I suppose that if you asked most people which was Mel Gibson's finest film, they would probably say "Braveheart" (although, that may be more due to the spectacle of that film). Of course, today Mel Gibson is out of favor, and perhaps deservedly so because of his rants and personal issues of the past decade or so (although as of this writing, he does seem to be regaining some credibility in Hollywood). But if you ask me which Gibson film is best, I would say "The Man Without A Face". In case you weren't aware, he not only starred in the film, but also directed it.As director, Gibson here was able to elicit 3 brilliant performances: his own, as a disgraced and disfigured teacher; an astounding performance as a troubled kid by then child-actor Nick Stahl; and an overlooked but wonderful performance as a not-well-adjusted mother by Margaret Whitton.From what I have read, this film diverges from the novel (same title) in that in the latter, a sexual relationship between the teacher and the student is implied, while in the film it is just the opposite. I would have to agree with Gibson's view that it's the appearance of possible impropriety that makes the film work. However, if you're expecting a truly happy ending, you're going to be disappointed. It's one of the films where you wish there had been an addendum taking place 5 or 10 years later.As a former teacher and principal, I can understand exactly how certain assumptions are made about teacher/student relationships. So it is rather heartbreaking here to see how Gibson's character is ostracized by something that had never actually taken place. On the other hand, Gibson's character here is not faultless; it is himself who has made himself the ultimate loner, and it's too bad that aspect of the story had not been explored just a bit more.Nevertheless, this is an incredible film, and I highly recommend it. It is a good reminder of just how fine an actor Mel Gibson was and why he was so successful for quite a run in American films.

"The Man with out a Face" is the story of an eccentric teacher with a unique gift of reaching emotionally distraught pupils and fuelling their ability to learn. Calamity strikes his life in the form of a car accident while transporting a particularly responsive pupil home from a competition, who unbeknownst to him had developed a fixation with him. Even though he is an exceptional teacher he is ill-equipped, at the young age of 26, to deal with the ensuing escalation. When he tries to set the boy straight he regretfully is too harsh in the effort and the boy panics causing the accident. It kills the boy and leaves the teacher permanently disfigured.The scaring is symbolic of the internal wound he carries inside from guilt, coupled with the reinforced rejection of society, first in response to the accident, by jailing him for involuntary manslaughter and then as it treats him as a monster due to, first and unchallenged impressions of the appearance of his scars.Years later another struggling young boy enters his life, who will not take no for an answer, and convinces the teacher to tutor him for an entrance exam to a military college he is desirous to attend. His unorthodox style brings perspective and enlightenment to more than just the subjects for the entrance exam but also to the boys life and his own. They find in each other both true friendship and the dignity and lightening effects of grace. Learning to trust in the face of all the apparently well meaning yet paranoid and unruly responses of those who assert themselves to be responsible and clear.This film brings a wonderful insight to the mistaken impressions that can happen in society when the right questions are never asked within the mind and heart of the individual or by officials. And once asked, whether they are clearly heard or not, without the bias of agenda. It also addresses the question of what people believe societal authorities should be acting upon and what they actually are constrained to. How the disconnect between the personal desire for truth to rule the day conflicts with the assumptions made by those in the legal system, which admittedly is driven not by interested in justice but rather the strict application of the code, the way it exists at the time of an offence.The film exposes the nature of the corruption of the individual through the weights of life and error and the rationalization of the fear of facing that nature, in order to see the truth ourselves. The clear truth, the honest truth, that we are all flawed, all monsters and all, contrastingly, capable of extending grace to lift that weight in the lives of others, if we are willing to dare, with a little empathy and simple understanding, enter a path that can result in a better kind of life.This battle, that continues to go on everywhere, between the desire for personal accountability to oneself and through this the collective governing of society by conscience and respect contrasting the desire to throw that responsibility on external representatives who society has dubbed authorities, and through that become victim to the fickle impressions of a few.The resultant situation exposes the the very real hypocritical nature that exists in the dichotomy in most cultures today. Leaving only the impression of dignity, the vainer of office and the shallowness and illusion of control when confronted by the true dignity of someone with moral substance. That which exists in the hearts of those who except the challenge of stepping into the work of needful change.A very good watch, if you will allow yourself the change.Volpe Verte. Aug. 2nd 2014.

