‘Shattered Glass’ breaks down, ‘Love Actually’ not really

ANDREW NGUYEN

‘Glass’ only deals with pieces of the true story

Five years and a Jayson Blair scandal later arrives the tell-all

movie describing how a 24-year-old from the University of

Pennsylvania duped the famous political magazine, the New Republic.

While the Blair incident introduced themes of race and workplace

affirmative action into public discourse, the Stephen Glass affair in

1998 asked some equally important questions still pertinent today:

i.e., did the public’s appetite for salacious journalism allow

editors to overlook the dubious gaps and criticism surrounding

Glass’s “human interest” stories?

While “Shattered Glass” paints an interesting picture of the

events that led to Glass’s downfall, it chooses only to partially

address the wider problem of a media and public more fond of

sensationalism than noteworthy journalism. Fortunately, there are

good performances by Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard, (the

former playing Glass, and the latter playing Chuck Lane, his editor)

which translates nicely into on-screen tension -- a delight for those

who didn’t read about the real life drama in newspapers during the

post-Lewinsky era.

“Shattered Glass” begins at the height of Glass’s days at the New

Republic, where the young writer loafs around the office in his

socks, schmoozing with bosses and flattering co-workers. Christensen,

whose acting in “Attack of the Clones” and “Life as a House” ranged

from whiney to more whiney, nails a character who is charismatic but

extremely needy and acquiescent to authority -- which helps to

explain why Glass does what he does.

Sarsgaard is equally good in his role, although his heroic

posturing at the movie’s end seems all too forced. As we all know

now, there was a lot more than two or three incidents in which

Glass’s pieces were questioned or criticized. Beside this point, the

movie keenly depicts a way of life for journalism school graduates in

which writers are literally at each other’s throats to get their

byline in, so much so that a real story on a Latin American country

cannot compete with a fabricated one on the “Big Bad Bionic Boy.”

Although these scenes suggest a wider range of culpability for Glass’

journalistic offenses, the ending ultimately displeases with a much

lesser assignment of blame.

Despite the crude approach toward a weak ending, “Shattered Glass”

is still an entertaining ride through the competitive and fast-paced

world of journalism. Moreover, it provides an illuminating look at

what lies behind the political corridors of a mainstream political

publication. Indeed, with stories like the sex bracelets displacing

news of events in the Mideast and elsewhere, we’d all be smarter

knowing one reason why journalistic fraud occurs in the first place.

* ANDREW NGUYEN is a freelance writer living in Costa Mesa.

‘Love Actually’ not actually a good film

“Love Actually” should be a good movie. The script was written by

Richard Curtis, who also wrote the scripts for “Four Weddings and a

Funeral” and “Notting Hill.” The cast is filled with talented actors

such as Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Laura Linney, Hugh

Grant and Colin Firth.

The main theme is the wonderful idea that the world is full of all

kinds of love and affection between people. Unfortunately, “Love

Actually” is a regrettably bad film. There is a lot of crudeness in

the film that is unnecessary and actually detracts from some of the

better story lines.

Another problem is that there are just too many stories and

characters for one film. There are several weak secondary subplots

that do not add to the film and could have been edited out, such as

one about an English guy who travels to Wisconsin because he believes

the U.S. is filled with beautiful women who are easily seduced by an

English accent.

If Curtis, who also directed “Love Actually,” had removed these

useless distractions, he could have added more depth to the primary

plots. The failure of “Love Actually” is especially sad because the

main story lines could have been made into a good, enjoyable romantic

comedy.

The new prime minister (Grant) falls in love with the woman who

brings him tea (Martine McCutcheon). A widower (Neeson) grieving the

loss of his wife helps his young stepson with his first crush. A

married couple (Thompson and Rickman) with children go through a

midlife crisis. Each of these plots had its bright or touching

moments and could have used a little more time to develop fully.

Watching a bad movie is just a waste of time. Watching a bad movie

that had the potential to be a really good movie, like “Love

Actually,” is a waste of time and a sad disappointment.

* TRICIA BEHLE lives in Newport Beach and works as a software

validator.