For this story, the film version did a better job than the written version of telling the story in an accurate and effective way. The entire story of Stephen Glass was that of deception and manipulation from start to finish. The article was able to relay the facts of the story and allow for some insight into the characters through quotes or first hand accounts but by seeing the actions done and being able to judge the characters visually the real story is layed out for the viewers. One scene that comes to mind as really visually this concept was when Chuck Lane and Stephen Glass were out investigating one of Glass’ stories. Lane became suspicious of Glass and wanted to see where a particular conference that was in question took place. In the …show more content…
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Glass over and over. “I didn’t do anything wrong.” (9). In the article this was glazed over slightly as being one of the fall backs that Glass used constantly, but in the film version it was completely different. Instead these phrases held deeper meaning with the character because of the characters portrayal. Glass constantly made others feel sympathetic towards himself, “Are you mad at me?” That was something Glass said incessantly (8). Glass’ story never faltered in this scene even after being found out which was once again less impactful in the article whereas in the film the viewer was able to see the level of control Glass really had over the situation. Being able to see the characters walking around the lobby or walking next door was more suspenseful and attention grabbing compared to when it was read. The visual element the film provides to the dialogue enhanced the suspense and intensity of the situation to a point where it was palpable to the …show more content…
Two of the main characters from both the article and the film were Chuck Lane and Stephen Glass. I thought the article took a different approach than the film did which when comparing the two was interesting to see unfold. For the article it seemed more that Lane was the hero of the article and seemed to never really falter in the course of his development. Which means Glass was the antagonist or the “villian” of the article in terms of the characters that were given. In the film however it appeared that Lane was the bad guy for a majority of the film until close to the end compared to Glass. Regardless of their portrayals the traits of both characters were fairly similar in both pieces. Glass in both the article and the film was portrayed as manipulative and charismatic with his co-workers. Glass appeared as a honest and likeable guy, “If there was one aspect of Glass’s personality that seemed indisputably genuine, it was this nonstop yearning to please”(8). He sought out gratification and praise in both pieces by either always trying to please or by presenting himself as less than worthy in order to gain pity. In the film these characteristics were intensified and seemed to be constantly brought up. In almost every scene of the movie Glass was seen either apologizing or offering help in order to gain appreciation. The other character that was similar in the