George Washington

This movie is more likely to be admired than actually liked. The acting is pretty darn bad and the story is borderline ridiculous, but what holds this movie together is the beautiful cinematography. This film is in the same vain as Gummo, small town, no straight story, and lots of colorful characters. But this movie misses the mark that Gummo hit so dead on, it doesn't make you care or relate to the characters. The characterization in this movie is very insipid. Watching this movie makes you think of its failed potential. Well all in all its a "G" rated Gummo, so watch both and get back at me.

After only writing a few reviews, I promised myself I would not give a film a perfect score too easily, but I cannnot resist. George Washington is truly astonishing and touching piece of cinema. Some people have called one of the best films of the new decade. This is definitely not too far from the truth. As the summary had said it is told very deceptively but we do not know the director has up his sleeve both plot wise and emotionally.

One of the best things about this film is its realism. David Gordon Green captured the essence of how kids today speak. Often we find in the usual "tween" movies that the young kids speak perfect English, always have good posture, speak with a clear voice, and have a wide vocabulary. I sound like one of my teachers. In the real world, this is not how kids actually talk and Mr. Green should be commended for bringing this to the masses.

As many people know, this film has great cinematography and the location is an area rarely seen in movies today. It even rivals Malick's. The opening scenes in particular have great cinematography. They are a hook to the viewers that enchants them to keep watching. The sub-satisfactory location is turned into a beautiful not quite urban or rural town of mystery and intrigue.

Yes, I will say it. This film is very moving. I know I will sound like a sap but it is moving in the true sense of the word. It is never overly sentimental or sappy. It feels so genuine. Few films recently have been so affecting on this level. The film has a very provocative take on redemption I like how the director used amateurs to add even more realism to the movie. The acting was pretty good, too. Stay clear if this movie if you do not have a good attention span (most reviewers are complaining about this). It is drawn out but oh so rewarding. Highly recommended.

Synopsis tells us GW is a 'delicately told and deceptively simple story of a group of children' but what I saw was a coming-of-age slice of minimalist Americana too deliberate to resonate with true emotional gravitas and too restrained and artificial to examine the children as anything else than vessels for whatever fancy monologues DGG put in their mouths, every pause and glance of the movie calculated to emulate a specific type of film, I won't say art-house because I don't consider Terrence Malick whom DGG seems to be channeling an art-house filmmaker and I won't even say southern Gothic because DGG lacks the affinity for the Gothic that made TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD such a good movie (the parts of it that don't have Gregory Peck giving courtroom speeches that is) or Flannery O'Connor's children characters so alive and vivid. Filling the gaps with quirks (argh!!) and lacking the truthfulness and honesty the material deserves, for all it has going for it (a sense of pace and framing, which to me, like I said above, seems a bit too coldly calculated which is not surprising given DGG's age when he made it), Green's debut can be in turns good, amusing, annoying, and embarrassingly bad. But then I remind myself it's the debut of a 25 year old director. While directors who worked in the studio system 50 years ago (in the US, Italy, and Japan) got their chance behind the camera only after painstaking tutelage as assistants and technicians in various posts and got to make plenty of bad-average programme films before they hit their stride, young directors these days are called to succeed on their first film, get a good festival run and maybe a DVD deal if they're lucky, wash dishes to repay credit card debts for the next 10 years if they're not. I don't know what to think about DGG though. UNDERTOW showed significant progress as long as it remained geared towards a taut Night Of the Hunteresque southern-fried thriller and before it regressed back to Green's feeble GW shenanigans for the final act. PINEAPPLE EXPRESS has none of whatever mark these two films taken together would suggest. Although a less ambitious debut, I think his friend Jeff Nichols eclipsed him with (the DGG produced) SHOTGUN STORIES.

David Gordon Green's first miniscule-budget movie is strange and disconcerting, and appears to lack a real focus; but maybe that's its theme - the aimlessness and randomness of life in a poor North Carolina neighbourhood. But not from the conventional point of view that regards such lack of purpose as totally negative; but with a poetic, visionary eye that can see meaning and even beauty in things and people that appear on the surface to be mundane, derelict, pointless or absurd.

Ostensibly the film is about a group of kids, mainly black, who spend their time goofing around, as kids do, until there's a tragic accident, and then a heroic rescue, and George (Donald Holden) is at the centre of both the accident and rescue. And George is already marked out as an exceptional character, not only because he has a weak skull and has to wear a helmet, but because pretty Nasia (Candace Evanofski) has switched her affections to him from an apparently more attractive companion. The children are surrounded by, and inter-mingle with, a mixed bunch of adults, the most prominent being a group of manual workers, who alternately josh each other and make would-be serious statements. However sceptical he or she might have been initially, by the end of the film the viewer accepts that George is exceptional and possibly a potential hero; but whether the world in general will ever recognise this is more doubtful; though the movie ends on a hopeful note.

