How many more ABUSIVE movies
are we gonna applaud
before we realize
we’ve been SOILED?
From the Wikipedia page for the film:
“The Man Without a Face is a 1993 American drama film starring and directed by Mel Gibson. The film is based on Isabelle Holland‘s 1972 novel of the same name. Gibson’s directorial debut received respectful reviews from most critics.”
From Isabelle Holland’s wiki page:
“Isabelle Christian Holland (born June 16, 1920 in Basel, Switzerland — died February 9, 2002) was an author of children and adult fiction. Her father was the American Consul in Liverpool, England during WWII. She moved to America in 1940 due to the war. She wrote gothic novels, adult mysteries, romantic thrillers and many books for children and young adults. She wrote over 50 books in her lifetime, and was still working at the time of her death at age 81 in New York City.
Two of her novels have been made into movies:
Both these novels deal with issues or allegations of pedophilia.”
A few covers:
<— “Johnathan was pleasing to the eye.
But beauty can demand a terrifying price.
Even in an 8 year old boy…”???
Tales of debauchery, courtesy of Scholastic.
You get the idea.
Even before examining the film adaptation of Man Without a Face…
We have good reason to question it.
Now for the film version.
“I want you to look up ten different expressions for the phrase ‘To Suck….’”
“Once in a lifetime a friendship comes along that will change your life forever…”
Yeah… child abuse does that to a person.
The Man Without a Face was filmed in Deer Isle, Maine and marked the film debut of Nick Stahl. Mel Gibson initially had planned only to direct the film, and he asked three other actors to play the role of Justin McLeod. However, due to difficulty securing funding, Gibson decided to star in the film.
Treatment of sexuality
The film’s treatment of sexuality between Justin McLeod and Chuck Norstadt differs from the book by Isabelle Holland.
In the original novel, McLeod behaves in a way that could be interpreted as child grooming, taking Chuck swimming and being affectionate to him.”
You call THIS being affectionate?
“I’d like a HOLE…”???????
How many more movies is it gonna be
before we see this shit is CRIMINAL?
I don’t know too much about numerology, but… if someone wants to break that one down for me, have at it. Pretty sure it has something to do with butt sex… but that’s just a wild guess.
Let me ask a more important question…
Can you say SEXUAL PREDATOR?
Can you say ANAL REFERENCE?
Back to the wiki synopsis…
“Chuck, meanwhile, seems to be attracted to McLeod as more than just as a father figure.”
This is the scene where the boy character stumbles into the man’s creepy attic. Here we see the boy embrace the female form of a hairless mannequin – but never does he embrace the body of a real girl.
In the film it’s rumored by the boy’s friends that the man without a face was in the porn business… aaaand related to The Kennedy’s.
Okay… that could potentially explain the creepy attic…
Still… even after the creepy attic…
Even after several sexually-tense and BELITTLING confrontations….
In this film, and all films of this sort…
The BOY is ALWAYS deemed the INSTIGATOR of ALL inappropriate affections.
What’s wrong with this picture?
To deem the child the sole instigator of all inappropriate affections is their clever little way of ALLEVIATING the ADULTS RESPONSIBILITY to FORBID such a relationship from “BLOSSOMING” in the first place.
“In the book, there is one scene where it is strongly implied that McLeod sexually abuses Chuck in his bedroom.”
Did you catch that?
“In the film, McLeod demonstrates no sexual interest in the boy at all…
…even though Chuck appears downstairs in his underwear when the police officer calls.”
Nothin to see here… right?
What’s that they say?
If it walks like a duck…?
“Critics have noted that the book’s criticism of homophobia had been obscured in the film version.“
The book criticized homophobia… promoted man-boy love…
So just what in the EFF was up with Isabelle Holland?
Just WHO in the HELL was SHE??
Oh okay great, so before you go further… make sure you can FORGIVE all this.
Because you’re supposed to be “the bigger person.”
Well… coming from someone who spent their life CREATING TOXIC WASTE, Holland…
This shit you came up with, it’s so toxic, it’s polluted my entire generation and beyond…
And it’s so rampant that I feel the need to devote my time & energy into CLEANING UP YOUR MESS…
EXCUSE ME, but I find all this JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT to FORGIVE.
Furthermore… WHO and whatever it is that’s OCCUPYING my mind?
In relation to this article?
It’s there because YOU PUT IT THERE!!!!!
And since when do we charge rent to what’s on our minds?
WTF does that even mean????
How can I forgive it?
IT MAKES NO SENSE
“Gibson has expressed dislike for the book because of its implied sexual contact between McLeod and Chuck:
“I read the script first and that’s what I liked…”
WTF did Mel Gibson just say there????
“The book is just – I’m sorry, but the guy did it. And you know, like, why? I just wanted to say something a lot more positive.“
RIGHT, Mel Gibson…
Nothing more positive than changing the child molester into a hero.
That’s fucked up.
Let me just clarify, I didn’t just wake up and decide I felt like rewatching this movie.
I was flipping channels the other day, and it was on.
As soon as I saw it was on, I thought, Yeah… that’s another one of those ones.
I saw Man Without a Face when I was 10 or so.
Fucking dysfunctional movie.
Terrible acting too. Man.
After watching it as an adult, I felt very uncomfortable, depressed, and dissatisfied.
Here we have yet another harmless little film that centers around a PLATONIC friendship between a GROWN MAN and a LITTLE BOY.
A Perfect World????
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?
We throw that phrase “Platonic friendship” around too loosely I’m afraid.
Maybe… nonverbally… what’s being implied in these films is
The PREDATORY relationship between MENTOR and PUPIL.
Just WHO are the REAL LOW MEN here?
Perhaps Plato was the original victim of PLATONIC MAN-BOY LOVE.
