Movie Review #43
Shattered Glass (2003)
Written and Directed by Billy Ray
Based on the article by Buzz (H.G.) Bissinger
Rating: 8.25/10.00 or *** 1/2
What prompts a person to lie? A number of reasons come to mind, such as the incessant need for attention, the desire to not be discovered to have done something badly or wrong, the need to keep things from other people, or just a simple curiosity to see what might happen.
Stephen Glass was a young reporter for The New Republic magazine in early 1998. What the world was about to discover was that Glass's reports were better suited for fictional short stories than news articles. The film Shattered Glass chronicles the discovery of Glass's lies and peers ever-so-slightly into the potential reasons for the fictions Glass penned.
The film begins with a monologue from Glass informing his audience (which, at the time, is the combination of the viewers and what turns out to be a class full of zealous high school students) why he writes and his goals based on what he writes. If you were not familiar with the storyline behind the film, the scene would appear innocent enough...except that writer/director Billy Ray is already planting the seed. It is quite interesting to watch that first scene again at the end of the film and note how the same words have a completely different meaning.
The first half hour of the movie is all about planting the seed. We see how the journalists at The New Republic operate, we observe typical goings-on at a fairly normal-looking office, and we start to see the conflicts between the characters and the thought-processes behind each character. At the center of it all is Stephen Glass, whose constant desire to be liked becomes more sinister with time. Phrases such as "Are you mad at me?" and "I'm sorry!" become daily. Each time a potential obstacle to Glass's success at deceit is brought up, Glass uses childlike charm, sheepish grins, and stalling tactics to ease everyone's fears.
The first such instance is when editor Michael Kelly hears from a conservative group that Glass's article on a "questionable" political convention had some errors (e.g., the question as to whether there were mini-bars in the hotel rooms). It is with these scenes that Ray begins to show us Glass's demise. Hayden Christensen, in an uncanny and unnerving portrayal of Glass, has the face of child-like guilt when he comes in to see Kelly (Hank Azaria) and admits to having "assumed" there were mini-bars. Glass says they were rented, not actually already in place in the hotel rooms. When a liar gets caught, he/she tries to squirm his/her way out of it. This is Glass's technique, and it will become his demise.
Michael Kelly was fired from The New Republic because of conflicts with his boss. Enter Chuck Lane, a no-nonsense, quiet, reasonable man not well liked by the rest of the journalists at the New Republic (though much of it is due to their strong likeness for Michael Kelly). Everything seems to return to normal until May 6, 1998, when Glass reports about a hacker's dealings with a "major software corporation." Enter Forbes Digital, an internet journal company that specifically deals with the computer industry. When Adam Penenberg (Steve Zahn, in a darkly humorous but ultimately serious performance) is asked to investigate the article (as punishment for not finding it first), he soon discovers that there are major flaws in the article. The major software corporation cannot be found on the internet, no interviewees the article mentions could be found, and the list goes on. When he tells his boss that there is one thing in the article that checks out, he says, "There does appear to be a state in the Union named Nevada."
When Chuck Lane is called by Forbes Digital for information, Glass is soon called in to provide his sources. What follows is a 45-minute-long tennis match between Lane and Glass...when Lane swings the racket, Glass volleys right back. Each scene becomes more difficult to watch. When Glass is finally discovered to have made the whole article up, he resorts to making Lane believe he is a danger to his own life.
The film is almost unbearable to watch by this point...in a most excellent way. Billy Ray has exquisitely developed his film to where you like both the liar and the discoverer. Although we know that Glass has made the whole article up, we can't bear to watch his downfall. Billy Ray has crafted one of the best thrillers of the past decade; it reminded me somewhat of the final half hour of Notorious. Sure, we know what Alex Sebastian did, but when you saw his face when he was told to go back into the house, did you not feel a lump in your throat? That same lump is felt here.
Meanwhile, Chuck Lane becomes more heroic throughout the film. The film is as much about Lane as it is about Glass. Peter Sarsgaard nails Chuck Lane. He develops his character so subtly that when the climax of the film is reached, it hits you with surprise at how much you like Lane. Lane becomes the protagonist, but it takes the whole film to make you realize it.
This film is superb on many levels. Billy Ray has made an excellent screenplay. Ray's subtlety makes the conclusion to the film that much more gut-wrenching. His direction is almost never overstated. The one time it is certainly detracts from the rest of the film (The scene involves applause), but this is the only mis-step; furthermore, it is redeemed to an extent due to its parallelism between Lane and Glass.
I think it is the acting, however, that makes this film a must-see. Hayden Christensen is absolutely jaw-dropping as Glass. His performance is edgy, disturbing, and powerful. Sarsgaard is equally as good in his muted, reasonable portrayal of Lane. The scenes these two share are some of the best I have witnessed on film in quite a while. Strong supporting performances are noted from Hank Azaria, Chloe Sevigny, Rosario Dawson, and Chad Donella. Steve Zahn is also an interestingly good choice as Penenberg. Casting was definitely a positive in this film.
While I'm on the topic of actors, I'd like to digress a bit and discuss Christensen and Sarsgaard a little more. I have not seen either in many films. The only other Christensen films I have seen are the Star Wars films; the only Sarsgaard movies I have seen are Boys Don't Cry and Garden State. These two men can act; these are people to watch in the next few years. If you have any questions regarding Christensen's acting in particular, I dare you to rent this film and say it to my face. Christensen takes bold steps in the roles he portrays; his roles tend to be of dark characters with things to hide. His choices are interesting and commendable, and I look forward to what he chooses to portray next.
Sarsgaard's choices are equally as interesting. His performance in Garden State was terrific. Although not the most endearing character in the film, he brings a sense of loyalty to his role that is palpable and necessary. Sarsgaard becomes his characters much like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro become their characters.
Shattered Glass is a taut and engrossing thriller. The acting, writing, and directing are superb. Simply put, Shattered Glass is a triumph.
