RVA had been gloom city for the past couple of days and all the rain had brought my exceedingly monotonous life to a complete standstill. Since I’ve been on the anti-social path lately, I decided that I was finally going to catch up on a bit of the movie watching I had been putting off for about five-ish years. The only problem I ran into was nailing down a start and end point. As somewhat serendipitous circumstances would have it, I came across a movie called Shattered Glass. Even if I had not heard of this movie beforehand, the enormous picture of Hayden Christensen on the cover would have provided enough of an incentive for me to pick it up (not a fan of his acting at all, the allure is purely superficial) and shamelessly carry it, face forward, to the charming Clooney-esque gentleman at the checkout counter. Either way, this movie ended up in my DVD player and here is what I thought.
Disclaimer: I am not a professional movie reviewer nor do I consider myself an authority on anything regarding acting, directing or producing. However, I do have functioning, eyes, ears and, on this day in particular, was not suffering from any cerebral constipation.
Shattered Glass, which would have surely received wider critical attention sans Hayden Christensen’s (visual appeal is where it all ends with him) somewhat effeminate portrayal of Stephen Glass, still succeeds in its basic premise. The title, which is a clever play on the main protagonist Stephen Glass, chronicles the rapid rise and equally abrupt end of a young journalist’s promising career. Based on true events, Stephen Glass was a journalist who worked for a highly reputable magazine called The New Republic but who was eventually fired amidst credible allegations of fabricating nearly all of his articles.
The movie, directed by Billy Ray (no Cyrus, no relation), though well crafted and written, fails to capture the viewer’s attention until about 45 minutes into it and all the way through one bag of 100-calorie popcorn. For the first 30 minutes, it was difficult to determine whether Christensen was method-acting or merely being creepy. During this time I managed to make a credit card payment, alphabetize my CD collection and semi-clean the toxic waste dump that was my room.
Here’s my main complaint: Ray failed to set the movie up in a way that captured the scandalous nature of the entire affair and almost seemed to have realized, too little too late, that perhaps it was time to tie up all the loose ends.
Peter Sarsgaard, who played editor Chuck Lane, carried the movie along in his usual, brilliantly understated way. His reserved interpretation of the character countered the somewhat irritating affect that Christensen’s character was starting to acquire.
The supporting actors semed as though Ray hired a few people off the street on the way to a burger joint to act as filler for scenes that did not involve the tense interactions between Glass and Lane. After a while the redundant back-and-forth scenes were enervating and the “skip scene” button was hot to the touch.
Hank Azaria, after the debacle that was “America’s Sweethearts” and every other movie where he has been forced to rely on some ludicrous accent, somewhat redeems himself playing the former editor Michael Kelly and is perhaps the only additional character whom one might care about.
Despite being crammed in the last 15 or so minutes, the movie’s true strength lies in the eventual showdown between Glass and Lane. Sarsgaard’s excoriation of the fact-checker and Glass sympathizer Caitlin Avey (Chloe Sevigny – positively hired only for the “cute” factor) on journalism ethics is in itself worth the price of the proverbial ticket.
All in all, if you’re willing to suffer through a somewhat laborious plot-line and Christensen’s alternately creepy and diva-like acting, there’s something for the thinking man to take away from this one. If you’re a writer, journalist or a closet plagiarist, I would recommend watching this if you’ve already completed all other things on your bucket list.
You write really well…and funny.