Showbits

I get most of my news from the Internet, one of the greatest sources of unfiltered information. Though online news is commonly perceived to have lower standards than print, it is authors and editors, regardless of the medium, that are responsible for a report's veracity. In all my writing and blogging, I try to exhibit the standards I learned in my own background in the publishing industry, so it's disturbing to be reminded that what we find on newsstands offers no inherent credibility, as demonstrated in the film Shattered Glass.

This 2003 film is a dramatic recreation of the scandal that rocked The New Republic — "the in-flight magazine of Air Force One". Despite having such potent influence, the magazine was staffed by a young crew with a median age of only 26. At 24, Stephen Glass was its youngest, yet he was also seemingly TNR's most talented reporter, with a knack for colorful stories, interviews, and first-hand experiences. But when a reporter for Forbes Online tries to follow up on one of Glass' stories, he can't confirm any of the facts… beginning the revelation that Glass had for years been fabricating his articles in part or whole.

There's a hole in the fact-checking system. A big one. The facts in most pieces can be checked against some type of source material. If an article's on, say, ethanol subsidies, you could check for discrepancies against the Congressional Record, trade publications, LexisNexis, and footage from C-SPAN. But on other pieces, the only source material available are the notes provided by the reporter himself.

As disturbing as this fact is and how easily Glass exploited it, the movie is nonetheless a rather simple one. If you read the news in 1998, the back of the DVD package, or this blog, you already know more of the plot than any of the film's characters; watching it is waiting for them to play catch-up. The value comes from watching the struggles between and within the characters as they come to grips with this difficult truth.

Glass himself is played by Hayden Christensen, who initially portrays the protagonist as a likable character with altruistic intentions. "There are so many show-offs in journalism," he narrates. "So many braggarts and jerks … always trying to make themselves look hotter than they actually are. The good news is, reporters like that make it easy to distinguish yourself. If you're even a little bit humble, a little self-effacing or solicitous, you stand out." But as Glass' yarns begin to unweave, he becomes not so much humble as pathetic. Any confrontation begins with him defensively asking, "Are you mad at me?", and we get the sense that this is not an act but the sincere worry of a scared boy fearing rejection and failure. Though the audience may see this transition as a ploy intended to provoke sympathy and avert blame, I think it is, in fact, a genuine portrayal of Glass' character and flaws.

Years later, after Glass had published a novel based on his experiences, he said of his motivation in doing so: "I wanted them to think I was a good journalist, a good person. I wanted them to love the story so they would love me." Given this desperate need for acceptance, I found the part of Glass to be perfectly cast. For those charting Hayden Christensen's progress in playing troubled teenagers, Shattered Glass comes after Life as a House (2001) and Star Wars Episode II (2002) but before Episode III (2005). Whether or not the film calls for such angst, it's a role that suits Christensen well. (Ironically, when I briefly met this actor earlier this year, he stood out for being quiet and humble. I can only hope his reasons for being so are not the same as Glass'!)

Peter Sarsgaard plays Christensen's editor, Chuck Lane, a newly-appointed editor-in-chief who at first comes across as inept and disliked. But as the film progresses, it becomes more about this character and the crucible he faces. Lane inherited more than he expected when he assumed TNR's helm, and if Shattered Glass is any indication, he weathered it well. What the film doesn't detail is that his predecessor, Michael Kelly (played by Hank Azaria), was editor for only a year when he was fired, and Lane himself met a similar fate for not having caught Glass' indiscretions earlier. It's poetic that a magazine of politics would have its own, no?

Shattered Glass is a fairly accurate and disturbing historical recounting. Beyond that, what you take away from it is up to you. Is such fabrication a regular practice of journalism, and Glass was simply the first to be caught? Should he be praised for revealing a hole in the system and teaching Americans to be cynical of the press? Have editors learned to distrust its staff, preventing such debacles from recurring?

These are all good questions — and if we've learned anything from this experience, it's that we must come to our own conclusions.

A new Star Wars movie used to be a thrice-in-a-generation event. This summer's The Clone Wars has broken that tradition, and no one seems too happy about it. With only a 20% rating on aggregate review site Rotten Tomatoes. It continues a trend of anti-Star Wars sentiment that began in 1999 when young Anakin Skywalker first debuted as a podracing slave who, with a battle cry of "Yahoo!", miraculously saved the day.

I've not seen George Lucas' new animated entry into this storied series, but I do wish to take exception with those who suggest it's the fourth consecutive instance of the distant galaxy's creator flushing the franchise down the drain. Sure, the bar was set high, with Episodes IV and V earning an average rating of 96%, again on Rotten Tomatoes. But Return of the Jedi sunk to 74%, which provides good company for the three prequels, which garnered 63%, 66%, and 79%, respectively.

