George Washington (2000) User Reviews

So lively, so convincing, so extraordinarily absorbing, not to be missed by those looking for underrated movies. ***1/2 (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 8/10 · 23 February 2001]

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.

Profoundly Annoying

[zetes · 6/10 · 23 February 2001]

George Washington is one of the most upsetting film experiences I've ever had. The reason for this is not what you might expect. It was not bad. A bad film isn't exactly annoying. What is annoying is inconsistency. It is as if it were written and directed by Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jeckyl's parts are the great parts, of which there are numerous. In fact, many individual scenes have an utterly profound power, almost knocking me down. But here comes Mr. Hyde! About 1/3 of the scenes of the entire film are awful in every aspect. They clash so horribly with the great scenes that it basically kills the film dead.

Actually, I think the good parts and bad parts can be identified further. I think I know which aspects were sorely lacking in the film.

The film's story is great. I could imagine reading it in a novel and finding it quite compelling. The script, though, lacked a huge part: the dialogue. The dialogue ranges from not bad to terrible. Fundamentally, the dialogue is problematic in the same way as the Terrence Malick film The Thin Red Line. In that film, we here narration of a grand poetical quality coming from these soldiers. It's as if there are two characters: the actual ones, and the fantastically poetic ones. George Washington is the same way, except for one major flaw: these deeply poetic and philosophical musings that these young kids come up with are neither very poetic nor very philosophical. They're all extraordinarily hackneyed, in fact. And to boot, all actors in the film except for one of the kids are HORRENDOUS actors, both in dialogue delivery and in gesticulations. The kid who plays George, arguably the main character, is the best.

There is one monologue in the film that I feel the need to just attack ferociously to demonstrate the lowest depths of this film. George's uncle, who has adopted him, is particularly cruel to animals, especially dogs. He admits to killing a dog to his nephew, and then proceeds to tell George the root of this psychological problem. It seems that when he was a young kid, 6 I think, a big dog came up to him and started humping his leg. He tried to overpower the darn thing, but it was too big and knocked him down. It "humped [him] all over [his] body." So he went home and got a drill to kill the dog, but that dog was gone. COME ON!!! This is incredibly silly. I cannot think of a sillier event than being raped by a dog!!! Jeeze, I almost threw things at the screen that was so terrible!

This is one of those movies that I would love to see someone remake, cutting the bad things, thickening the rest of the story (the themes in the film, while potent, are often tenuously held together). I bet a really compelling film could be made with just the existing footage. One thing I do have to say, though, is watch out for this director! This film may have been a failure (and that is only in my opinion, of course), but there is so much worth in it that I think if the director matured, he might produce a real masterpiece. I will give it a 6/10 because of the good things in it. Really, though, the film falls pretty flat by the end.

A deeply confusing film

[mohaas · 8/10 · 10 October 2000]

Five days after seeing *George Washington* at the Chicago International Film Festival, I still don't really know what to make of it. At times, the film is reminiscent of Terence Malick's work with the use of narration, beautifully evocative music, and mesmerizing shots of the landscape. However, the film jolts you out of the meditative state such devices usually inspire with bizarre turns in the plot and characters.

[A little spoiler here, so if you don't want to know anything about the film, check out here.] *George Washington* follows four young teenagers in the deep south as they lead relatively unsupervised lives. One day, when tragedy occurs, they are forced to come to terms with an adult world they had never really thought about. This is where the film gets perplexing and, I have to admit, I'm not sure if I get it exactly. I'm sure on repeated viewings, though, there will be a lot there to find.

This film is confusing, but it's confusing at its best.

Uniquely captures the mood of adolescence

[howard.schumann · 19 August 2002]

"I like to go to beautiful places where there's waterfalls and empty fields"… Nasia

George Washington is a meandering, moody, and hypnotic look at a group of black children, ages 9 to 14, during one summer in North Carolina. This was my second viewing and it remained a deeply satisfying experience. Though at times self-conscious, George Washington brings to mind Terence Malick's Days of Heaven with its voice-over narration, languid, dreamy tone, and gorgeous cinematography.

