Hey folks, Harry here with Copernicus and what may be the last review he files from the Toronto Film Festival, though he is threatening to try and describe the film where Meg Ryan gets all nudified... but apparently it all gave Copernicus a headache, and he's scared to go back there... I don't blame him... I probably won't review UNDERWORLD just because I feel everybody else has nailed that fucker, and I don't want to spend the time revisiting the memory. This, however, sounds really cool...
What do young Darth Vader, Cletus the slack-jawed yokel, and the writer of such screen gems as VOLCANO, COLOR OF NIGHT, and HART’S WAR have in common? A surprisingly good movie about the infamous liar- journalist Stephen Glass!
Before Jayson Blair took fabricated journalism to new sensationalistic heights, the reigning “fabulist” was Stephen Glass, busted by the New Republic in 1998 for wholly or partially concocting 27 stories. While Blair surpassed Glass in notoriety by adding affirmative action and the New York Times to the mix, Glass is poised to regain the title as most famous fiction-under-the-wrong-heading tale spinner with the surprisingly unfictional feature film examination of his misdeeds, SHATTERED GLASS. The debut film from screenwriter Billy Ray is a brilliant look at Glass (Hayden Christensen) as a man who is such a master of telling people what they want to hear that you can’t help but feel he missed his calling as a politician. (Note that the script was apparently written from interviews of the writers and editors at the New Republic during Glass’ tenure there. The real Glass did not contribute and does not stand to profit from the film except possibly through increased sales of his own “fiction” book, The Fabulist, about a young reporter who makes up stories.)
SHATTERED GLASS manages to explain the inner workings of journalism without being pedantic by the clever device of having Glass explain his job to a group of school children. This “narration” simultaneously allows the audience to be taken under the spell of the smooth operator Glass, and provides the skeletal structure of the film. As Glass ironically outlasts a great editor, Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria), we see him expertly navigate the sea change at the New Republic, playing every political angle to sail ahead of new editor Chuck Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) in the admiration of his co-workers. Meanwhile, a writer at the online magazine Forbes Digital, Adam Penenberg (Steve Zahn), is discovering that one of Glass’ stories doesn’t seem to check out.
In earlier reviews of Toronto Film Festival screenings, I lamented that the “all style” focus that the directors UNDERWORLD and WONDERLAND brought to their movies left little room to make the viewers care about their unsympathetic or undeveloped characters. In this sense, SHATTERED GLASS is the exact opposite – subtle camerawork, great acting, and superb writing leave you somehow caring about the plight of Glass, despite his despicable deeds and complete inability to take responsibility for his actions.
SHATTERED GLASS will be compared over and over again to ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, and well it should be. Both films examine ethics in journalism and its impact on individuals, one through the lens of the apex of journalistic achievement, and the other through its nadir. Without the lofty source material, SHATTERED GLASS had the tougher task, yet it manages to hold up surprisingly well despite its smaller scope and lack of big-name stars.
Two highlights of the movie are Hank Azaria (who in his day job is the voice of approximately the top 10 funniest Simpsons characters) and Steve Zahn (christ, who hasn’t peed their pants watching this guy). But in SHATTERED GLASS these two, two of the funniest living individuals on planet Earth, don’t even so much as crack a fart joke. And you know what? They are so good in their serious roles here that you don’t even notice the lack of humor. Each completely blends into their character, and it wasn’t until the end credits that I was reminded that the “funny guys” didn’t do any jokes.
But is Hayden Christensen any good? My theory on Star Wars acting is that the dialogue is so bad that you have to be a puppet, a robot, or a top-notch actor like Liam Neeson, or Harrison Ford to not sound ridiculous. I figured that Hayden probably wasn’t as terrible as he came across in some of the scenes in ATTACK OF THE CLONES; his performace there was probably the signature Lucas-inspired mediocrity. Apparently I was right, because in SHATTERED GLASS Hayden shines. He’s got Glass down perfectly, and he manages to make the weasel strangely likable. This is essential to the success of the movie, because Hayden is in almost every scene. I’m impressed that the director took such a risk on him, because if Hayden had bombed, the entire enterprise would have become just another CORVETTE SUMMER.
One strange aspect of the movie is that it never tries to explain why Glass did the things he did. There are no flashbacks to a childhood incident, and no examples of his learning how to lie along the way. SHATTERED GLASS just gives you the facts – and that is quite a refreshing thing in an oversensationalized media universe.
Copernicus