How many times are we gonna mistake these programs
as “TOUCHING” before we QUESTION their INTEGRITY?
In these PLATONICALLY PREDATORY programs, you find similar trends & themes.
This is a list of what I’ve gathered.
1. The platonic friendship between the man and the boy is always initiated by the boy first. This is to create the illusion that the adult in question is not completely responsible.
2. The platonic friendship always develops because the boy comes from a broken home. The platonic friendship is always initiated by the boy as an escape from the dysfunction of his family.
3. The boy’s mother is usually single, or between husbands. The boy is always treated begrudgingly by his mother in particular – usually because the REAL FATHER is out of the picture – and mother always holds her son responsible for the sins of his father. There is never a fully functional woman found in these movies. Only single mothers who never find the right men, and catty little girls who regurgitate feminist bullshit.
4. The adult male who befriends the boy is NEVER his REAL FATHER. He is only ever a FATHER FIGURE.
5. As the plot develops, the boy’s family and the town gossips grow more and more suspicious. This creates the illusion that the public’s judgment of the adult in question is inappropriate and discriminatory.
The boy shoos off the gawkers.
Again – he is made to protect the predator.
Like a guard dog.
The man subdues the boy.
6. When suspicions boil to the point of no return, and the mother FINALLY protects her son – like she should have in the first place – the boy always throws a fit. Because she forbids the inappropriate relationship between her son and his man friend, the son interprets this as an act of MISTRUST and DISLIKE, rather than an act of MOTHERLY PROTECTION. This is to create the illusion that the mother is always a bitch, no matter what she does.
7. Usually these films “mark” the debut of the boy actor. In the subsequent roles chosen for the boy actor into his adulthood, a subliminal theme is developed that REFLECTS the INITIAL TRAUMA that takes place in the debut film.
As far as The Man Without a Face… what happened to Chuck Nordstadt?
AKA Nick Stahl?
First he went on to play the bully, in Bully.
We’ll be re-examining that piece of shit in the next post, don’t worry.
Then he went on to play Bruce Willis’s nemesis in Sin City.
The one that was sexually abusing and murdering little girls?
And torturing the one that got away?
And the beat goes on… and it beats me.
Dangling carrots &
How come we’re not studying
if we’re so stupid?
Because it’s carrot day, dumbass.
Maybe South Park had him pegged.
In my mind…
What takes place in
The Man Without a Face
IS a form of child abuse.
The same can be said about South Park.
Just because it’s a cartoon doesn’t change the fact it’s children.
Just because it’s a movie, and it’s acting, doesn’t mean it’s not degrading.
No matter how watered down it seems…
This is the PROJECTION of
ADULT PERVERSIONS onto CHILDREN.
BOYS in particular
I see no difference between South Park and Man Without a Face, now that I think about it.
Thinking about Mel Gibson got me thinking about this episode.
Never really thought about it this way, but…
Anyone who criticizes the Jews winds up resembling Cartman dressed as Hitler.
Oddly enough… for all the hooplah I’ve heard about Mel Gibson being an anti-Semite… I was UNABLE to find ANY audio of Mel Gibson’s alleged anti-semitic rant.
Somebody find me ONE audio clip of him ACTUALLY besmirching the Jews, and I will stand corrected.
He might be a maker of bullshit movie magic that promotes man-boy love… but to my knowledge… I didn’t see any clips of Mel hatin’ on the Jews.
Why would he do that?
They pay him!
What I DID FIND, were all the tapes his ex released of him getting all pissed off over the phone. She obviously took the money and ran. Clever little Russian. Expert baiting – you can tell by the length of the conversation, no decent woman would tolerate that many insults from a man, unless she was recording it. Speaky Pete. Maybe she’s a Cindy Lou Who, too.
Doesn’t change the fact that Mel Gibson is a mean, weird bastard.
WTF is up with this movie too, in HIND-SIGHT?
Oh, and Winona Ryder jumped on the Mel Hates Jews bandwagon.
I thought that was special.
That’s like, really interesting Winona!!!
( Who the fuck ASKED YOU? )
I wonder if she’s like, friends with Mel Gibson’s ex.
Maybe they like, shoplift together.
And stuff :]
You got more money than GOD…
You’ve got millions of little girls mimicking you…
Aaaaand you’re shoplifting.
Steal my need to feel, please.
I can’t take this bullshit anymore.
It’s all… so… seedy… and… stupid…
This is what South Park and Mel Gibson do to children by virtue of what they create. Same goes for any of the others mentioned, or related. They are literally taking a dump on your hearts and minds – and that of your children.
Mel Gibson’s ALLEGED rant against the Jews didn’t stop anyone from seeing The Passion.
I’m pretty sure the Jews love The Passion more than the Christians do.
Who else would appreciate a snuff film about Christ?
Who else would write a piece of shit like Man Without a Face in the first place?
Just WHO are the MEN WITHOUT FACES?
If America’s a social (networking) experiment, then everything’s a test.
If every abusive movie is a test…
Then we fail.
We don’t stand for anything.
If we EVER stood for ANYTHING
Why DIDN’T we stand AGAINST these films
that RATIONALIZE PEDOPHILIA?
If this has been a test…
The following articles speak on behalf of child abuse both inside & outside of Hollywood – particularly the sort that is disguised as “family friendly.”
Until next time, enjoy the related listens & reads…
Stop believing in the bullshit movie magic…
And we’ll meet again next time, when we discuss the bullshit that is Bully.
From The Celtic Rebel:
The Question is 368.9
April Fool’s Bobfest
The War for Young Minds
Real Men Can Swim
Wading in the Drowning Pool (1)
Diving in the Drowning Pool (2)
Hardwiring Future Generations
From Lenon Honor:
Demons in the Outfield Parts 1 & 2