Finding truth in the story of disgraced reporter proved challenging to makers of ‘Shattered Glass’
The New York Times’ Jayson Blair may have gotten more publicity (and done more damage to his now-resigned editors). But when it comes to fabricating journalists, Stephen Glass set the low standard.
A young reporter for the small but influential Washington policy magazine The New Republic, Glass invented, either in part or entirely, 27 of 41 articles he wrote for the publication in the mid-1990s, as well as freelance pieces for George, Harper’s and Rolling Stone.
He was caught in 1998, after reporters for the now-gone online site Forbes Digital Tool began investigating a fantastic piece Glass had written about a teenage computer hacker. Basically discovering that not a single fact in the story checked out, the Forbes people contacted TNR editor Charles Lane.
Already resented by much of his youthful staff for recently replacing the beloved, nurturing Michael Kelly (who, having gone on to the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly, died while covering the invasion of Iraq earlier this year), the recently appointed Lane had to uncover the extent of the popular Glass’ fraud before his venerable magazine’s reputation was irrecoverably damaged.
OK, not exactly what you’d call gripping movie material. But “Shattered Glass’ somehow manages to present the arcane ins-and-outs of journalistic ethics clearly while unfolding as a kind of nail-biting moral mystery.
“I was initially interested by the world it was set in,’ explains Billy Ray, a veteran screenwriter (“Hart’s War,’ “Volcano’) who makes his directing debut with “Shattered Glass.’ “I am fascinated by the process of journalism and by the ethics of journalism. I grew up in one of those houses where (Washington Post reporters) Woodward and Bernstein were heroes. That notion of journalists as defenders of the right and pursuers of the truth was a very real idea when I was growing up. I believed in it and I still do. But to see what has happened to the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein, how it’s been watered down and turned on its head, I felt, was worth looking at.’
But as Peter Sarsgaard, who plays Lane to Hayden Christensen’s Glass in the movie, notes, popcorn-addled movie audiences’ tastes have changed since Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman played the Watergate-investigating journalists in “All the President’s Men’ more than a quarter-century ago. And whatever Glass’ ethical infractions may have been, they were hardly on the level of a presidency-ending Constitutional crisis.
“To me, it’s an important issue, and the form of the movie is meant to help people swallow it,’ Sarsgaard says of journalistic reliability. “A very dry version of this movie could have been made and, I think, not too many people would have seen it. So, I think, Billy did create a pacing that made it the watchable movie that it is.’
Vader to prevaricator
Ray got lucky in that effort by having already written a screenplay on a subject that rising star Christensen — who plays Anakin Skywalker, the future Darth Vader, in the “Star Wars’ prequels — was passionately interested in. With his brother and producing partner Tove Christensen, Hayden had become intrigued by a Vanity Fair article about Glass that Ray had already used as the basis for his screenplay. Forces were soon joined.
“Every actor wants to play a con; it’s just a fun part to sink your teeth into,’ Christensen admits. “And Stephen is a rather eccentric one.’
As well as, of course, a disgraced one who wanted nothing to do with the production.
“We made several attempts’ to secure Glass’ cooperation, Christensen reports. “Obviously, it would’ve been an easier film to make had we had his involvement. But, understandably so, he wasn’t too keen on being a part of it. That was actually quite freeing from my perspective, because my Stephen Glass never had to be an impersonation.’
It did, however, increase the difficulty of Ray’s effort to make “Shattered Glass’ as journalistically plausible as a dramatized movie could be. While admitting that some series of events were telescoped for clarity’s sake and some characters composited in order to protect sources still working at The New Republic, Ray tried extraordinarily hard to stick to the facts of the case as best he could confirm them.
“The idea was to apply the standards of journalism to this movie, meaning that I couldn’t put anything in the movie that I couldn’t verify,’ says Ray, who checked with multiple sources on every aspect of the script that he possibly could. “That, of course, required a certain amount of discipline on everybody’s part, but we lived by it.’
