How credible is the news?
Shattered Glass is a film based on the true story of former journalist, Stephen Glass. He was a rising star of an influential American publication, called The New Republic (TNR). It was discovered that he fabricated most, if not all of his articles. The film details the downfall of his career.
Our Intro to Media lecturer, Miss Zihan, showed us the film last Thursday. We had been learning about news writing earlier, so this was to be an example of bad journalism. What interested me the most was Hayden Christensen's portrayal of Glass.
After 10 or so minutes, I found Glass to be, for lack of a better word, creepy. Before watching, we were only given a brief synopsis. I assumed that Glass would be a slick, convincing Neal Caffrey-like character, since he did manage to dupe an entire publication for years.
The film starts with Glass addressing a roomful of students at his old high school. His former teacher proudly gushes about his achievements while the students stare in admiration. As he recounts his experience with TNR, the viewers are shown flashbacks of the investigation.
This is where it started to confuse me. The flashbacks showed him getting fired by his editor, but why was he still introduced as a star reporter at his old school?
It was finally revealed that the classroom scene was a figment of his imagination. In the aftermath of the scandal, he was actually in a meeting with his lawyer, and his former editors. The final scene was of him dealing with the legal ramifications of his actions.
Even till the end of the film, Glass still hasn't stopped lying. His pathological symptoms makes me wonder if the flashbacks were also seen from his point of view.
Yes, he was caught in the end, but he was portrayed as an emotionally fragile and awkward young man. Some viewers that seek to sympathize with his character may justify his actions by pointing out the parental pressure he was facing.
But I disagree. He didn't fabricate one article, he fabricated DOZENS. He could've voluntarily resigned before getting caught. In fact, if he was good enough to pass off believable fiction, why didn't he work for the literary section of the New Yorker? Amusingly enough, Glass has written a fictional novel after the TNR scandal.
What's the story about? A young journalist who fabricates his articles for the advancement of his career.
This is where it started to confuse me. The flashbacks showed him getting fired by his editor, but why was he still introduced as a star reporter at his old school?
It was finally revealed that the classroom scene was a figment of his imagination. In the aftermath of the scandal, he was actually in a meeting with his lawyer, and his former editors. The final scene was of him dealing with the legal ramifications of his actions.
Even till the end of the film, Glass still hasn't stopped lying. His pathological symptoms makes me wonder if the flashbacks were also seen from his point of view.
Yes, he was caught in the end, but he was portrayed as an emotionally fragile and awkward young man. Some viewers that seek to sympathize with his character may justify his actions by pointing out the parental pressure he was facing.
But I disagree. He didn't fabricate one article, he fabricated DOZENS. He could've voluntarily resigned before getting caught. In fact, if he was good enough to pass off believable fiction, why didn't he work for the literary section of the New Yorker? Amusingly enough, Glass has written a fictional novel after the TNR scandal.
What's the story about? A young journalist who fabricates his articles for the advancement of his career.
No comments:
Post a Comment