happened in this staid political magazine, which hadn't changed much since its early beginnings in 1914 and is so low key that it doesn't even have photographs?

Well, Stephen Glass, brilliantly played by Hayden Christensen, was likable. He was the self-effacing, quiet type who would bring lunch to a fellow-staff member on a deadline. He told humorous stories and kept people smiling. And, most of all, he wrote the kind of stories that everyone wanted to write. His writing was always peppered with the kind of quotes that put life into the story. And he was excellent at his craft. Everyone loved him. Problem was that most of his stories were partially or completely fabricated.

When veteran editor, Jack Kelly, is fired, one of the writers, Chuck Lane is promoted to take his place. Everyone hates him because they had loved the older editor. Peter Sasgaard plays this role with just the right amount of angst of a young man who is slightly unsure of himself and has been given difficult job to do. And, as the story of Stephen Glass's lies begins to break, we all can identify with this harried editor. This time Steven Glass had gone too far. He wrote a story about a convention of hackers and a young teenager who was courted by and awarded some big bucks to work for the company he just had hacked. When the online publication ForbesOnline, saw this story, they immediately started asking questions about Glass's sources.

Stephen Glass began to lie. The lies got bigger. His excuses got stranger. He even created a false website and some false voice-mail boxes. His own editor wanted to believe him. But the evidence mounted. And, eventually Glass was discovered and fired.

All this took place a mere six years ago but I couldn't help being reminded at how technically advanced we've all come since then. And Glass was able to get away with some things just because his editor was unwise in the world of computers.

I really did get into the story, which was well paced and well acted. And then, as a special bonus on the DVD, there was a recent interview with Glass from "60 Minutes". Glass says he's reformed after years of therapy and has recently written a novel. He has also graduated from law school and now has a law degree. Whether or not he'll ever be able to practice law is in question, however, due to his background. He came across as sincere and believable. But we all now understand that he always was able to do that. Frankly, I would never trust him.

This movie is quite entertaining. It's like a mini-All The President's Men, but more accessible. The web of lies that Darth Vader's character spins makes you, as the viewer, more and more uncomfortable as he backs himself into a corner. Wow, that was two cliches in just one sentence!

Anyway, there are some great characters in Darth Vader's new boss (Peter Sarsgaard) at the paper, his old boss (Hank Azaria) as well as a character for Steve Zahn that is refreshingly not high.