The youngsters are shown talking and playing aimlessly among the squalid junkyards and abandoned buildings of their neighborhood. They do not talk much about their hopes for the future but focus on their families and their girl friends and boy friends. The dialogue is partly improvised and, like Days of Heaven, allows the characters to speak in a manner that is slightly more poetic and contemplative than the average teenager.

The narrator, Nasia (Candace Evanofski), is a 12-year-old who has just broken up with her 13-year-old boyfriend Buddy (Curtis Cotton III) because, in her view, he's too young and immature. She's more attracted to Buddy's friend George (Donald Holden), a quiet and serious boy who always wears a helmet to protect his soft skull. They hang out with their friends, a mismatched pair of amateur car thieves named Vernon (Damian Jewan Lee) and Sonya (Rachael Handy), and also with Rico (Paul Schneider), a local railroad worker. Buddy shares his sadness with Rico who comforts him with his own story of lost love.

When an unexpected tragedy occurs, each of them must look closer at themselves and struggle to make an emotional connection with the events. They come to their realizations at different moments throughout the film and slowly begin to change in different ways. George, for one, after saving a drowning boy in a swimming pool becomes a neighborhood hero. Those realizations, however, do not provide an instantaneous fix and Green does not provide a forced happy ending.

Green has said, "One of the reasons I made this movie is because movies talk down to kids, put them as a cute little kid with a box of cereal and a witty joke," says Green. "You watch movies like Kindergarten Cop and it's like, 'Oh, a kid said something about sex. Isn't that funny?' It's just annoying and it makes me sad for their parents."

George Washington presents a view of teens that is not condescending but shows each character as a person of dignity and worth. It uniquely captures the confusion of adolescence, the need to belong, to believe life is or can be important, and the universal longing for love. Green has looked into the squalor and found beauty. Like a poem of Walt Whitman, he has expressed the divine in the commonplace.

Beautiful boredom

[Dr. Nick*#3 · 7/10 · 20 June 2002]

Lovely, amateurish slice of the southern rural life of a small group of youngsters in a dead town one lazy summer. I can't really explain how it unfolds but it kind of reminded me of The Thin Red Line(a lesser film in my opinion), full of half-chewed, impressionistic dialogue, slow pans of life and landscape, jarring events to break the mundanity, only to melt back into the mundanity as a matter of course. The story isn't at all successful but I'd love to see what the first-time director can do with clearer, more engaging material

Pure cinema, a masterpiece of indie filmmaking.

[TechnicallyTwisted · 9/10 · 17 February 2002]

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.

Like watching paint dry

[=G= · 6/10 · 4 January 2004]

Ebert pointed out in his glowing, four star review of "George Washington" that "You hang around with these kids all summer....etc." And, that is exactly the problem with this film. It's like hanging around with kids which, if it were all that interesting, we'd all be hanging around with strange kids for entertainment. Furthermore, the kids in "George Washington" aren't all that interesting. There's little doubt that newbie writer/director Green is a work-in-progress, but this film moves glacially and eventually become one long drone of small talk. A slice of boring, backwater, poor folk life which, though very well executed, is just not sufficiently substantive to be recommendable even in the face of countless critical raves. (C+)

Engrossing, A very underrated film

[juanathan · 10/10 · 3 June 2005]

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.

Not Bad

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 22 July 2014]

A group of children, in a depressed small town, band together to cover up a tragic mistake one summer.

The use of an amateur cast gets us, the audience, into a mindset where this could be a real small town. Indeed, because they are not actors, they probably "act" more naturally in certain circumstances.

I am not going to attempt a thorough review here, because I think there is much that can be said and I do not want to say anything without deeper thought. Clearly a race aspect exists, as does a class aspect. There is some discussion of who or what a hero can be.

And then, how does this film relate to the 1960s' Clu Gulager film? There is much to consider.

Quiet and sincere small-town American study

[Polaris_DiB · 9/10 · 9 July 2008]

David Gordon Green's first feature is like Gummo, only better: characters stumble across a vast wasteland they're only semi-aware of, but instead of just being weird and disturbing, these characters are gentle and caring. Actually, it's worth noting that most of the dialog is not all that un-familiar, and that if the characters were older this movie would seem like pretentious Indie junk. Instead, it puts the context into comedic relief to see 12 year olds discussing love like aging veterans of break-up and loss.

