This actor, whose troubles are well known to CDAN readers, is known for disappearing. The first time it happened? On the set of this one movie, just about back in the day. The star, strangely, believed it was a wholesome tale about a boy and his newfound mentor. I guess he didn't look up the book beforehand. Yes, the boy was taken away from him that morning by the "authorities." The star, in real life, went to lunch. I'll bet he has no idea what happened to the boy. You might change the final word of the movie's title to "Clue."
Nick Stahl!
ReplyDeleteThe Man Without a Face - movie sanitized the pedo aspect.
DeleteSo... did the behind the scenes of the movie imitate the book??
Yeah, what exactly happened, what does IRL the actor went to lunch mean?
Delete"Went to Lunch"="Named the Jew"
DeleteGood job Sarah!
DeleteGood job, Sara
ReplyDeleteYou got it Sara... I just have no idea what it means.
ReplyDeleteK'plah!
ReplyDeleteGibsin didn't know.
ReplyDeleteStahl got raped by the Geffen-Milchan Project.
Perhaps "wenting to lunch irl" has something to do with this series of events
Maybe it means Gibson was ignorant of things that were happening to Nick,maybe because he was drinking? Assuming someone looked after him?
ReplyDeleteHolland was born in Basel, Switzerland. Her father was the American Consul in Liverpool, Englandduring World War II. Due to the war, she moved to the United States in 1940. She attended Tulane University and also was a member of Kappa Alpha Theta. She wrote over 50 books and was still working at the time of her death at age 81 in New York City.
ReplyDeleteHolland's books for children and young adults tackled a variety of difficult and/or controversial topics—death, rape, incest, teen pregnancy, sexual abuse, and homosexuality. Reoccurring themes in her books for adults and children include the ravages of alcoholismon families, and the healing and redemptive power of animals.
This is that sick subtext that makes Geeljires do what geeljires do
DeleteTulane+KAT+"redemptive power of animals"=bestiality
DeleteSo "authorities" is in quotes because the people who took the boy away one morning of filming weren't real legal authorities, but were actually taking him away for other purposes (and probably used the casting process to select a likely victim). I think we're meant to infer that the star was complicit somehow, even though it says he didn't have a clue.
ReplyDeleteMel Gibson please make me the second season of Pirates of Dark Water and I promise we'll fix this all and build statues of yourself if that's your kink
ReplyDeleteA Man Without a Face
ReplyDeleteaka
A Man Without a Clue
mel gibson is the the star who also directed the film version of the book and who believed the 'authorities' were legit or whatever and not Geffen's kid-rape squad.
the book dealt specifically with ped0philia and grooming. the gibson directed version was heavily sanitized - no homosexuality, no ped0philia.
Mel Gibson was the director as well, which makes it even harder to believe he didn't know what was going on.
ReplyDeleteI hope Nick Stahl is okay. I haven't heard anything about him in a while.
This makes me sick. Loved that movie when I was younger. Had zero idea about the real life events.
ReplyDeleteIf this is actually "Man Without a Face"/Clue, that was the first movie Gibson directed, too.
ReplyDeleteBut is Gibson known for "disappearing"? For all his flaws, I don't recall him ever going MIA during a production. Unless this refers to his blacklisting?
And more: As a director, did he not read the source material? If he's such a good director (and I believe he is), did he not sense any changed "vibes" from his young co-star? Is this blind suggesting he actually knew and/or set the boy up in some way? Or that he was "out to lunch" and clueless?
Not convinced this is Gibson/"Man Without a Face." Not sure what would be a better choice, but this blind raises many more questions than just the obvious "Who?".
Stahl is known for disappearing. Literally, like missing-persons disappearing. That's an excellent clue and why I got it so fast. 🙂
DeleteStahl is known for disappearing. He's been MIA a couple of times as an adult.
DeleteAhhh. I get it. I thought the "star" referred to Gibson, but it refers to Stahl. I didn't think of Stahl as a "star," certainly in comparison to Gibson, but he indeed had a starring role in that film.
ReplyDeleteI understand and agree, though I still think this raises a lot of questions about Gibson's naiveté/enablement. Thank you for the explanation.
I wonder how much was true naivete on Gibson's part, and how much was "not my business". I totally believe he didn't read the book. This could easily have been a case of Gibson wanting to direct, and the studio saying, "here, take this one. Do well [play ball] and we'll give you more prime projects later."
ReplyDeleteAnd as for disappearing as it applies to this blind, I wonder if shit happened and then Stahl pulled a Dancing Boy and bolted. Then got dragged back to set by "authorities".
I think it's pretty typical for directors to start with a script or screenplay and never read a source book. About the book, from Wikipedia: "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. 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.'"
ReplyDeleteHas anyone else seen the movie? I thought it left the question of whether Gibson's character (McLeod) had molested the previous boy (who died in the car accident that disfigured McLeod) fairly open. I came away from the movie thinking something probably did happen. A credit to the acting, I guess.
I wish Nick Stahl would start talking about what he knows.
ReplyDeleteThis blind switches the POV which makes it confusing.
ReplyDeleteThe actor = the boy = Stahl. The Star = Mel Gibson
Gibson didnt read the book, the powers that be came and took Stahl to abuse like in the book, Gibson went about his day oblivious, he never had a clue to what was going on.
I've seen the movie. It's well done, and has good performances all around. The house McCloud lives in is kind of my dream house.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Gibson was clueless, I just don't think he cared, and changed the story to fit his narrative, but didn't manage to scrap off the homo-erotic overtones that are inherent in the story. And, he was probably more focused on lunch and tying one on, than giving a shit about where his co-star went.
Gibson's entire career is based on doing what Mel wants, so it's not surprising he just ignored the whole thing.
What does this mean? Nick Stahl was disappearing from a movie set shooting heroin at age 11? Mel Gibson was molesting him?
ReplyDeleteFuck off or learn to read
DeleteFeel free to fuck off first, geelijire. Not your site, not your call, and most of your posts are worthless shitposts or barely disguised "THE JEWS" conspiracy theory nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThe board and the comments were better before you slouched in here. The only reason you can post at all is Enty doesn't moderate the comments.
How many accounts you running, son?
Delete
ReplyDeletestahl was very convincing as a pedo in SiN CiTY
@Unknown - Just Cohencidences?
ReplyDelete+1 Sarah, making it work.
ReplyDeleteI also doubt Gibson didn't know, he was producing and directing that project. But even with Mel being the atrocious, racist, antisemitic, womanbeating, roid-raging, alcoholic piece of shit he is, you can always count on one of his fellow lowlife antisemites to go rushing in and take up for him.
ReplyDelete"you can always count on one of his fellow lowlife antisemites to go rushing in and take up for him."
ReplyDeleteLike Jodi Foster and RDJ....
Just sayin', not arguing.
How would you not read the source material of a movie you were directing ffs? He knew. He knows. The book was written (by a woman) and is about grooming. As was the movie:)
ReplyDelete