. . . to watch the DVD of Shattered Glass. I remember hearing the movie discussed in my publishing group when it first came out, though when the original scandal broke I was helping Attila the Hub with his indie comedy, and I only heard the story in snippets, without looking into it much.

Naturally, when Jayson Blair was exposed, it renewed interest in the Stephen Glass saga because of the overlap in the two situations.

Overall, it was very nicely done. Naturally, I was torn up to watch Michael Kelly portrayed on film; afterward, the husband and I started swapping quotes from our favorite Michael Kelly columns (his: the parody of Al Gore's childhood, spent splitting rails in the farm on the top floor of a five-star hotel in Washington, D.C.; mine: the piece about the chilling effect the Bush Administration was having on free speech, that ends up as a laundry list of political voices in this country—from mainstream papers through niche publications and on down to the blogs that were just becoming popular at that time).

This flick explains how Hayden Christensen ended up playing Darth Vader. Not very well, of course: it's like getting the guy who portrayed a terrific Judas taking on the part of Satan. Wrong freakin' fall from grace, guys. For the Star Wars prequels, more of an epic feel was needed. (Although with Lucas' dialogue, it might not have made much of a difference to get the right actor in that role: it was sort of Dick and Jane in the Eternal Struggle Between Good and Evil. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

But, Shattered Glass. Depressing, of course, on a certain level. There are magazines I worked at where one might be able to get by with some fabrication (though perhaps not the level Glass managed), and magazines where one definitely couldn't. Hint: the process is more rigorous at publications that have research departments, versus those that simply direct the copy editors to work overtime, verifying the spellings of proper nouns and checking on people's titles.

I've worked at magazines wherein the only things that really got checked were the sidebars that had contact information for companies and organizations. After all, it's important that advertisers be able to sell things to the readers. Who do you think pays for all those glossy pictures? And that (usually crappy) coated stock they're printed on? Four-color photography doesn't grow on trees, you know. (At least, it didn't before the internet became ubiquitous.)

Can't we all just be honest, here? A lot of magazines are just picture books for older kids (kids in their 30s/40s/50s/60s, a lot of the time). The actual text doesn't get the attention it deserves because visually driven editors can't convince themselves—deep down—that anyone actually reads this stuff. They figure that at most it gets skimmed. What are a few typos and awkward phrases between friends?

But Shattered Glass isn't about journalistic ethics. Nor is it about partying at CPAC, though it was nice to see how creative that old libel was—and how stale the stereotypes were of young conservatives in "Spring Breakdown." (It turns out they're sexists! Imagine! I'm still looking for a version of that story online; if anyone is in journalism class and knows where to find it, let me know. The snippets I've seen quoted are hilarious.)

The whole tale is a tragedy, and Christensen shows us a con man who exploits his youthful looks as part of his act. But Peter Sarsgaard really steals the movie. He's something special, and I wish I were willing to see Jarhead in order to watch him develop as an actor. I'm not, of course.

The movie is about what happens in the human soul when it isolates itself. It's how a person might behave—did behave—when he becomes addicted to the adulation and approval of others. And we're all capable of this: placing the need for strokes above the need to make true connections.

Everyone has to come out of the cave sometime. Try it—and leave your ego inside, okay?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 697 words, total size 4 kb.

Don't dick around with Oprah, either.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . because they're silly people, for the most part. But this really crosses a line.

Via Dean, who warns against Christians getting too smug.

I wouldn't, actually. Not after some of the, um, heated arguments between (for example) Catholics and Protestants over the years. Or that small matter of the Crusades.

Paging Graham Nash. Aha! Found him.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Attila the Hub and I finally went to see it yesterday. I'm afraid I can't judge the effects as well as I'd like: the bandage under my nose kept sending my breath up to fog my glasses. I did think I saw a few scenes where the lion appeared distinct from the rest of the scene--and therefore a smidge less real--but I could well be mistaken, and in reality it was a beautiful movie, very nicely done. (Also: we saw it at a second-run movie house, and I thought perhaps the focus wasn't perfect. But with fogged-up glasses, I was in no position to judge.)

I'm shocked that it got made because: 1) that makes the third high-budget, effects-dependent adaptation of popular books that the studios executives haven't managed to screw up and 2) the Christian overtones are so obvious. In fact, it was a very well-done evangelical movie. Nothing wrong with that, but it was startling to see it done so well. Would this film have attracted the appropriate level of capital if Mel Gibson hadn't cleaned up so handsomely with The Passion of the Christ?

It's hard to know. But I see an underground backlash occurring against the blandness and amorality of a lot of what's being produced. Even The Incredibles was a stunning piece of propaganda for family stability and healthy household interactions, and I begin to hope that the Hollywood Resistance will win out over the amiable idiocy that prevails right now.

More, perhaps, after I read the actual reviews (I try to avoid reviews before I see a movie, so I can go in as "cold" as possible). Or, perhaps, after re-reading the first volume of The Chronicles of Narnia. With the Harry Potter series, I haven't been able to be objective since the films are only a few years behind the books, and I've read all of them at least 2-3 times (with the exception of the last volume, which I've only read once). The Lord of the Rings was different: I hadn't read the books since childhood, and felt that I should hold off and therefore have more objectivity about the movies. With the Narnia series, I think I'll read each of them after its respective movie comes out.

My favorite quotation about the Narnia books comes from one of Michael Medved's kids. The way Medved tells the story, one of his daughters began taking classes on the Bible in college, and reported back to him excitedly that "the gospels are a lot like the Narnia books."

Well. They are.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.