As for, well, imagery: heart-breaking/rending photography. Shot in North Carolina, two people to praise would be the location scout and the cinematographer.... the town these people live in is shapeless, buildings and trash and trains and mines and forest and plants and trees and swamp all co-inhabit the same spaces. The characters seem to know their way around, but trying to track them in context to an overall map is impossible. As a background, it serves well, but also symbolically links to George's traffic directing as a true act of heroism, even after saving that kid's life.

Anyway, this movie is wonderful, and as David Gordon Green has been getting a lot of attention lately what with his new movie Pineapple Express coming out, I'd like to check out more of his work.

--PolarisDiB

A Poetic Collage

[harry-76 · 7/10 · 23 February 2001]

Writer director Gordon Green has fashioned a liesurely paced, poetic collage of scenes from a summer of youthful innocence, forced into a world of maturity.

Green and his cinematographer, Tim Orr, truly create a silk purse from a sow's ear: an ordinary industrial landscape, a weed-infested railroad track, and even a trash heap can all take on a look of beauty and grace.

As our young characters come to grips with their growing maturity, so their surroundings seem to reach out to embrace them and cushion the blows of reality.

For these ears, much of the regional dialogue could have benefitted from subtitles; however, story is not the essential thing here. Rather mood, atmosphere, and feeling is the focus.

Seeing "George Washington" on the big screen in a fine print was a pleasure for the eyes. Beauty can indeed be found in seemingly ordinary settings, when one has the ability to make the discovery. Green, Orr and their company certainly did in this contemplative, poetic rendering.

George Washington on Reel 13

[eplromeo8 · 9/10 · 14 November 2008]

Even though GEORGE WASHINGTON lacks the star power of the Reel 13 Indies of late (IMAGINARY HEROES, SUNSHINE STATE), it's still a high profile independent film. It's legendary in the industry as the first film from indie auteur David Gordon Green. It also already has its own Criterion Collection Edition on DVD, so Channel 13 can hardly claim to have made a discovery here.

As disappointing as it is that Reel 13 has gone away from bringing us films that are new to us (though not that many of them were very good), you have to acknowledge that at the very least, we get an independent film that is wonderfully cinematic and well-crafted. David Gordon Green has a pretty simple formula – not a great deal of extraneous camera movement, realistic characters and scenes that are lyrically cut together with beautifully photographed landscapes. There is a certain poetry to his work that is all his own – a style that he worked to even greater impact with his follow-up film ALL THE REAL GIRLS.

As similar as the feel of GEORGE WASHINGTON is to that film, it's narrative is quite different and deals with a handful of young kids in a small, poor town somewhere in the South (Arkansas? NC?) as they deal with tragedy and the unstoppable nature of growing up. The kids, whom I suspect are all untrained actors, are all quite good, albeit playing characters that are perhaps more mature than their respective ages suggest. That aspect, along with the verisimilitude and honesty of the scenes, reminds me a lot of Peter Sollett's work. Not as much RAISING VICTOR VARGAS (which airs on Reel 13 in May) than the short it was based on – FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING – only Green accomplishes a similar effect without a hand-held camera.

There a couple of nitpicky things that keeps GEORGE WASHINGTON from being as effective as the previously mentioned ALL THE REAL GIRLS. For starters, it's a little slow and hard to hear at times. Paul Schneider, who is outstanding in a much more significant role in REAL GIRLS, is more of a distraction here than an asset. His character, ostensibly intended for comic relief, is like a sixth toe on one foot – it doesn't stop you from walking normally, but it's really unnecessary. I also felt the voice-over was also extraneous – as if Green didn't trust us to comprehend his themes. The biggest issue I had with the film, though, is the surreal turn it takes in its last twenty minutes or so. Without giving too much away, it relates to changes in the main kid character, which are personified by a radical shift in wardrobe. While I see the overarching purpose of the choice – to explicate how the character deals with some of his misfortunes – it is a major shift in tone for the piece and stands out like a sore thumb against the quiet beauty of the rest of the film.

