by denzel nyathi
In the 1990s, Stephen Glass shook the journalism industry with the news of his fabricating 27 out of his 41 stories he wrote for the New Republic. In 2003, Billy Ray took it upon himself to direct biopic “Shattered Glass”, starring the acclaimed Hayden Christensen as Stephen Glass.
In the film, Stephen’s image consistently shifts in the eyes of his editors, colleagues, the general public and most significantly: us, as the viewers.
Amongst crystal clear cinematic sequences, Ray manages to blur the truth for 99 minutes. But contrary to the very discipline of journalism and even the art of making biopics, the question is raised: how important is the truth anyway? Prior to the ending of the film, Stephen is certainly a gem at the heart of the New Republic. He is loved for his quirky and friendly nature in the workplace. His innocent nature is protected by his editors for his (assumed) naïve nature. His stories are happily consumed and discussed by the general public for their homely yet shocking quality. When one man is all this and a liar, what is the latter fact in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps his only mistake was contributions to a field which did not appreciate his craft.
This is only a “perhaps”. I don’t suggest we throw ethics to the wind entirely. In times such as these, where “fake news” threatens to delegitimize the entire discipline of journalism, fabrication of facts is nothing short of dangerous for producers and consumers alike. This is especially in relation to politics and other more serious topics. But again, who is to determine what is “serious” and what is not? Where can we have Stephens running around telling little white lies (or 27 of them) and where can’t we?
It’s a pretty messy business when we begin to pardon lies. I would be lying if I were to say the film is perfect. While the relationship between Chuck Lanes (the final editor of the New Republic in the end) and Stephen Glass was explored in beautiful depth, the other relationships can hardly claim to be developed. At best, Glass’ relationship with Caitlin Avey (played by Chloe Sevingy) was pubescent in its development. Yet the director attempted to frame the relationship as a pivotal one to the film. It’s as if an unsolvable discourse existed between the director and the writer and they eventually just went on to release the film, concluding the discourse with an amicable “agree to disagree” philosophy. Lest we get into the entirely unexplored relationship between Stephen and his accomplice brother, which was ever so briefly mentioned.
But at the root of it, one thing was agreed upon by scriptwriters and director: Stephen’s relationship to the viewers is the most important. At no stage is Stephen ever truly unlikable. In fact, he’s far from it. He’s the poison you pick, knowing that he’s presenting himself as the water you need.
Gulp.
Rating: 8/10
periodt.
Comments