Shattered Glass - Movie Review Example

The ideas and opinions about the movie

The movie Shattered Glass is based on things that we are experiencing or have ever experienced on one part or another in the society. Different people have their interest, and they know what they can uniquely do at their best. Even in the print media, we read some stories that appear to be interesting, though we are not sure whether the story existed or it was fabricated, at least we got entertained. The ability to develop and demonstrate something that attracts people attention develops at a younger age.

In the context of child advocacy, we learn from the beginning of the movie that Stephen Glass was discovered as the wunderkind by his parents, and at school, however, the parents insisted that he should study law. Before then, he went to train as a doctor at the University of Pennsylvania in 1990, since the parents insisted on that; although his grades deteriorated and therefore lost interest. He went ahead to study anthropology which he did well, but due to the inconsistence performance when combining medicine and anthropology scores, his grades were hardly distinguishable.

The film depicted that; parents tend to force their kids to pursue the course that interests them rather than the kid. In the situation of Stephen Glass, his parents were under the influence of peer pressure, where they consider lawyer as a prestigious career that they would like their son to do. Stephen Glass obliged to his parents' request and studied law during the part time at Georgetown. Stephen did not study out of interest but because his parents insisted on the career, despite him having a lucrative job at The New Republic. Stephen Glass was admired for his noble experience as an editor; he had exceptional and amplified skills in identifying and writing fabricating stories that appeared attractive and interesting to the readers.

What did it make you think about?

Considering my course, "Literacy of Child Advocacy", and the movie, "Shuttered Glasses," Stephen's parent would let their son do what interests him since he was smart while young and knew what is best for him. As we can see, Stephen did not perform well in the course that his parents insisted him to pursue, but instead, he found his interest in journalism. I think literacy in child advocacy should be addressed, and the parents need to support the decisions made by their kids and promote them.

In what way was it a good or bad choice for this course?

The good choice of the movie towards the course is that it emphasizes on the child advocacy in the society. The film is interesting and relevant as it gives an example of the need of child advocacy and the possible implication to the childs future if not implemented.

The bad choice of the movie is that it shows how people can develop their career by fabricating stories, and still make it in life and become respected, which finally, adversely impact their career as well as the reputation to the organization they are working. Some of the viewers would perceive that "even if you fail in succeeding in other careers still you can fake it until you make it."

How should the movie have been made differently?

The movie should have been made different, is they could introduce other characters who instill child advocacy in the nurturing the overall development of their children regarding career development, talent enhancement and so on. At least, that will establish an atmosphere of the contrast on how presence and absence of child advocacy impact one's development and future prosperity.