Still and all, beggars can't be choosers and having sat through some very questionable indie films over the last few months, GEORGE WASHINGTON is a very welcome change.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Not easy to appreciate but with definite substance

[christian94 · 7/10 · 8 June 2016]

This independent film is perhaps one of the best take on American adolescence reality, without sex and drugs, close behind the darker and more visceral films from Larry Clark: Kids (1995) and Bully (2001). George Washington comes across as light even in the midst of tragedy and even more tragic life circumstances and reality. It seeks solace, redemption and contemplation in this contemporary boredom. It is poetic and profound at times and meanders in the mundane which it reflects well.

Dialogues and monologues are well written and feel real. Imagery is impactful and uses elements like the cape and lizard mask to convey deeper beauty and meaning. Each character is explored even if briefly to reveal depth and allow for further thoughts. George's father which we see in one scene only, Damascus' explanation of why he hates dogs, Vernon's soliloquy and Sonya's secret are the best examples.

The fragility of actions and consequences. Thoughts, feelings and circumstances.

Although it may be missing an ethereal "je ne sais quoi" to bind everything together a bit more tightly, it achieves the ambiance and ambition of letting us into the life and preoccupations of our young protagonists.

Recommended and good for multiple viewings.

Why do people like this?

[dan-800 · 1/10 · 17 January 2013]

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.

You're expected to think

[futures-1 · 13 November 2007]

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.

Beautiful but lethargic

[gbill-74877 · 6/10 · 1 July 2023]

"When I look at my friends, I know there's goodness."

The cinematography is undeniably good, but the sleepy pace, meandering story, and uneven dialogue kept me from fully enjoying this film, David Gordon Green's first. It's a melancholy mood piece, one that to its credit affords its characters dignity and finds beauty in the poor scenery of a rural southern town. There's something profound in the quiet sympathy it has for people who don't have a lot of material things in their lives, and sentimental about the events over a summer of adolescence, even when tragedy strikes. It just didn't feel as profound as it could have been, maybe because the script was so unfocused.

Gorgeous George

[samkan · 8/10 · 17 October 2008]

Think about this for a second. Throughout this entire movie, virtually no one ever raises their voice. There's some mild horseplay and an odd parent or two scolding their child, that's it. Even though sweat, stale air and boredom pervades the lives of the film's inhabitants, the viewer begins to like being enveloped in this day-to-day smoldering childhood summer existence where meaning, whether it exists or not, must be assigned to everything. As the movie progressed I began to wonder if a plot was developing. Toward the end I realized that I no longer cared about story but was enjoying the movie anyway (Indeed, when one character finally spills the beans it no longer makes a bit of difference). The dialogue is terrific and how the directer got the actors to uniformly deliver tone and accent is amazing. On the down side there was stuff that only functioned as...well...stuff; e.g., the cracker boy's motorcycle ride.

I remember just after seeing THE DEER HUNTER wondering whether Cimino was a genius painting in ambiguity or a goof whose confusion accidentally played as nuance and contrast. Then I realized that I liked the film so much I didn't - and shouldn't - care. The same holds for GEORGE WASHINGTON. Though I suspect true talents at work here.

A love it or hate it film

[Lumpenprole · 10/10 · 1 May 2002]

This film is overflowing with very thoughtful camera work, meandering dialogue, sequences that ask for you to pretty much meditate on symbols, and is so certain of the charm of its own characters that it'll just watch them interact for long stretches. If you love that kind of thing, George Washington has a lot to offer. This movie is torture for the more literal types. Someone watching this movie for a murder story will find 90% of the film a gratuitous waste.

The film is a symbolic universe all its own, like a distinctive David Lynch reality where everything looks kinda like our world, but isn't (the FBI has agents chasing spirits.) In George Washington kids speak with the voices of adults, adults seem curiously childlike, even garbage is beautiful, everything is permanently summer, and someone morphs from a dragon to a super hero.

A Very Promising Debut

[davidals · 8/10 · 15 September 2003]

I loved this film - I love the episodic story, which unfolds at a languid, lifelike pace - this subtlety captures the feel of life in a Southern city (GEORGE WASHINGTON was filmed in Winston-Salem, NC, one of the older and more industrial cities in the state, with a cast of locals) very realistically. You don't see a trace of the mint julieps-and-kudzu (or hamfisted BLUE VELVET/DELIVERANCE freakfests) version of the South still favored by filmmakers who set stories in the region.

