New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 435326" data-attributes="member: 23">Shattered Glass (2003) <img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.web.img3.acsta.net%2Fmedias%2Fnmedia%2F18%2F92%2F92%2F15%2F20225275.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=eaa963833ea9134667c4af44b4370037b0a20868f34356bf095b11daa05298fc" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Prime's solicit synopsis - presumably assuming the story be common knowledge - wasn't exactly subtle or spoiler-free, so I knew what this was about despite none of it being familiar to me. Not the film. Nor the events that inspired it. Nor even the publication in question (beyond perhaps hearing or seeing the name mentioned once or twice). This could have gone either way.Fortunately, familiarity isn't required. I'd go further and say I almost wish I hadn't read anything about it beforehand. Still, though, it was fascinating to watch it unfold because of the way in which the film is constructed. I wouldn't say this is linear storytelling. There's a degree of flashing backwards or forwards, and by its very nature the key narrator is unreliable. Which is exactly why the story was worth telling.It was no surprise this morning to read that the writer/director had screened All The President's Men for cast and crew immediately before commencing filming. I didn't consciously pick up on parallels with this film (even though I now realise they are glaring, especially considering each is an account of a then-still-very-recent controversy), but as I watched I did liken it to Fincher's Zodiac: another film which owes its style to to All The President's Men (oh - I've just realised Shattered Glass was some four years before Zodiac, which makes this film still more impressively pioneering in its scope). There were other films that sprang to mind as I watched. American Psycho was another due to the unreliable narrator element, and a key character unfolding before one's eyes...  even Chloë Sevigny is here, once again playing confidante and loyal supporter of the unstable key character.On that note, the cast is terrific. I was sold upon seeing Chloë's name along with Steve Zahn, since I find they invariably choose interesting characters and projects. Steve plays a fact-checker who is stumped when he can't find sources, and it becomes part of this intense chess game with numerous players all making different moves. [MEDIA=youtube]NRiCxUA5d1o[/MEDIA] With Hayden Christensen's performance I felt torn. He's playing a real person, who I've never seen or heard, so it's difficult to know how accurate it is. He played him rather childlike and borderline whiny and monotone. It's also the least-nuanced performance. This morning  I realised Hayden would have been perhaps twenty one here. He's interacting with experienced performers of whom he is generally the youngest, so it's a big ask. This morning, with the film still resonating, even though I still suspect other young actors may have played it differently - and probably better - I find myself feeling it might just be a better performance than I realisedThe actors who did grab my attention as I watched were Hank Azaria and Peter Sarsgaard, both of whom were terrific. I've seen Hank in a couple of things, I think, but mostly associate his name with The Simpsons. It's a treat to see him turning in such a nice performance. His energy and charisma reminded me of RDJ at his best, which is no bad thing. Meanwhile, writer-director Billy Ray has said that the film really started working for him when he realised that Sarsgaard's character was the film's real protagonist, and it's a very satisfying journey to see him emerge almost from the background to become one of the most exciting and dynamic things in the film. The scene at the end in which he arrives to face his staff was unexpectedly powerful and moving because of how it was presented and because the film had sneaked up on me and won my investment without me fully realising.I suppose this is a film about trust and belief, and the response to the betrayal of these. It's explored here in as fascinating a way as I've ever seen . The investigative element is riveting, with the characters so well-developed that even the most prosaic of moments becomes compelling. [MEDIA=youtube]czlGgwViz_o[/MEDIA]</blockquote>

Verification: Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?