George Washington

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.

George Washington is a simple story, told by characters who, at least in my opinion, are mediocre at acting. Much of the movie feels like it is being read from a script. But, in all honesty, little happens in this picture. The characters aren't developed in a way that I could understand or even care about them. It's watchable, on video at least, until the scene where we learn about how one of the characters was sexually abused by a dog. At that point, George Washington becomes downright ridiculous.

This film was lovely, and there was dozens of good ideas in it, but it didn't seem sorted out to me, and in the end I felt that I was being invited to take whatever meaning from it I wished. Doesn't that kind of art come rather too easily to the artist? If it were exuberant, you might have that to buoy you, but instead the material is treated very somberly -- it invites you to find meaning in it, and implies that there is much there. But is there? For instance, one scene near the end features a portrait of George Bush, Sr. hanging on a wall; in a film named "George Washington," you naturally look for significance. But later, a friend told me that he had seen an interview with the director in which he mentioned that the portrait was placed more or less arbitrarily in the shot. How many of us found something there that wasn't intended, and that wasn't an organic function of the film? I enjoyed watching "George Washington," but I can't say that I found it satisfying. I'll look forward to Green's next feature -- I only hope his meanings will be both present and better expressed.

I wanted to see this movie ever since Roger Ebert heaped praise on it, so I was surprised that I found it to be suffocating, frustrating, and depressing. I just wanted the people in this movie to have more, not just financially, but more opportunity, more respect, more reason to live. If that was indeed the point, then this movie did not give me any new insights. The interaction among the kids was mundane, except for an occasional soliloquy, or exchange, that obviously came directly from the screen writer's imagination and seemed out-of-place. The adult males were a sad lot - the goofiness of one of the construction workers seemed forced, as did much of the story line. This movie is nicely photographed and created a mood, but there was just not enough here to get me involved.

I'm not exactly sure why I choose to order this movie from Netflix beyond the fact that I just wanted to see something a different. This film was definitely that! There was no specific plot or easily conceivable manifestation as to how any one character tied in to another. Basically, each person was just there, crossing the path of another poor soul, also just happening to be there. George, the centerpiece of the movie, had aspirations of being great, as explained by Nasia, the movie's narrator, but you kinda get the feeling that he is just a moronic preteen that doesn't seem to make any more sense than any other person in the movie, though he is deemed to be developmentally disabled. The parts that were supposed to be serious were, to me, hilarious for the most part because they were so random and out of whack. Nothing made sense. Like George riding in a taxi to transport his deceased friend, Buddy, to a river where he could be laid to rest. Oh, did I mention that his friend had been dead for what was probably over a month, and though the "authorities" were searching for Buddy, no one questions George? I can go on and on about this movie, but see it yourself if you don't believe me, or, you can watch something more worthy of your attention, like the back of your eyelids! The only reason that this move get's a three (I have scarcely seen one worse) is because it made me laugh. Would I watch it again? Maybe if I was high.

This is one of the worse movies I've ever seen in my life. If you don't believe it, see it yourself. You'll be sorry. I can't believe the glowing reviews. This just plain sucks. Someone compared it to watching paint dry. Believe me watching paint dry is much more exciting. The movie has no entertainment value whatsoever. So Roger Ebert liked it and gave it '****'. So? He's an idiot. Rent this movie and see for yourself. No wonder Gene Siskel argued with him so much. He's probably rolling over in his grave after seeing Ebert's rating on this one. The glowing reviews on this website? They're out of their minds, period.

