autumnsoliloquy90 | shattered glass (2003) (Reply)

Nothing new, as usual I fill these boring empty days with an endless stream of films and movies. Fits my style of vicarious living ya know? The beauty of it is you don't have to deal with the negative consequences of your hedonistic indulges. Because it's all in reel life. "Shattered Glass" is one particularly gripping piece that had me biting my nails every second. And that says quite a lot about a film whose primary location is set in the office of a major political magazine in the 1990s.

We as the audience are first introduced to a young aspiring hotshot journalist with keen social skills and humility apparently a rarity in the industry. His gentle demeanour leads us to believe that this guy is harmless -- he's the hero of this story. Sure helps that Hayden is so bloody cute and adorable even playing a geeky character. But this film will have you paying attention to every minute as all his lies are slowly unraveled and laid out on the table for everyone to see.

Quite frankly, it was rather disturbing to watch. And mind you, I just watched "Trainspotting" before that. It is disturbing how he manages to fool everyone with his stories and manage to manipulate all of his colleagues into almost professional blindness. Not only does this remind us to question how much of today's media is truly the Truth, it also highlights the responsibility journalists have to the reader. "With great power comes great responsibility."

I must say, this has got to be THE defining film for Hayden Christensen's acting so far. For those who would dismiss this Canadian actor as just another pretty face on the block after seeing him in the Star Wars prequels (in which he had to dish out corny George Lucas lines like "The thought of not being with you -- I can't breathe."), they are sorely mistaken. Sure, there were some which I would call "Anakin-acting" popping up once in a while. But in this agonizing 90-minute piece your assessment of the character would change from endearment to suspicion, confusion and finally to a very sick feeling in your stomach. For me at least. Towards the end, you can't help but feel second-hand-embarassment as you watch him grasp at straws in vain trying to cover up his lies, and finally, face the just consequences. You simply don't know whether to believe in his credibility because he seems so earnest and never confesses completely, he still denies through his teeth to the point where you almost believe him, but somehow you know what the truth really is.

But then again perhaps that is only what the movie would want us to believe. Whatever it is, if indeed Glass fabricated all those stories (based on a real story), it was still very difficult to truly despise the character for it. For this I give credit to Hayden's acting. You almost pity the guy for all the shit he was going through. You'd try to think up excuses for him. It's hard to watch a dream (I believe it was his dream) burst just like that. I'd like to believe that he was just a guy with a great flair for writing who happens to be in the wrong side of publishing. A magnificent teller of exciting and elaborate stories (Calls to mind "Big Fish") but obviously fiction has no place in journalism. But then again, perhaps he was really just a great big liar who plotted meticulously to cover his tracks through ingenuity (made Websites himself, created phonelines, etc), brown-nosing and keeping up a fake docile facade in order to get by in a journalist's world.

Peter Sarsgaard was also brilliant in playing the unpopular editor who had to stand his moral ground in order to expose the fabrication. I've never seen him in his other movies but he excels in this one. He looks like Ewan Mcgregor too, in some angles. Apparently he's in the more recent and well-received "An Education", so I'm going to check that one out too.

I think what really disturbs me about this film is how appearances, as we've all been told many times, can be very very misleading. And how people you may dismiss as harmless may be the very people who are cunning and scheming. You know what they always say about the quiet harmless ones! ;) It's such a well-known concept but almost a cliche that we tend to forget. Glass also clearly knows very well how to manipulate people's feelings (whom he had carefully observed) in order to serve his purpose. Whatever his purpose was, it was not really clear. It could be popularity, or getting his stories published. Nonetheless it is undeniable that he knows how certain people would react to certain actions predictably, and these seemingly harmless actions are so subtle, if you were a person who truly believed there is only goodness in people, a person who would feel horrible at seeing malice in someone else's good deed, you'd be easily duped. And therein lies what's really disturbing, isn't it? Because most people are inherently self-righteous and would rather dismiss suggestive thoughts than listen to their Devil's Advocate instincts.

A major theme was obviously professionalism -- not just in the context of Glass but also of his colleagues, many of whom were his friends. What do you do when the person whom you've trusted for so long turns out to be just a fraud? It's a truth that isn't easy to swallow, and a betrayal that strikes a chord to most people.

Moral of the story: A lie which goes out of proportion will eventually be hard to conceal and thus sooner or later exposed. Never fake a website if you can't make a fairly decent convincing one. Nah just kidding.

It'd be interesting to find out what were his motivations though. Basing purely on the movie, the character Glass has an intrinsic need to please people. Whether that is the means to his end (his cordial relationships could be his last resort in case there is trouble), or the lying is the means for people to like him (the fabricated stories before their exposure made him popular and envied), we could probably conclude that his pathological habit of lying stems from his insecurities. Almost makes me have sympathy for him. From what I gathered online, he was (is?) a pretty talented writer, graduated from law school even after the scandal. A pity; he could have been very very successful.

My only gripe with the movie is that it seems to polarise the characters into good and bad. I don't know if Glass should get the sole blame for the whole situation. How could it have gone on for so long without anyone noticing? Or did somebody notice but closed one eye because it's more convenient to do so? Were the editors and coworkers really THAT morally upright? We won't know, I guess only the real people involved themselves would know the truth.

Thank God I'm not going into journalism. Sounds like tricky business to me.