Even without comparing the prequels to their older siblings, there's still much to like. I won't dispute the obvious, like Jar-Jar's presence making light of a trilogy that, by its very subject matter, should be dark. But too often, the hate that is harped on these brilliant examples of all that is wrong with Star Wars overpowers the moments that truly shine.

Take Attack of the Clones which ends with a battle that's worth the previous two hours. Before then, we'd only ever known the galaxy's oldest Jedi as a shriveled Muppet on his death bed. Here, we learn Yoda is a force (no pun intended) to be reckoned with on so many levels.

That is one of only several jaw-dropping lightsaber battles to grace the trilogy. Whereas Jedi were scarce in the original films, Episodes I-III brought them out en masse. The Phantom Menace gave us the excellent music and choreography of "Duel of the Fates". Not only was the battle set to a song I always wished to be in the choir for, but it was the first battle against a prequel-exclusive Sith lord — and one equipped with a heretofore-unknown variation on the light saber! Now that's how to kick it up a notch.

Compared to that single struggle, Revenge of the Sith was a smorgasbord of skirmishes, with at least five lightsaber battles among the greatest heroes and villains of the entire six-episode epic. In the prequel's conclusion, not only had Anakin Skywalker grown up, but so had Hayden Christensen, with a portrayal of young Vader that was less whiny and more ambitious than we'd previously seen. It makes his perfect manipulation at the hands of Darth Sidious all the more painful to watch. Watching Revenge of the Sith was like watching Titanic: a tragedy that you knew couldn't be averted, but you hoped would nonetheless be derailed and fail to play out. I took me days to realize the extent of Palpatine's machinations, and at least a week to recover from my depression over his success. I mentioned this to a friend of mine, who laughed, saying he'd never considered the possibility that someone could be depressed over a movie. But taken in the larger context of what these three movies did to the Star Wars universe and the stage they set for Episodes IV-VI, I can conceive of no other response. To this day, I can't bring myself to endure that experience again.

We've already commemorated the impact made by the original trilogy's simple yet stellar tale of good vs. evil. The prequels are more complex, in where they were coming from, where they had to get to, and audience reception and interpretation. I submit that among those variables are many kernels of quality. Another site offers 11 concrete reasons for that supposition; I encourage you to rewatch the films and come up with your own.

(Hat tip to TheForce.net)

Tomorrow sees the release of Jumper, a movie about a young man (Hayden Christensen) who can instantly teleport to anywhere on the planet. He soon discovers this power puts him in the middle of two warring factions: people like him, known as Jumpers; and the Paladin organization, represented by Samuel L. Jackson, who believes Jumpers are a threat and must be destroyed.

Jackson must not have researched his quantum physics, as otherwise he'd know that teleportation inherently involves the act of destruction. It was one of many lessons recently learned at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when Christensen and Jumper director Doug Liman joined two MIT professors on a panel examining the science of teleportation. The presenters attempted to bridge not only fantasy and reality, but also the smart and the savvy. Though Christensen seemed out-of-place on such a cerebral panel, his presence drew a crowd to an evening of high-level science made fun and easy to understand.

Read the rest of this entry at Computerworld.com »

When a movie, show, or franchise is successful, it not only spawns cheap imitators, but also encourages the funding and development of similar properties and adaptations. Without the success of Spider-Man and X-Men, we'd likely not have Heroes, for example. Observe RiffTrax's description of that show:

Imagine, just imagine, if ordinary citizens suddenly began to discover that they have acquired extraordinary powers. Why, you would have X-Men. But imagine if instead of acquiring X-Men-like powers of healing, time travel, mind control and the ability to fly these people instead had those powers but weren't X-Men! Why, then you'd have the very un-X-Men-like Heroes! Follow the exploits of Claire, Hiro, Peter, Logan, Scott Summers, and Jean Grey as they struggle to come to grips with powers that are so obviously not modeled after X-Men.

You need not be that cynical about new properties, regardless of their influences; nothing exists in a vacuum, after all. So while superheroes are currently en vogue, I'm nonetheless excited about Jumper, starring Hayden Christensen as a Nightcrawleresque ne'er-do-well and Samuel L. Jackson as the man who hunts him. (If a lightsaber's involved, this pairing cannot end well.) Based on Steven Gould's 1992 novel of the same name, this film's trailer is now available (tip of the hat to TheForce.net):

Most everyone wishes for superpowers, but I think it's in one's youth that the need for uniqueness, power, and escape is most powerful. So to see two young men with the most alluring of Star Trek's magics — teleportation — will have me first in line for this film's release on February 15th. Sure, Hayden Christensen did Star Wars: Episode II few favors as Anakin, but his performance in the sequel and in Life as a House have redeemed him in my eyes. And for those still carrying a grudge — well, here's your chance to see him disappear. :-)