Shattered Glass (2003)
(I just want to say I love the movie poster and the way it looks like a post-Scream slasher movie.)
Shattered Glass is the story of Stephen Glass, who, in the late 1990s was a young writer at The New Republic, as well as a contibutor to Rolling Stone and George. His career was on the rise until it was revealed that he had made up a lot of his stories- completely made them up.
Hayden Christensen plays Glass. I've never seen any of Christensen's other films so I had no idea what to expect. All I can say is: he must be a really great actor because not once while I was watching did it cross my mind that he was acting. It all seemed totally real to me. The Edward Nortons and Kevin Spaceys of the world are always performing, always acting. But not this guy.
And there's the Christian Bales and Jared Letos, gaining and dropping hundreds of pounds for realism, and to show the lengths they'll go in service of their craft.
If you've ever seen a picture of Stephen Glass you know he's kind of pasty and dorky. Hayden Christensen, if you've seen him, is beyond movie star good-looking. He's closer to Greek statue good-looking. Still he doesn't go for any drastic makeover to get into character. He throws on some glasses and parts his hair on the side. WaBOOM! He's Stephen Glass! It's refreshing.
Our first introduction to Glass is a voice-over where he explains the world of journalism as well as the way he deals with people. In my words: in a world of assholes he's able to disarm people by being polite and humble.
There's a wraparound device to the story here. Glass has been invited by his former high school writing teacher to speak before her class and tell his story. This gives the movie audience some background into jounalism and The New Republic. That's fine, though it's done in a West Wing kind of way, like the September 11 episode they did where a group of students were stuck with senior staff in the mess and they lectured the kids on the roots of terrorism.
Anyway, when we get to the offices of TNR we see that Glass's co-workers are very impressed with his stories, and, if he weren't so kind and humble they'd be more jealous than they are. At the weekly meeting where they talk about the stories they're working on it's always Glass who has the best ideas.
The first sign of trouble on the horizon is when Glass's editor asks to see him about a story he's written about convention of young conservatives. The subjects are furious; they say that Glass's story is completely untrue. It comes down to a small detail- in the story "Spring Breakdown" there's a reference to a mini-bar being in the hotel room, but it turns out that the hotel in question doesn't have them in it's rooms. The editor, Michael Kelly doesn't seem particulary upset about the problem, still, right away Glass offers to resign. Kelly just wants an explanation and Glass says that the mini-bar in the room must've been rented. Later, Kelly makes a call to see if guests are able to rent mini-bars- they are- and he lets the matter drop.
Next we get to see more of Glass, both in and out of work. Despite his success in journalism, he says that his parents won't be happy with him unless he goes to law school. There's a hint that Glass might be secretly gay, and the hint comes from Glass himself. He tells a friend at work that he's worried that people mistake him for a homosexual and tells a story about a dinner meeting with a fellow writer. He says the two of them were walking down the street after dinner when, out of nowhere, the guy kissed him. It seems like an odd incident for him to bring up. After the movie came out Glass was interviewed and when asked about it he said he had "no idea" why that scene was in there and didn't give any clarification.
Michael Kelly has been having problems with the publisher of TNR and eventually he's fired and another writer, Charles Lane, is chosen to take his place. Kelly had been very protective of his staff and extremely well-liked, so there's resentment against Lane, even though he does his best to be fair with the writers.
Not long after Kelly's exit, Glass outlines plans for his next story at the weekly staff meeting. Again, he's got an interesting lead, another story that everyone else wishes they could write about. The story, which eventually becomes "Hack Heaven", is about a teenager who hacked into an internet company called Jukt Micronics. He vandalized their website and posted the salaries of the top executives, but instead of pressing charges the company offered him a job as a security consultant. The kid had a list of outrageous demands and Jukt agreed to them all during a closed-door meeting during a hacker convention at a nearby hotel.
The editor at an online magazine, Forbes Digital Tool reads "Hack Heaven" and asks one of his writers, Adam Penenberg(Steve Zahn), how he got scooped on the story and says he should look into doing a follow-up. As Penenberg investigates he finds that nothing checks out. He can't track down anyone mentioned in the story and there's no listing for a Jukt Micronics. Eventually the people at FDT come to think that Glass had been set up by a source and they get in touch with Lane.
Because Glass is not only the young star of TNR but also everyone's puppy, Charles Lane approaches the problem very gently. All he wants are the notes and contacts so he can talk to the sources himself. Glass gives him some dead-end phone numbers and homemade business cards. He also pulls up Jukt Micronics's website where they've posted a statement complaining about TNR's treatment of them.
Eventually a conference call is set up between Forbes and TNR. As the meeting goes on, it becomes clear to everyone that the sources are fake and the website is a sham, and an amateur sham at that. Glass admits that he now believes he has been "duped"
I think that up to the point of what happens next, anyone watching would be on Glass's side, hoping that he gets away with it all. If anyone in the audience was going to turn against him it would be now, because while Lane is trying to get Forbes to go easy on him and consider the damage this could do to his career, Glass is complaining to his co-workers, telling them that Lane is trying to (I'm not crazy about this phrase, but) throw him under the bus.
Lane tells Glass he wants to see the hotel where the hacker convention was held. Once there it dawns on Lane that Glass wasn't duped- nothing in the story was true.
Later, Lane is at the office, looking through back issues. He realizes that "Hack Heaven" wasn't the first time that Glass had turned in fake stories. Glass comes to talk with Lane, and, crying, he pleads with Lane to forgive him. He hints that he might kill himself, but Lane doesn't soften. This movie was generally well-recieved, but one complaint that some people had was that it didn't do enough to explain why Stephen Glass did it. Why would someone who was so talented make up stories? Why would he risk his career in such a reckless way over and over. I think the movie does answer that question, though in a subtle way .
Glass liked being defended. He was the kind of person that other people wanted to protect, and everything he did provoked that response. He was kind and smart and innocent and modest. Towards the end he wasn't looking for Charles Lane to save his career- his career over no matter what. He wanted Lane to hold him say he forgave him and everything was alright. When Lane blew off his suicide threat that was when Glass had truly lost; that was his defeat.
The movie was based on a Vanity Fair article of the same name by Buzz Bissinger and it follows the story faithfully. There's very little in the article that isn't in the movie and vice versa. It's too bad that a lot of people haven't seen this movie and probably won't because the subject matter doesn't seem like something that would intererst them. It's a good story well-told.
After the truth came out, TNR was pretty embarrassed. Though they already had high standards and whatnot, I tend to think that there's a new attitude in the offices of TNR since the Stephen Glass incident. I get the feeling that they- everyone there: writers, editors, and fact chackers- have a very strict idea of what can be considered factual writing. That would explain why they came down on David Sedaris a couple years ago in an article by Alex Heard called "This American Lie". Heard cites about a dozen weak examples of exaggeration and comes to the conclusion that Sedaris's biographical essays should be in the "Fiction" secion of the bookstore. It's clear that TNR consider themselves the guardians of what can be called factual writing. They seem to me like ex-drunks who act like anyone who drinks has a drinking problem.
P.S. Thank you for waiting so long. If they ever make a sequel I'll have my review up in a more timely manner, I promise.
