Film and journalism have a symbiotic relationship that is important to the growth of both industries. Since the early days of filmmaking, journalists have studied, criticized and questioned the popularity of the cinematic art form. Films have therefore often portrayed what journalism looks like in practice. There are many types of journalistic films; some are grounded biopics like All the president’s mensome are light-hearted comedies like his girl friday, some are psychological thrillers like Nightcrawlerand some are incredible works of non-fiction stories like Burger four. However, any veteran journalist or lifelong cinephile should do themselves a favor and check out the underrated 2003 movie Broken glass.
Broken glass is based on the incredible true scandal, in which The New Republic reporter Stephen Glass was revealed to be writing fabricated stories for the respected publication. The film explores how Glass’s colleagues increasingly realize he is cheating and consider the future of their jobs, publishing and industry. Hayden Christensen starred as Glass in one of his few major roles outside of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and Peter Sarsgaard received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his role as The New Republic editor Chuck Lane. While Broken glass has unfortunately been somewhat forgotten, it has become more topical than ever before. Its staunch analysis of ethical practices in an era of digital discourse in film makes it one of the greatest journalistic films ever made.
A realistic representation of a working newsroom
Journalism is inherently a form of media that affects more than one person. News stories are being written about public and private figures sparking reactions, and institutions are bound to change based on the nature of the coverage. That is why it is imperative that journalistic films show the process behind green-lighting, writing, double-checking and publishing important stories. Broken glass does this by detailing all members of The New Republic’s writing staff who were influenced by Glass’s lies. Not only does this put their publication in the middle of a public scandal that negatively affects their careers, but it also makes it more challenging for them to reflect on the personal friendship they shared with Glass.
The film shows how Glass was able to use his unusually clumsy behavior to win the news team’s appreciation and sympathy. The suggestion that he may have made mistakes in his reporting is initially met with confusion. There are important scenes dedicated to each character’s point of view. There’s a pivotal moment when a worried Glass reunites with former The New Republic editor Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria); while expecting his former mentor to lend him support, Kelly must instead grapple with fears that some of Glass’s fabrications may have been published during his tenure. The film shows Glass essentially turning the news staff against Lane, whose intent to further unpack his stories is taken as a personal insult.
Broken glass was released in 2003 during a period of growth for internet media. While the prospects of more immersive reporting are exciting, it is also unexplored territory leading to gaps in media literacy. Glass fabricates sources, including a bogus website and bogus phone numbers, to ensure he has notes to back up his claims. At first this doesn’t seem strange to Lane, as he doesn’t know that making a fake website is that easy. The lack of images needed to back up sources also erodes The New Republic’s credibility. Writer and director Billy Ray pays close attention to the fine details to maintain the realism of the film.
It’s common for many older films to now feel old-fashioned because of their misconceptions about the evolution of the Internet. While Independence Day, WarGames, And Hackers are all entertaining movies, they all contain storylines that revolve around the internet that seem laughable by today’s standards. Due to the thorough nature of Broken glass‘s screenplay, it feels like a time capsule of the era it was released in. It is actually a prophetic story in how it explores the need for truthfulness under controversial circumstances.
Hayden Christensen’s best performance
Christensen’s acting achievements have been discussed and scrutinized over the course of his career. Unfortunately, Christensen received a lot of criticism for his performance as Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the clones And Revenge of the Sith; many of these complaints were unfair, as critics decided to blame Christensen for matters for which director George Lucas was responsible. Yet it is impossible to watch Broken glass and are not impressed with his work. Christensen creates a humanized depiction of a man shielding his fragile ego by pretending to be a victim; the frantic excuses Glass makes are heartbreaking at first, but slowly his deceitful nature comes to the attention of both the other characters and the audience.
The film relies on Christensen to change the audience’s point of view. The film both opens and closes with Glass’s inner thoughts, suggesting he is the protagonist of the story. Christensen manages to pull off an initially charismatic performance as a somewhat emotional, but good-natured reporter who is simply in over his head. His subtlety makes the revelations even more shocking. In the film’s incredible ending sequence, it is revealed that the presentation Glass had given to a classroom of students is entirely in his head.
Christensen’s excellence was one of the most praised aspects of the film during its release. Roger Everett praised how he “made Glass’s career credible by being completely plausible himself”, saying that the aspects of his performance that were totally wrong for Attack of the clones worked brilliantly Broken glass. In a glowing review, Variety critic Todd McCarthy said, “Christensen is utterly convincing in expressing the qualities it took Glass to get as far as he did at such a young age.” Hopefully those who previously doubted Christensen will give him more credit after watching Broken glass.