O Preço de uma Verdade

I had been recommended Shattered Glass a half-dozen times by a friend. He said, after watching it - it's not a great movie, but it is really, really good. I'll disagree. Shattered Glass is a great movie.

It's not a great film (aye, there's the rub), but it is a great movie. It's entertainment, pure and simple, but it's also entertainment with depth. In that respect, it's a little like Spider Man 2.

In Shattered Glass, you'll find steady direction, sure-handed editing, an interestingly designed narrative, characters that are drawn well-enough but not so well that they overpower the story's forward movement, etc. You'll also find excellent performances.

Peter Sarsgaard, Chloe Sevigny, Steve Zahn, Rosario Dawson - they're all excellent (which they've all proved in other movies as well). Hayden Christensen, though, who was so wooden in Star Wars Episode 2, is amazing. His portrayal of Glass, though not perfect, is revelatory; he can actually act. Given time and the aid of excellent directors, Christensen will really blossom. Shattered Glass is, simply put, a solidly made movie about a journalist without the requisite integrity.

But why isn't this a great film and only top-notch entertainment? Well, it really comes down to the simple fact that Shattered Glass only scratches a surface that, in light of Jayson Blair and those of that ilk, deserves a little more attention. Of course, though, this is a film about a single event. It's not about compulsive lying or, really, lack of journalistic integrity. It touches on those subjects without delving into them. That is my only complaint. As a movie about a lying journalist, though, it's fast-paced, thrilling, and entertaining, and I think everyone will enjoy it.

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.

A young D.C. journalist (new "Star Wars" trilogy star Hayden Christensen) for The New Republic political magazine falsifies data and produces fraudulent stories. Slowly but surely his would-be meteoric rise turns into a dizzying downfall. "Boys Don't Cry" alums Peter Saarsgard and Chloe Sevigny are out of this world as Christensen's editor and supportive co-worker. Based on a true story, the picture has a tense documentary feel to it that makes it highly engrossing and fascinating early. The production does begin to tire late though as Christensen's crazed personality starts to come shining through with dementedly over-the-top results. Still a well-paced and intelligent take on American journalism and the pressures associated with the field. Worth a legitimate chance. 4 stars out of 5.

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.

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.