Not that Ray’s bragging about that — as, say, Glass might have about a bogus story pitch that elicited laughs and applause from amused colleagues.
“We applied a certain level of rigor to the storytelling because we wanted to stick to the truth,’ the filmmaker acknowledges. “But we had a great story, and all I had to do was get out of its way. Would I have had that same level of integrity if the story were just average? I don’t know. But this is a fantastic story, and I consider Stephen Glass to be its author more than me.’
By necessity, however, Christensen had to be the author of the film’s Stephen Glass. Ray is well aware that the most consistent criticism “Shattered Glass’ has been receiving is that it doesn’t explain why a bright, talented writer like Glass lied his way to the top of a profession that fundamentally demands fidelity to the truth. But without even the unreliable Glass’ explanation of what was going on in his head at the time, Ray reckons any such exposition would be pure speculation — precisely what he’d vowed to keep out of the film.
“We could never get into intent, which I think makes it an interesting film: to show something but never say why,’ Christensen notes. “But just because we couldn’t show in our film why he did it, I still had to come up with my own motivation for myself, in order to play the part.
“A lot of it was stemming from the pressure that he felt from his family. Then, what seemed to be inherent was this overeagerness to succeed that he had, this desire for the spotlight that would sort of cement for his family members who were questioning his line of work, that this is where he belonged. He let his ambitions get the better of him.’
Trying to be true to this compulsive liar was one of the hardest roles the 22-year-old actor ever played.
“As an actor, you try to connect with something that’s honest and real, and I knew that I was pitching a lie in almost every scene,’ Christensen explains. “The way he sort of got everyone to put their guards down was by being this really entertaining guy who people were drawn to. But it was a difficult thing to feel confident doing, to go to work and, within this character, lie through my teeth every day. That doesn’t make for a confident portrayal, which was obviously necessary for the work. Hence, the progression of insecurities and paranoia that Stephen displays was all pretty genuine, for the most part.’
On deep background
Sarsgaard, on the other hand, could have had all the access that he wanted to Lane, who now works at The Washington Post. But didn’t want too much of it.
“I’ve played real people a number of times, and I usually spend very little time talking to them, ‘ Sarsgaard — who has indeed done such deeds in “Boys Don’t Cry’ and “Dead Man Walking’ — says subjects have a natural tendency to present themselves in the most flattering possible light. “Everyone does that; it’s the first thing you notice when you go to someone you’re playing. If you’re playing the murderer, they’ll say they didn’t do it and they talk about how much they love their family.
“People will say that it’s too bad we couldn’t get Stephen Glass to cooperate, but y’know, he’s not a very trustworthy guy. I would say that if Hayden had had the opportunity to do that, he probably would have learned a lot, but he would have had to have been really, really perceptive and sit down with him in person.’
Sarsgaard spoke to Lane on the phone a few times before production. He has since hung out with the journalist at some length while they’ve both been promoting “Shattered Glass.’
“He said I was too good-looking,’ Sarsgaard chuckles when asked if Lane has criticized his portrayal. “He’s been very, very cool and diplomatic.’
Though the two former TNR editors were often the only sources for some scenes, Ray believes what they told him.
“You get to know somebody and you get a sense for their level of integrity,’ the filmmaker says. “With these two guys, the level was high. Even people who don’t like Chuck thought that he acquitted himself magnificently during this crisis, so that felt very clean to me. And the thing with Kelly was, he never tried to make himself sound better than he actually was. He always admitted to being the editor who had been duped.’
The “Shattered Glass’ experience appears to have reinforced Ray’s faith that, at least in some reporters, journalistic ethics are as strong as they’ve ever been. Still, he can’t help acknowledging the irony of his film coming out while Blair and Glass (who is trying to push a recently published, fictionalized account of a fabricating journalist) are still making news.
“It’s one of those things I feel ambivalent about because it’s sad for America but good for the movie,’ Ray says of any spillover publicity. “But I can live with it on those terms.’
Source: Bob Strauss
Popularity: 3% [?]
