by Moe Zilla

Created on: February 11, 2008   Last Updated: February 09, 2009

"Shattered Glass" tells a true story about journalism - and captures one of its most notorious frauds. Hayden Christensen plays Stephen Glass, a reporter for "The New Republic," who wrote 41 major stories for the magazine in the 1990s - at least 27 of which he'd made up.

Glass urges reporters not to show off in a voiceover which opens the film. He's shown being praised by his former journalism teacher for his success at "The New Republic," and then glimpsed as a well-liked reporter during his first days at the magazine. It's clear that many of the magazine's staff are young, but they're watched over by editor Michael Kelly (played by Hank Azaria). A small error appears in one of Glass's stories, but he apologizes profusely and the editor overlooks it.

But soon Kelly is fired, replaced by a younger editor promoted from the ranks of the writers, and the movie very gradually reveals hints of a growing problem. Stephen's newest story, about hackers, has raised suspicion at a rival online magazine. ("There is one thing in this story that checks out... There does appear to be a state in the union named Nevada.") The source's phone number is in the wrong area code, the corporation's web site is a single web page on AOL.

The movie offers the morbid fascination of watching Stephen's story fall apart. The editor takes Stephen to the alleged location of the story, only to discover a convention hall that was closed when Stephen says it was open. (The restaurant where a key conversation occurred would also have been closed.) Glass apologizes profusely - again - insisting that he didn't do anything wrong.

"I really wish you would stop saying that," his editor replies.

There's two problems with this film. Hayden Christensen plays Glass as a weak and insecure individual. This robs the movie of its real villain, a mistake that's compounded when the movie underplays its real drama. The film's hero should be the young editor who exposes Stephen's dishonesty. But instead he's given only low-key confrontations, two professionals having a disagreement. The film adds tension up by playing up one crucial incident. (On the drive back from the convention center, Glass very nearly gets his editor killed by running through a stop sign.) But it's unable to find a compelling drama to sustain the viewer's interest.

The story does contain one important theme - the way hard journalism is being replaced by flashy stories with colorful anecdotes. This is conveyed by a silent scene in the magazine's lobby, which displays a copy of every past issue. One by one the editor starts removing the issues which have been tainted by the false stories. "He handed us fiction after fiction," the editor warns at the end. "And we printed it as fact, because we found him entertaining. That is indefensible." The movie also reminds viewers that Stephen's first editor, the real Michael Kelly, died in 2003 while covering the invasion of Iraq.

But the lesson isn't entirely learned until the end of the film. I thought the film's most biting observation came in an early scene where the other young journalists watch as Stephen is rewarded with new offers and success for his invented stories. When one journalist is asked whether she'd really want all that fawning attention from editors, she answers immediately.

"Yes."

Learn more about this author, Moe Zilla.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.