Technically, the film is fine; with great photography, striking visuals, and effective music. Nevertheless, it is hard to follow, because of its rough edges and loose ends; it is probably best regarded not as a narrative, but more as a series of vignettes. From a conventional viewpoint, much of the acting by Green's amateur cast, is "bad", reminiscent of early dramatised documentaries by, say, Robert Flaherty; but this crudity and stiltedness add to the surreal feel of the movie, and give the characters a grittiness that smooth "good" acting might not. Of all the movies I've seen lately, this is one I'd like to see again, when an opportunity arises.

When I first saw "George Washington" at the L.A. Independent Film Festival, I remarked to a colleague that I wasn't sure if the film was "brilliant," or if it was "a student film." He remarked, in kind, that "it was a brilliant student film." At the time, I agreed. But after repeated viewings of "George Washington," I think I am starting to encounter its sheer sublime brilliance... and in retrospect, it is one of the most beautifully realized films I've ever seen. As a Southerner, I can't recall a film that has better captured the mood of the rural South. The film's languid pacing--set amidst its plush backdrop of swimming pools, the rusted steel of dilapidated factories, children playing in the sun, immense greenery, and diverse ethnic culture--continually transports me back to the South that I experienced growing up. Its operatic photography mixes a complex cinematic chemistry that, for me, feels more and more like a documentary in tone the more I watch it. Yet for all the film's structural "looseness," there is that one story strand that seems to always hit from an unforeseen angle, which softly jerks you back to the story just as you start to think the film is losing focus. The film's pace seems centered on this hypnotic lulling style: the narrative rope slackens almost to the point of no return, until all of a sudden that rope is pulled taut by its sheer weight. Other reviews here accurately describe what "George Washington" is about, so I will defer to them for story description. Unfortunately, in many descriptions here, people (mistakenly) see "randomness" in the film's structure. But the story's elements are just so beautifully and intricately weaved that one can actually leave the film truly wondering if there was any structure to it at all. This is absolutely not a "by chance" occurance. It is the mystifying brilliance of this classical tale: the languid pacing almost fosters Southern-style "forgetfulness" to the point that the story seems to forget about itself and fold inward. All the stories fall into each other so smoothly that it's easy to forget and begin wondering "what happened?" But this style is in fact the film's structure, and is absolutely the intended hypnotic effect, which is so reflective of the mood of Southern culture (if I am allowed to state this so broadly). I've now seen the film about ten times, and I can confidently state that "George Washington"'s immense subtlety in this regard should not be overlooked. There are many examples of backstory that David Gordon-Green (the writer/director) leaves just underneath the surface, waiting to be found. For example, in the relatively minor scene where George visits his imprisoned father, it's amazing to consider just how much that simple scene reveals of George's strange circumstances. Without being obvious and saying directly to the viewer "x happened, now y occurs," we are all of a sudden introduced to George's complex emotional world. We are given an image (but not an explanation) as to why he now lives with Damascus. What's the backstory here? Did George's father murder his mother? We are told nothing directly. But after the incident with Buddy, George is able to come to some sort of terms with his father--who remains silent, smoking a cigarette behind bars. George tells his father that he once didn't believe him, but now believes him... and loves him. The film's central theme--that of George becoming a hero--is most exemplified in this moment... and is in my estimation the biggest character building moment of the film. In a quick two minute scene (which, action-wise, is relatively forgettable), we all of a sudden encounter George as a growing adolescent in a very complex adult world: as guilty, as scared, as proud, as strong, as knowing, as forgiving. It's as though his conscience were born in that moment of inner conflict, and provides the measure for his becoming a hero later in the film. (As a wise man once told me, one can only become a hero by being, at some point, the opposite of a hero.) I think the typical response that George's heroism is ironic in the film should be discredited by the depth of his character. Far from ironic, he is simply a hero who begins to grasp the price of heroism. "George Washington" is rife with little gems like this. So many subtleties abound here, like Nasia's fascinating narration told from the future perfect tense (revealed only once in a phrase halfway through the film)--told as though the story were some sort of Southern archetypal memory. Or Damascus' pre-text for quitting his job, so subtley inserted in the beginning that you forget about it by the time you realize what his phobias are. Or even George's breathtaking "admission," as indicated in the interrogation office through a jerk-reaction sniff that seems to come two paces too late. How much is revealed in that small action! "George Washington" is one of the most artful and intricately directed films I've ever seen. It is the kind of film that, like its story, will never crack the (canonical) surface because of its deep subtleties... but which, because of that, is what will always make it shine.