Hopefully a short review this one, as explaining too much would perhaps explain everything. The film is based on the short life of Stephen Glass at snobbish, but respected, news magazine. It’s the posh of news magazines, and to be on it, or to write for it is akin to having sex with a hairless hyena – unique. Stephen Glass’s career ended in disaster after it was discovered that he had fabricated his stories, of which little was actual fact.
Glass was fired in humiliation, but went on to write a novel based on his life about a character who works his way up in a news journal by fabricating his stories. How much of the film is based on the book, I’m not too certain about seeing as I had never heard of Stephen Glass before. Stephen Glass now spends his time going to schools and colleges giving speeches on how to get ahead in journalism, and what life was like at the top. It’s a rather ironic career choice, and it’s more ironic that people welcome his views so openly. This man was, after all, a fraud that was caught and punished. How we honour our fallen.
Hayden Christian discards his Jedi garb to play a geeky looking, spectacle wearing Stephen Glass. He’s a nervous, apologetic little wreck – yet his charisma, charm and ability to manipulate both people and situations ensure that he is both looked up to and taken care of. Other journals want hi, circling his career like vultures ready to pick him off if he decides to leave The New Republic.
His performance is rather mixed. At times he plays his character well, and any thoughts of him being a Jedi disappear. Yet, when he starts to snivel, and whine and cry, it feels like Attack of the Clowns all over again. The character is supposedly 24, and Christiansen manages to turn him into a whiny 5 year old with sinus problems.
It’s unbecoming and makes you wonder whether it’s a natural talent to sound like a grounded teenager, or a flaw. The same behaviour in two distinctly different genres of film is more than mere coincidence. Other than that rather large irritation, he plays his part very well, manipulating the rather gullible people around him. When he’s caught, he goes into panic (and sadly snivelling) mode, and demonstrates the fear of getting caught aptly (not that I’d know, I don’t do bad things).
Support is provided in the form of Peter Sarsgaard )who you may recently have seen in garden State) as Charlie ‘Chuck’ Lane. He becomes the new editor much to his own annoyance, and to the annoyance of the dedicated staff, after Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria) is underhandedly fired as the current editor. Sarsgaard is simply superb throughout, and completely outshines Christensen in every manner. His performance is gritty, emotive and brilliantly acted and is certainly a rising star with a lot of promise.
Even Hank Azaria in his rather minor role as the backstabbed Editor of The New Republic gives a great performance as the father figure and mentor to the staff that work under him. He never berates them, and always encourages them to talk to him. It’s solid acting, and he’s perhaps one of the few American actors that always ends up in a support role, but is often flexible enough to vary his character and behaviour.
I guess, in truth, everyone eclipsed Christensen in the acting department. I think he definitely has potential, but right now he’s living in a mannequin world. Watching the film, it seemed a role Tom Cruise could have played had the character been much older, and as it happens the film is actually produced by Cruise. There’s definitely something in the air about the film which has a Cruise feel about it.
Perhaps the in-joke of “show me the money” (which was an actual comment made in the real life interview from which it’s extracted) triggered a sense of Cruise, but I think there’s something soft about the film, that even though everything’s gone wrong, that it somehow isn’t bad enough (you could say that almost everyone has a happy end, in a strange, ironic way).
Direction is excellent and weighted, with no scene seemingly overly shot or over done. Whether it’s the tension of discovering the truth, or the simple endearment of shame that is about befall, it’s brilliantly and energetically directed to never seem dull or to put the viewer to sleep, as films of this nature can sometimes do. There’s no over bearing musically accompaniment either, and it feels very much like a lo-fi Hollywood production. There’s none of the glitz and glamour, and retains an earthy realism to it that adds much to the situation the characters face themselves in. The shaky camera effect, to give it the slightly documentary/real-time effect adds rather than intrudes the film.
For all the criticism levelled at Christensen, he does a passable job of playing a character such as Glass. I am aware of his other films, and have yet to see them, but it would be nice to think that he could actually develop, and perhaps get rid of his teenage whining; even if it is natural. I guess the only other complaint would be that he always looks good, and always polished, as if he visits the make-up department everytime a scene is being shot. There’s no feeling of him having worked rugged, or sweated out in fear at the consequences of his actions. In that sense, he’s another Di Caprio.
Still, Shattered Glass is a solid 90+ minutes of tense entertainment, that provides the pace of a thriller, and adds more depth than you would expect. Some excellent performances, and one acceptable lead provides an engrossing film. Not quite All The President’s Men, but surely one of the better examples in the 21st Century, and certainly a modern day benchmark by which thrillers of this ilk could be measured by.
Verdict: A mostly enjoyable journalistic thriller with tight direction, and a great support cast. One of the better films of 2003, but not particularly special