SPOILER WARNING
This is a fair film, but far from a great one. Obviously the work of an inexperienced director (Billy Ray), it contains a central structural flaw in the screenplay that holds it down: it makes the mistake of telling the story from several perspectives, employing an almost anti-"Catch Me If You Can" structure (never revealing the main character's actions as they happen, only showing the impact on others) while at the same time using a highly subjective bookend device which brings us directly into the main character's inner thoughts. The result is slightly uneven, and emotionally less involving than it could have been.
The film begins with celebrated journalist Stephen Glass (pretty-boy actor Hayden Christensen) being proudly introduced by his former high school teacher to her journalism class. Glass espouses his knowledge and journalistic philosophies to wide-eyed and hopeful students.
At this point, Glass is the main character. We are with him; we hear his thoughts through voice-over and learn his philosophies. So far, so good.
But as the second act begins, the perspective changes, and suddenly Adam Penenberg (Steve Zahn, excellent) -- who would ordinarily be the antagonist, the man who exposes our hero Glass -- becomes the main character!
Suddenly we are with Penenberg, hearing his thoughts and actions as he becomes determined to expose the fraudulent Glass. If "The Graduate" had taken this approach, we'd have seen Mr. Robinson plotting his revenge on Benjamin Braddock; if "Easy Rider" had done it, we'd have seen the rednecks planning their ambush before finally killing George Hanson. Thank God level heads (and smart filmmakers) prevailed back then.
We are so distanced from Glass's behavior, in fact, that we don't even know if he's lying about his news sources or not -- though most audiences will guess he is making stuff up due to reviews and trailers for the film. But we are never with him when at the moment of fabrication, and don't quite understand his motives.
As the second act continues, another character, new editor Charles Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) -- initially a secondary character -- becomes more prominent, eventually becoming the true main character. By the end of the film he wins the approval of the employees who once scorned him.
At this point, Hayden Christensen is barely in the film. He has become the opponent -- and not an important one at that.
A less radical shifting of perspectives can sometimes work. "American Beauty" shows the private goings-on of the satellite characters -- but Lester Burnham is always the main focus, the man whose viewpoint is always uppermost in our minds. Most importantly, these scenes never drive the plot, they merely help set it up or enhance it. The secondary characters are never allowed to take center stage, control the action, or reveal more than our hero does.
But throughout most of "Shattered Glass" the supporting cast does just that.
The action is mainly controlled by Zahn and Saarsgard; Glass merely reacts, defending himself, back-peddling. We never see what goes on outside the office except when we cut to Zahn at his place, or Sarsgaard at home trying to figure things out.
All of this might work as kind of a mystery -- leaving the audience to wonder what the hell is going on -- but director Ray begins and ends the film with subjective views of Glass -- and occasionally cuts back to him in the classroom - establishing him as the main character.
The other main problem with the film, in my view, is Hayden Christensen's performance. Christensen continues the same monotonous, infantile,lifeless delivery that completely destroyed "Attack of the Clones" and didn't help "Life as a House." But here he has added something worse: he speaks so hurriedly and slurred, emphasizing the wrong words, breezing over important ones -- that much of his dialogue is incomprehensible (Lucas evidently curbed this mush-mouth tendency, while novice Ray was not smart enough to do so).
Speaking in this trendy, fast-paced manner that many teenagers now favor -- making two-syllable words into one syllable, letting words trail off without enunciating -- is positively disastrous in a movie like this. "Client" and "terror" become one-syllable words; "terrorist" becomes two. "Then you'll help me?" becomes "Thenyulhellme?" By racing through his lines, Christensen not only diffuses the power of the script, he comes off as a mealy-mouthed, James Dean wannabe -- delivery important dialogue like a speed freak with a speech impediment.
Some of Christenson's acting is downright embarrassing, coming off more like a first rehearsal of a soap opera, a script read-through before the acting begins. The awkward dialogue doesn't help. And much annoying soap opera- style character name usage -- a typical problem in a young director's work -- is employed ("What do you think, Caitlin?" "I'm not sure, Amy.") That type of thing.
But Christensen almost makes up for his sins by the end, when he's pushed to the brink and appears ready to fall apart. He shows some potential. If only the great studio voice coaches were still around to teach him how to talk.
Chloe Sevigney and Melanie Lynskey seem to have jumped onto the same speed freak bandwagon as well, while Zahn, Sarsgaard and Hank Azaria and are all, thankfully, normal -- and real actors. All three are excellent, but Sarsgaard stands out in particular. His work is Academy Award worthy; I would be happy to see him a get a nomination.
All in all, not a bad first film. I'm sure a lot of learning was done -- and I look forward to Billy Ray's sophomore effort.
