Le mystificateur

As the film opens we meet Stephen Glass, a rising star at "The New Republic" magazine. He's sensitive, friendly and unfailingly polite. And, oh yeah, did I mention he was on everybody's hot list? He was being wooed by everyone from "George Magazine" to "Harper's" to the "New York Times." Unfortunately, behind the Glass juggernaut was a compulsive liar who took everyone for a downhill ride. You see, Glass fabricated over 20 stories, inventing sources, locations, times, dates, and companies.

Hayden Christensen was fabulous as the ingratiating/creepy Glass. As a CNN.com reviewer pointed out, this movie proves he can act.

Christensen's Glass is the ultimate likeable co-worker, who remembers everyone's birthday, knows how everyone takes their coffee and is so self-deprecatingly sweet that when things start unraveling you feel sorry for him. Despite his audacious lies and deceits, you like him and wonder why everyone is being so mean. Christensen walks the fine line between good and evil so well, you watch in amazement. You feel sorry for him, you're repulsed by him, you're embarrassed for him...

At times I turned to my friend and said "Man! Is this hard to watch." And it was.

Peter Sarsgaard, who plays Glass' editor, Chuck Lane, is wonderfully understated as the misunderstood editor. (For those at home who care, he's also really cute in that nerdy handsome way.)

The movie incisively exposes the world of journalism -- with it's big egos, pedantic copy editors, and ultra-competitive writers. I could see many of my co-workers (current and former) in the archetypes portrayed on screen (the braggart, the attention getter, the know-it-all, the guy who will split the most microscopic of hairs just for the heck of it).

It also brings home the incredible responsibility on the shoulders of journalists. It's easy to forget this responsibility in pursuit of personal glory or attention, but it's the reader who gets hurt. Everyone in the business of journalism should see this movie. But with its twists and turns and shocking (yet true!) events, it's a movie for anyone who enjoys a good thriller.

One of the unsung and unheralded movie treasures of 2003, 'Shattered Glass' tells the fascinating story of Stephen Glass, one of the top reporters for The New Republic in the 1990's, who rocked the media world when he had to finally confess that he had fabricated many of his stories. 'Shattered Glass' plays like a modern Greek tragedy, centered on a man of great talent and potential brought down by his own internal weaknesses. Glass was only 24 when he fell from grace; prior to that, he was a hot shot reporter who, in the highly competitive world of high stakes journalism, kept looking for that little added edge to make his stories saleable. For a number of years, Glass managed to slip those stories past his editors and fact-checkers without being discovered. However, in the spring of 1998, his world came crashing down around him after an internet magazine became suspicious of a story he had written about a computer hacker who, it turns out, never actually existed.

'Shattered Glass,' which is based on an article by Buzz Bissinger, succeeds as both a complex character study and a top notch thriller. The film never gives us any easy answers as to just why Glass put his journalistic integrity and career on the line by perpetrating these frauds. As portrayed in the film, Glass is a paradoxical mixture of both arrogance and insecurity, a smooth manipulator who can charm and sweet talk his way into getting people to like and trust him while at the same time employing those same skills to get himself out of tough situations. Eventually, however, the act runs out of steam and he is exposed for who and what he really is. Yet, who, indeed, is he? Is Glass simply a pathological liar? Is he a stressed-out, overworked 'kid' trying desperately to keep his head above water in the cutthroat world of professional journalism? Is he merely a smooth-talking, unethical charmer who knows what he wants and will stop at nothing to get it? Could it be that he is some or all of these things at the same time? The fact that the film never fully answers these questions is what pulls us so deeply into the drama. Moreover, Hayden Christensen gives a superb performance as Glass, making the character both smarmy and vulnerable, repellant and sympathetic all at the same time. In addition to Christensen, the film is filled with brilliant, subtle performances by Peter Sarsgaard, Chloe Sevigny, Hank Azaria and many others.

Superbly written and directed by Billy Ray, 'Shattered Glass' is one of the most suspenseful films of recent times, far more gripping than most so-called thrillers because the film is dealing with real-world issues of integrity and ethics. We watch with morbid fascination the slow unraveling of a man's 'crime' and character, as Glass becomes more and more ensnared in a web of his own making. The step-by-step process by which a promising young man's true nature is uncovered, then his reputation destroyed, becomes the stuff of classic tragedy.

Although The New Republic eventually recovered from this debacle, the filmmakers do not let the magazine off the hook quite so easily. The thing we are most struck by is how incredibly young the reporters at the magazine were at the time (we are told their average age was 26!). How such unseasoned writers came to play so prominent a part in so major and venerable a publication is indeed one of the great mysteries of the story - and one of the sharpest indictments leveled against the magazine by the makers of the film.

'Shattered Glass' is an ineffably sad film, one that makes us mourn the loss of a promising, talented individual who sowed the seeds of his own destruction (he is currently a lawyer). Yet it also inspires and uplifts us by reminding us that men of integrity will almost always triumph over men of little or no integrity in the long run. That's a truism worth remembering in this time of great moral confusion in which we find ourselves living. 'Shattered Glass' is not to be missed.

Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen) is a young ace reporter for The New Republic. The magazine is heralded as the inflight magazine of Air Force One. Glass is personable and his stories are fabulously enticing. He expertly weaves his fables with panache. Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) is originally a reporter, but then gets elevated to editor. Chuck is the exact opposite of Glass. He is reserved, and stickler for the work. As a reporter, he struggles to keep up with Glass's flashier stories. As an editor, nobody trusts him. When Glass's article on computer hackers is questioned by an online publication, things spin out of control.

The true story is shocking. And the movie portrays it with realism. This is probably Hayden's greatest performance. He has the boyish charm that makes all those lies believable. But he also has a twitchy quality about him. It's also believable that he made up all those lies. This is infinitely better than the Star Wars debacle. Peter Sarsgaard has that quiet intensity that is perfect for his role.

The only thing I didn't like was the older lady at the end when she says that if only they had pictures.... That's not necessarily any solution. Pictures can be doctored just as easily. And pictures can distract any fact checkers. I don't know if somebody actually said that in real life. But it's one line that I'd rather cut out.

I think it's too bad that Hayden Christensen will always have the Star Wars movies hanging over him. It overshadows some good work in this movie. He needs to find these types of roles that can challenge his acting skills.

As the subject line above says, I have to admit to an insider's point of view. I was an award-winning investigative reporter and editor working in newspapers, magazines, wire services, radio, and network-affiliate TV. I quit journalism in 1980 in large part because of the ever-increasing number of talent-challenged first-year "journalists" who wanted to be the next Woodward/Bernstein, and worse, the willingness of management (especially in local television news) to hire and even promote them. To be honest, however, I would have to add that the low pay, true even at places like The New Republic, was a major factor to an expectant father.

So I am sad to say that I completely buy the characterizations presented in this docudrama on Stephen Glass' time at that august magazine. The only thing that didn't ring true was that I never met anyone who had the time or inclination to be as considerate of his fellow journalists as Steve Glass apparently was. My wife pointed out that she never met one journalistic co-worker she would spend time with if she had the choice. I would admit that the nicest I knew were, at best, benign. I should add that I was NOT the nicest I knew. Even I didn't like me those days.

Getting back to the film, I can't speak to what actually motivated this particular person to fabricate 27 of 41 stories at a very major national magazine. The film suggests that he was too eager to please, and perhaps that is true. But that probably wasn't what motivated Jayson Blair (at the New York Times) or others who have recently been exposed as serial fabricators. Ambition unrestrained by ethics, unreasonable pressure to succeed due to premature promotions, other unknown and perhaps unknowable motivations... they probably figure into these sorts of disasters. But what is certainly true, and given very short shrift by the film, is the role journalistic management plays. To put a rather fine point to it, too many editors do not know how to, or perhaps just don't like to, do their jobs.

Too many times I see on national news programs statements treated as fact that somehow I can't believe were ever fact-checked. Just today I saw an episode of HBO's RealSports where an amazing statistic was mentioned: that a certain percentage (I believe about 4% but wasn't taking notes) of people who start playing poker as young kids go on to have gambling problems. I instantly asked myself: where did those statistics come from? Poker playing among the very young (pre-college-age) was probably a fairly rare thing before the past couple of years. How would they know today that 15 years ago such-and-such a percent would later have problems? If you understand statistics you would know that you can't find gambling addicts now, ask how many played poker as young kids, and extrapolate any useful estimate of future danger (100% of alcoholics once drank socially, but that doesn't mean 100% of social drinkers go on to become alcoholics). So did some editor at RealSports check this out? Why don't I believe someone did?

In writing this six-paragraph movie review, perhaps to be seen by no one, I checked things over time and again for accuracy. Oops: I misspelled Jayson Blair; fix it. Spelling errors no one cares about in this Internet-only story: check the entire piece in an external spell checker. In all I made almost two dozen changes. No one reading this will notice, or if they do, care. But that is what I do because I once was an editor.

It is this instinct for distrust of EVERYTHING anyone says or writes, including oneself and one's own work, that I believe is missing in far too many editors today. It is this shortcoming that allowed Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair et al to last so long before being exposed. It is a major weakness in journalism, and the lack of acknowledgement of this weakness is the only fault I found in this otherwise excellent film.

This fascinating study of journalistic malpractice is not only one of the best American films of 2003, but the best movie about journalism itself since ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. It's a complex, intimate character study that's simultaneously tragic and funny thanks to a brilliant performance by Hayden Christensen, who in his portrayal of New Republic writer Stephen Glass is almost nauseatingly amoral yet strangely sympathetic--like the other characters in the film (all of whom are excellently played by the best ensemble cast since TRAFFIC), the viewer roots for Glass to be innocent of journalistic fraud in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. And if the movie is entertaining and emotionally involving on the micro-level of ensemble character study, on the macro-level of social and historical sweep it's an absolute masterpiece, a witty and terrifying satire about what Americans want from their news media and how easy it is to lie and be lied to in a society that values sensationalism over substance. First-time director Billy Ray uses the 'scope frame expressively yet with subtlety and restraint--there isn't a moment in this film in which the camera fails to find the perfect way of emphasizing the dynamic drama that's already there on the page and in the performances.