I've seen Peter Sarsgaard only play Chuck Lane and I've turned into a huge fan of his. From what I understand of people, their characters, actors, and performance, Sarsgaard is every bit himself to cinema what Lane is to journalism. He fits perfectly into the role of the editor of a magazine which takes itself very seriously; he is not charming like his predecessor, does what he thinks is right for the magazine and does not care to explain himself to people who do not bother to understand him.
Sarsgaard, in his portrayal of Lane, has turned the tenacious, dogged, dry, unassuming and highly principled family man into somebody who is to be admired and respected. One thing that is certain of Lane is the immense respect he has for his profession, the holy way in which he treats it and his high moral standards which expects himself and those around him to follow. One of the movie's finest moments is the conversation between the two editors where Lane swallows his self-respect to save the face of the kid. Another poignant scene is the one where he walks home after a long, arduous day at work and sleeps in the lap of his wife, betraying his true emotions only to his closest confidant.
I've always been inspired, awed and invigorated by highly talented people, those who are the star kids, who've been pampered all their lives and change rules as per their bidding. But now I realize the importance of people like Lane and Dravid, those who respect their profession, who see themselves only as a minuscule part of a greater heritage and those who can do anything just to keep the torch aflame, even if that means to sacrifice themselves. Like I was reading a wonderful Roebeck piece yesterday about Sangakkara, sometimes character, principle, idealism and humility can do things that even immense talent cannot.