George Washington is the kind of film I instantly respond to for the simple reason that it is pure, perfect cinema. This is what FILM can do when free of the constraints of popular movie-making. When it ended it made me think of that old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words." Well what happens when that picture moves? You get George Washington. I don't want to spoil the film for anyone reading this by needless plot exposition that I find so annoying in most professional reviews. But the film does center around a small American town, and a group of poor children during the long, hot summer months. This film has absolutely wonderful cinematography, better than most big budget Hollywood films, and the mood it sets is alternately playful, melancholy, surreal, and poignant. Many times I was reminded of my own childhood; scenes play out in a very organic way and the actors, mostly children, are all wonderful. Before I saw this film I had heard that one of the director's influences was Terrence Malick, a filmmaker I love dearly, and George Washington reminded me a lot of Malick's "Days of Heaven." He uses voiceover in much the same way Malick did in that film...alternating between narration, random thoughts, and character exposition. The voiceover use in this film, as in Days of Heaven, is spoken the way someone might hear their own thoughts. Watch the movie and you'll see what I mean. Although the movie is about children, it's not really "for" kids, but I would venture to say that any kid from about age 12 and up would be all the richer for seeing this movie. However in this age of short attention spans, and video game editing I don't hold out much hope that many kids would appreciate a film like this. But for adults, especially lovers of the cinema, this should be required viewing. It's up to us support these kinds of movies so we can see more of them in the future. I saw this for free on the independent film channel, but I plan on buying the DVD anyway...George Washington is a film I will be proud to add to my collection. I loved it.

I have hated almost every film David Gordon Green has made after "George Washington" - but even this movie begs the question, "why?" The acting is supposedly honest, but actually felt hackneyed and unrealistic by both the kids and the "real" actors alike. The storyline is virtually nonexistent, but what *is* there says so little that it barely exists. All that's left is the okay photography, and the sleepy directing. This is "Sundance" stuff akin to "Beasts of the Southern Wild" - boring, pointless, and so utterly, formulaically "non-form" that it's just as predictably ambiguous as the most hackneyed Hollywood Romcom is happy-ending-ized. The biggest difference between Sundance-honored independent films and Hollywood mediocrity is that at least Hollywood isn't totally disingenuous about what it's dishing out.

GEORGE WASHINTON / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four) By Blake French: "George Washington" details the drowsy lives of several preteen friends during their last summer of childhood, and it feels so accurate how the characters behave in the slumberous, low standard society. This is the summer where their first crushes arrive and flowering sexuality gives them confidence instead of confusion. It is a summer where the heat is consistent and the days seemingly last forever with nothing to do. The movie is about how a tragedy can forever change the course of individual lives so unexpectedly and abruptly. The setting is North Carolina on an industrial landscape, where we meet several black kids between the ages of ten and thirteen. The preteens are Buddy (Curtis Cotton III), who has a crush on Nasia (Candace Evanofski). She leaves him a young fellow named George (Donald Holden). George is a very interesting character; the plates in his skull did not meet correctly, so he must wear a protective helmet to cover his delicate head. George saves a child from drowning, even though his head is never supposed to get wet. He then walks around with a cape on, feeling accomplished like a hero. Then an accident happens, leaving the remaining characters with a lot to think about. There is not a lot of active conflict here, just an examination of behaviors of a variety of characters. They are not your typical characters, though; they are so brilliantly portrayed they feel like regular, ordinary people. The performances are extraordinary. The atmosphere and melancholy setting play large roles in the monotonous tone, comparable conceivably with the work of Terence Malick. There is an honest and true sentimentality here, like the director, David Gordon Greene, wanted to inject personal and thought-provoking ideas in his innovative style, which sometimes seems a bit preachy. "George Washington" is one of the most under appreciated movies of 2000. As I look over the Academy Award nominees I am disturbed. For the first time in a long time the members chose box-office successes over movie quality. Among the movies missing from the ballot are "Human Resources," "The Virgin Suicides," and "George Washington." The film is one of the year's most poignant and heartbreaking. Everything that happens here is so lively, so convincing, so extraordinarily absorbing. It is a movie not to be missed by those looking for great underrated movies.

Don't look for a simple, linear plot line or resolutions to what you think are the problems. "George Washington" is the offspring of "Gummo" and "Stand by Me", and a very distant relative to "Eraserhead" (but with a soul). The dialog is often beyond the age, character, and scope of the kids depicted (similar to "Brick"), which can be disconcerting, yet, when suspending disbelief, remained interesting. The scoring is dark and moody – and seldom lets up. On occasion, the lack of actor training can be seen in the kids, but for the most part they do a good job. The locations are full of dying and dead culture – rich, textural, beautiful crumbling Industrial Revolution. This is a ponderous, sometimes overly artful film that is none the less worth seeing and considering afterwards. It has things to say – and you're expected to use your own mind.