I also love - finally - seeing a film with a fascinating story, enacted through a predominantly black cast that dodges the clichés and stereotypes seen in 'black film' (whether from black or white directors), and Green's love for allowing his actors' personalities room to express themselves should serve him well in the future. Characters here are allowed to dream and imagine, and there are moments when this film soars with a shimmering expressiveness - brought down to earth with a few well-placed dramatic turns, but still rather magical overall. The similarities with Terrence Malick and Charles Burnett are obvious; but sparseness and the unobtrusive ability to see the complexity and dignity within characters also favorably recalls some Ozu, Eric Rohmer and Satyajit Ray, and if Green isn't yet their equal, he's still well ahead most of his indie film contemporaries.

Strangely real, wonderfully quirky.

[MacAindrais · 10/10 · 16 February 2006]

George Washington (2001) ****

David Gordon Green's first film, 'George Washington' is a film about people stuck in a small town in a summer that will be like none other before, or after it. There are kids, and there are grown ups. Some of the kids want nothing more than to be kids; some of the kids want nothing more than to be grown up; and some of the adults want nothing more than to feel like kids again.

The kids wander around aimlessly. Messing about, having fun, at least as much fun as they can in such a place. They try to steal a car. Not because they are necessarily bad, but because what else is there to do. They place with dirt, and throw random objects, and one girl begins to write on a wall with feces. Myself growing up in a small town I can tell you things that happen in this movie are in no way unrealistic. I did not grow up in the poverty which these kids do, but I grew up with the same sense of boredom. That boredom when your mother makes you go outside and find something else to do, forbidding you to watch the TV or play video games. The adults are equally bored: they sit around talking about random things and some of them go out of their way to mess around with the kids.

There could have been about 10 different straight on plot lines in this movie, but instead the movie just goes where it will and lets you experience all the things that these kids will during that summer. After all it is only fitting since life does not go in one direction without detours. There is death; a saved life; a search for heroes. But none of these things are overly important. This is about the journey these people go through over the course of a summer.

The voice over, done by Candace Evanofski playing Nasia, obviously draws a lot of inspiration from Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven.' Indeed the whole film draws heavily from Malick's films. Green readily admits his admiration of Malick, and lucky him, he got to work with him on his latest movie 'Undertow.' The actors are all fantastic. But then really they are not acting. These are not actors, they are people being people. It works here and makes everything seem even more real.

In the title, I called this movie quirky. I'm starting to think that it might be the wrong word. I perhaps just should have left it at 'strangly real.' First impression is this is quirky, but thinking more about it just seems a very real picture of real people who act quirky by definition. Trying to pick this movie apart is like trying to chop down a tree with a spoon. I think its best to leave it at this: The movie is a fantastically real portrait of small town boredom; it's fantastically shot with beautiful cinematography; the characters are real; and the movie is wonderfully touching. This is a fantastic film here, and one of the better directorial debuts. George Washington is one of those under-looked and under-appreciated gems.

4/4

Most Overrated "underrated" movie of the year

[stacijon · 1/10 · 16 June 2001]

I was finally able to watch this movie this afternoon after months of anticipating its arrival in my area. I had read the glowing reviews and eagerly ran to today's matinee. I couldn't have been more disappointed. I have a certain affection for slow paced movies as they give me such a feeling of peace as I watch. Many of the comments in this forum praised the film for its deliberate pace, which indeed was an attribute of this movie. However, the acting was so incredibly bad that it ruined the entire experience. I am totally shocked at the comments at this site praising these actors. Someone used the word improvisational. If that means unplanned or not thought out in advance then I will agree. For whatever reason, this film has managed to somehow mesmerize normally discerning movie goers into thinking that this is a gem... but this diamond in the rough is more like coal. I'd suggest that this director who has obvious potential spend more of his budget on acting on his next try. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!!

immensely subtle, brilliantly realized

[bacchae · 16 September 2002]

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.

The letter of the day is "M": Moody, Meandering, Meditative, Melancholy...

