Shattered Glass (2003, 2004)

Shattered Glass is a historical and biographical drama (based on a true story) about the rise and fall of Stephen Glass, who was an investigative reporter at The New Republic, until he was exposed as a fraud who had fabricated several articles written for TNR and other prominent publications. Here is some basic information about this drama which premiered in 2003:

** Written and directed by Billy Ray
** Based on an article by H. G. Bissinger published in Vanity Fair (September 1998)
** Released on DVD: 2004
** Run time: 94 minutes

The cast includes the following:

** Hayden Christensen as Stephen Glass – reporter, TNR

** Peter Sarsgaard as Charles “Chuck” Lane – TNR, editor # 2

** Melanie Lynskey as Amy Brand – reporter, TNR

** Chloe Sevigny as Caitlin Avey – reporter, TNR (a fictional character)

** Hank Azaria as Michael Kelly (1957-2003) – TNR, editor # 1

** Ted Kotcheff as Martin Peretz – the owner of TNR

** Steve Zahn as Adam Penenberg – a reporter who exposes Glass

** Rosario Dawson as Andy Fox – a reporter who works with Adam

Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore I feel free to mention some of them in this review.

While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here, but the basic story is true.

The year is 1998. The place is New York. Stephen Glass is an investigative reporter at The New Republic, a monthly magazine what was founded in 1914. He is a young man. At TNR he is quite popular. The editors of other prominent publications want to talk to him. He is a rising star.

Then one day, something begins to go wrong. Adam Penenberg, who works for an online magazine, is asked by his editor to look into a story about hackers written by Glass in TNR. When Penenberg tries to verify the basic facts of Glass’s story, he is puzzled.

The deeper he digs, the stranger it gets. It seems the persons mentioned in the story do not exist! It seems the main event mentioned in the article never happened! Penenberg becomes convinced that Glass must have invented the whole thing.

He contacts the editor of TNR, who contacts Glass. At first, Glass stands by his story. When pressured, he admits that he may have made one or two mistakes. Step by step the truth is revealed, until we reach the inescapable conclusion: Glass made up the whole thing!

In this drama we follow the painful process. We see how Glass responds. We also see how the people around him respond: his colleagues; and his editor. At first, they support him, because they trust him. They cannot believe he would do anything wrong. Later, they become skeptical. In the end, they have to face the horrible truth, even though they still cannot believe it.

A careful investigation of all articles written by Glass in TNR comes to the following conclusion: 27 of 41 articles were fabricated in whole or in part.

The drama also raises the question: how could this happen? Submissions are checked before they are published. How could so many lies slip through the net so many times?

The first answer is that Glass was clever and convincing. The second answer is that the fact checkers were rather careless. The third answer is that TNR at the time had a policy which said no photos in the magazine. If a story must be illustrated by photographs, it is much more difficult to write about persons who do not exist and events that never happened.

But there is a loophole here. Sometimes a reporter must use and quote an anonymous source. This source cannot be identified by name; this source cannot be shown in a photo.

As Glass explains in a meeting with students from his old high school: sometimes the only evidence is the reporter’s handwritten notes. And in such notes anything can be written. The facts listed in such notes cannot be verified. All we have is the reporter’s word. Can the reporter be trusted? Maybe, maybe not.

What do reviewers say about this historical drama? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 72 per cent = IMDb = 3.6 stars on Amazon
** 73 per cent = Metacritic = 3.7 stars on Amazon
** 91 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes = 4.6 stars on Amazon

If you ask me, the average ratings of IMDb and Metacritic are a bit too low, while the average rating of Rotten Tomatoes is a bit too high. This movie is good, but not great. It has a very short time frame: events in 1998; and only that. Nothing before; and nothing after. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS # 1. Stephen Glass later wrote a novel based on (or inspired by) his own case: The Fabulist. It was published in 2003. A paperback version appeared in 2014.

PS # 2. A somewhat similar case happened at the New York Times in 2003: a young reporter (Jayson Thomas Blair, born 1976) resigned from the paper after he had been accused of plagiarism. For details about this case, see the documentary film: A Fragile Trust: Plagiarism, Power, and Jayson Blair at the New York Times (2013).

PS # 3. A somewhat similar case happened at the Washington Post in 1980-1981: a young reporter (Janet Cooke) wrote a story about a boy who was addicted to heroin. Her story was published in 1980. In 1981 it won the Pulitzer Prize. Shortly after the award was announced, it was discovered that the story was the product of the reporter's vivid imagination.

PS # 4. Billy Ray is the director of the historical drama Breach, which premiered in 2007.

*****