This was a well acted movie, nothing to grandeur to be sure but interesting enough. The film has a boy who actually wants to go to a boarding school which is kind of a nice change of pace, but he does not really have the grades to do so. Well lucky for him there is a recluse living nearby, and he just happens to be a teacher. Well he tries to get this guy's help, but the guy is rather hesitant to do so. He is disfigured thanks to an incident in the past and he is frowned upon by the community. He does take the boy in though as you knew he would have to do seeing as there would not be much of a movie if he did not and the two form a bit of a bond. Not really a big one where the guy makes up for the fact the boy is fatherless, but a student teacher one to be sure. Well something happens and the boy is caught at this mans house by some authorities and there is a big court scene and we learn why the man has lost half his face and why he is frowned upon by the community. Usually I would say this movie is trying to say people unjustly accuse people of things based on appearances and such, but it just does not work in this case as there was sufficient evidence and circumstances to believe the man could have done what he was accused of. Still, Mel Gibson turns in a good performance and it was somewhat entertaining to watch, just nothing that would top any favorite movie lists of mine.

I should perhaps point out that my comments below are based solely upon the film. Unlike a lot of reviewers, I have not read the original novel by Isabelle Holland- indeed, I had never previously heard of either the book or its author.Mel Gibson's first film as director is set during one summer in the late sixties. Charles Norstadt, a twelve-year-old boy, is on holiday with his mother and two half-sisters on an island off the coast of Maine. He has ambitions to attend the same military academy as his late father, who he believes was a war hero, but receives no encouragement from his mother, Catherine, who regards military schools as "fascist" and is firmly convinced that her son is too stupid to pass the entrance examination.Charles makes the acquaintance of Justin McLeod, a painter living in a large house on the island. Because of his reclusive nature, and because his face has been horribly disfigured in an accident, McLeod is treated with a mixture of fear and mockery by his neighbours, particularly the local children. Charles, however, discovers that McLeod was at one time a teacher, and asks him to tutor him for the entrance exam. The gruff, taciturn McLeod is at first reluctant, but he gradually warms to the boy, and a close friendship grows up between them. Charles comes to see him as a father-figure, especially after he makes the unwelcome discovery that his own father was not a war hero but an alcoholic who abandoned his family and later committed suicide.Gibson initially wanted to cast another actor as McLeod, but was eventually persuaded to play the role himself. I think that that was the right decision; I have not seen all his films as an actor, but of the ones I have seen I think that he gave his best performances in this one and in Zeffirelli's "Hamlet". McLeod is a complex character who is more than an innocent victim. He is also haunted by feelings of guilt arising out of the car accident in which he was injured and his passenger, one of his pupils, was killed. It is these guilt feelings which have led to his becoming a recluse and to his refusing to have plastic surgery to correct his disfigurement. His mentoring of Charles can be seen as an attempt to make amends for his past. The young Nick Stahl is also very good as Charles.Gibson has the reputation of being one of Hollywood's more conservative figures, and there are conservative aspects to "The Man without a Face". Although the film is set during the Vietnam War, a time when all things military were regarded with deep suspicion by a large section of American public opinion, Charles' ambition to attend a military academy is presented as a laudable one. The politically liberal Catherine is too wrapped up in her own emotional needs to consider those of her children. She has been married several times (her three children all have different fathers) and many of Charles' emotional problems stem from his unstable family background and the lack of a father-figure in his life. The title "The Man without a Face" can refer to the disfigured McLeod, but it can also refer to Charles' father who is "without a face" in the sense that his son has no mental image of him.In another respect, however, the film can be seen as having a liberal theme, although not in the narrowly political meaning of that word. The local people's distrust of McLeod does not derive solely from his disfigured appearance. He is also rumoured to be a paedophile, and his friendship with Charles is therefore seen by many, including the local police chief, as deeply suspicious. I note that one reviewer actually concludes that McLeod is a paedophile and that another thinks that the film would be more interesting if he were to be portrayed as one. I think both these viewpoints are wrong. It seems quite clear from the film that the relationship between McLeod and Charles is platonic and non-sexual. If it were otherwise McLeod would be a detestable character rather than a pitiable one, and the film's key theme- that of not judging people, particularly those who are in some way different, on the basis of suspicion, rumour and unfounded accusations- would be fatally undermined.Of Gibson's four films as a director I think that "The Man without a Face" is, together with the very different "The Passion of the Christ", the best. It is a well-told human drama, a sensitive exploration of the teacher-pupil relationship and of the corrosive effects of suspicion and prejudice. It is certainly better than the overblown and overrated "Braveheart" for which he won an Oscar. 8/10