[SanTropez_Couch · 10/10 · 20 February 2003]

"George Washington" isn't about the first president of the United States. The free-floating story centers around a group children in North Carolina during one summer, after which their lives will be changed forever. We meet these kids and their families: there's George, Buddy, Nasia, Vernon, Sonya (the sole non-black child in the group). Buddy has broken up with his girlfriend, Nasia, and suspects his best friend, George, is dating her now. George, who's father we see in jail, unexplained ("I love you so much, sometimes I can't even breathe"), lives with his Aunt Ruth and Uncle Damascus. We learn that Damascus is nervous around animals.

Ten minutes into the film we get a premonition of what's to come. I kept waiting for "it" to happen as I knew it would, and as it did, it indeed made me grimace (three times, in fact). The inevitable tragedy isn't quite what I thought it would be and while it is one of the central events in the film, after it's over the film doesn't lose anything.

Damascus works at what seems to be a junkyard, with some others, Rico being a character we get to know. During one conversation Rico has with Buddy, Buddy laments his lost love and Rico gets as much out of this conversation with Buddy as Buddy gets does from him. Buddy says, "I miss having her around, being able to talk to her about my feelings and stuff," and it's one of those perfect moments in the film where the inflection is just right. It's where a film like this really shines. The actors bring every ounce of their person into their roles, which isn't to say they merely play themselves.

We are told, almost casually, after a while within the film that George's skull never fully developed and remains soft, has to stay dry and that he needs to wear a helmet to protect his head. We learn a lot of interesting things like this, or like when we learn that Buddy has to sing to his mother to help her go to sleep. That's it. Just a little nugget of information that may or may not be important later in the film.

An amazing scene at a pool that's so effortless and gliding defines the movie's tone. It appears as if it's just another event to David Gordon Green, the first-time director, but the delicate care he gives the scene and the slight distortion makes it wonderful. Like the "it" in the film, it doesn't serve as the basis for the story, it's just an incident that takes place within it.

In the way Green handles one scene, in which someone confesses to haven been molested by a dog, he doesn't allow for any slight bit of comedy, in a scene that in another movie could be made uproariously funny. It's almost a miracle. And the would-be morbidity in the next scene still seems weird, but remains a nice gesture, nonetheless.

There are funny moments of strange truth that would, in another context, be laugh-out-loud funny, but here it makes us smile and nod with recognition. It's that kind of movie full of realizations about the characters and we identify with them because we see ourselves in them. The teens may ruminate more than we'd expect someone of that age to, but it's a kind of honesty and purity that only young people have.

I've heard some people say that the film is sort of Lynchian, but this escapes me. I admire Lynch greatly and both Lynch and Green use their artistry magnificently, but, at least for me, in very different ways, for different purposes.

There are numerous similarities between "George Washington" and Malick's "Days of Heaven." The black and white stills at the end of this film recall the opening black and white stills in that film. There is also narration by a young girl, Nasia, very characteristic of "Days of Heaven." Also, like Malick, Green shows his characters, in segues, being. We simply observe them as a transition from one scene to the next. Unlike Malick, who has made only period movies, Green has set his film in the present, but never lets that affect his film in a negative way or in a way that may date it regrettably. The characters talk more here than in Malick's films, and Green isn't quite the philosopher Malick is -- it seems more like he waited for profundities to appear, rather than instating them himself -- but he's just about as good as a visual storyteller. The look is clear, dreary, bright, sunny, white and sensual.

When the film was over, I had a few questions but ambiguity is rarely done so right. Roger Ebert said about "Magnolia" that it was the kind of film he loved -- leave logic at the door. Well, this film isn't really challenging on a logical level, but on a stylistic one it's important to open up and let the movie flow over you.

The movie has sentiment, but is devoid of that fascist sort sentimentality that makes a mess of movies. I like that we're given the opportunity to feel for ourselves. (Remember the scene in which I said Green allows no comedy? Well, that's not true, he just handles it in such a way that allows it to be either hilarious or deadly serious or both. I saw it as serious.) There are no cues -- musical or otherwise -- that inform us when to feel what. It's also great to see black life shown in a non-stereotypical way. This never seems like a "black movie," it's a movie that happens to feature a predominantly black cast not constrained to the clichés and rules of "black movies," and that's something we deserve more of.