This is a fair film, but far from a great one. Obviously the work of an inexperienced director (Billy Ray), it contains a central structural flaw in the screenplay that holds it down: it makes the mistake of telling the story from several perspectives, employing an almost anti-"Catch Me If You Can" structure (never revealing the main character's actions as they happen, only showing the impact on others) while at the same time using a highly subjective bookend device which brings us directly into the main character's inner thoughts. The result is slightly uneven, and emotionally less involving than it could have been.
The film begins with celebrated journalist Stephen Glass (pretty-boy actor Hayden Christensen) being proudly introduced by his former high school teacher to her journalism class. Glass espouses his knowledge and journalistic philosophies to wide-eyed and hopeful students.
At this point, Glass is the main character. We are with him; we hear his thoughts through voice-over and learn his philosophies. So far, so good.
But as the second act begins, the perspective changes, and suddenly Adam Penenberg (Steve Zahn, excellent) -- who would ordinarily be the antagonist, the man who exposes our hero Glass -- becomes the main character!
Suddenly we are with Penenberg, hearing his thoughts and actions as he becomes determined to expose the fraudulent Glass. If "The Graduate" had taken this approach, we'd have seen Mr. Robinson plotting his revenge on Benjamin Braddock; if "Easy Rider" had done it, we'd have seen the rednecks planning their ambush before finally killing George Hanson. Thank God level heads (and smart filmmakers) prevailed back then.
We are so distanced from Glass's behavior, in fact, that we don't even know if he's lying about his news sources or not -- though most audiences will guess he is making stuff up due to reviews and trailers for the film. But we are never with him when at the moment of fabrication, and don't quite understand his motives.
As the second act continues, another character, new editor Charles Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) -- initially a secondary character -- becomes more prominent, eventually becoming the true main character. By the end of the film he wins the approval of the employees who once scorned him.
At this point, Hayden Christensen is barely in the film. He has become the opponent -- and not an important one at that.
A less radical shifting of perspectives can sometimes work. "American Beauty" shows the private goings-on of the satellite characters -- but Lester Burnham is always the main focus, the man whose viewpoint is always uppermost in our minds. Most importantly, these scenes never drive the plot, they merely help set it up or enhance it. The secondary characters are never allowed to take center stage, control the action, or reveal more than our hero does.
But throughout most of "Shattered Glass" the supporting cast does just that.
The action is mainly controlled by Zahn and Saarsgard; Glass merely reacts, defending himself, back-peddling. We never see what goes on outside the office except when we cut to Zahn at his place, or Sarsgaard at home trying to figure things out.
All of this might work as kind of a mystery -- leaving the audience to wonder what the hell is going on -- but director Ray begins and ends the film with subjective views of Glass -- and occasionally cuts back to him in the classroom - establishing him as the main character.
The other main problem with the film, in my view, is Hayden Christensen's performance. Christensen continues the same monotonous, infantile,lifeless delivery that completely destroyed "Attack of the Clones" and didn't help "Life as a House." But here he has added something worse: he speaks so hurriedly and slurred, emphasizing the wrong words, breezing over important ones -- that much of his dialogue is incomprehensible (Lucas evidently curbed this mush-mouth tendency, while novice Ray was not smart enough to do so).
Speaking in this trendy, fast-paced manner that many teenagers now favor -- making two-syllable words into one syllable, letting words trail off without enunciating -- is positively disastrous in a movie like this. "Client" and "terror" become one-syllable words; "terrorist" becomes two. "Then you'll help me?" becomes "Thenyulhellme?" By racing through his lines, Christensen not only diffuses the power of the script, he comes off as a mealy-mouthed, James Dean wannabe -- delivery important dialogue like a speed freak with a speech impediment.
Some of Christenson's acting is downright embarrassing, coming off more like a first rehearsal of a soap opera, a script read-through before the acting begins. The awkward dialogue doesn't help. And much annoying soap opera- style character name usage -- a typical problem in a young director's work -- is employed ("What do you think, Caitlin?" "I'm not sure, Amy.") That type of thing.
But Christensen almost makes up for his sins by the end, when he's pushed to the brink and appears ready to fall apart. He shows some potential. If only the great studio voice coaches were still around to teach him how to talk.
Chloe Sevigney and Melanie Lynskey seem to have jumped onto the same speed freak bandwagon as well, while Zahn, Sarsgaard and Hank Azaria and are all, thankfully, normal -- and real actors. All three are excellent, but Sarsgaard stands out in particular. His work is Academy Award worthy; I would be happy to see him a get a nomination.
All in all, not a bad first film. I'm sure a lot of learning was done -- and I look forward to Billy Ray's sophomore effort.