Early in the film, Nasia says that in her friends she sees goodness. And with the way in which Green filters his story and his ideas through his characters, when we watch this film, we see the goodness in ourselves.

****

I hope you live forever.

[film-critic · 9/10 · 4 July 2006]

David Gordon Green is a master of his trade. While some will argue that George Washington does not depict the best that Green has to offer, I believe that it is a great opening to a new chapter of modern film-making. For George Washington, Green has borrowed techniques that have made such directors as Larry Clark, Harmony Korine, and Terrence Malick infamous in the film community, and transformed them into his very own. George Washington is a perfect example of this. With beautiful narration, exquisite background, and fresh faces that deliver dialogue worthy of both Oscar and recognition, Green gives us a chilling tale that is fraught with realism, desperation, and horror. What immediately pulled me in to this film were the still-shots that defined the culture of the town. These young children are experiencing everything that we have ever encountered in our lives up to that breaking moment of insanity. We are pulled in to the story and direction because Green is able to bring truth to his "fictional" tale. While we all know that this is just another "story", Green send goosebumps down our spine with his passion of realism. For a majority of this film, I found myself questioning the "fictionalization" of this film. What obviously were moments created by the imagination transformed into those that you could see on the streets of small town North Carolina.

An element that added to the realism of the background and story were the characters. Green padded his directorial debut with unknowns and was able to command more emotion and dedication than you could see in anything "big-budget" Hollywood. While it was obvious that he was working with child actors (i.e., some delivery was slow, some direction seemed choppy, and for one scene characterization seemed weak), he overcomes the typical stereotypes and brings the best of his imaginary world and that of the children into this film. I loved that when Buddy went mission that Nasia thought that it was because he was still in love with her and could not cope with the emotion. It seemed like a cheap moment of dialogue, but it made complete and utter sense in this film. The actor that played George, Donald Holden, was phenomenal. He brought that sad hero to the surface and we, as audience members, found ourselves rooting for him from the beginning. He was simple, in fact, one could say that was a technique that Green employed to be successful with George Washington, he kept things simple. What made George Washington different than Korine's Gummo is that Green doesn't emphasize the poverty level. While he makes it clear with the surroundings and home-life of George, he doesn't throw it in our faces as a "shock" tactic like Korine does. Not that there is anything wrong with Korine's tactics, I just thought that Green's approach was more subtle. I also draw references to M. Night Shyamalan's vastly underrated Unbreakable due to the subject matter. George Washington is the story about finding heroes in the most unlikely of places. It is the story of how tragedy births the heroes of our lives, and while we should never disregard the tragedy, it does bring to light those that want to change. Unbreakable, released the same year as George Washington, implies the same. One could find a great research topic by comparing these two films side by side.

I think I may have zigzagged a bit in that last paragraph, but it just demonstrates my excitement for this film. This is my second time watching George Washington and I think it gets better and better with each viewing. Criterion was correct to add it to their collection of ever-growing films. This is a film about childhood. Rarely in film is it explored with such darkness and honesty. Lately, there have been more films that surround itself around the topic (Chumbscubber, Mean Creek), but for 2000 this was a pivotal film. I was engulfed by the reaction that Green pulled from the different characters. Already I have spoken about George's transformation, but I also loved the insecurity that Vernon began feeling and the truth that Sonya finally saw about her future. It is sad, but extremely real. This film reminded me of a modern Stand By Me.

I must end with saying that this is not a film for everyone. If you are not a fan of some of the directors that I have mentioned above, than you may not enjoy George Washington. It is slow, simple, and developed. Green takes images and makes the visuals actually work for him instead of fighting against it. The narration could be annoying for some, but for me it completed this film. I would have enjoyed more time spent with George's Aunt and Uncle due to so much is unknown about them, but that is what makes Green's work superb. I liked this film. For me, it is a prime example of true American film-making. It takes us back to the roots of what cinema should be about. George Washington takes us away from the explosions, the CGI, and the overpaid actors while delivering to us a story that should have shaken the Oscar tree. Criterion was correct to release this film in their collection, and it is correct for you to add it to yours. This is David Gordon Green at his finest!

Grade: ***** out of *****

A Modern Masterpiece (Essential Viewing)

[loganx-2 · 10/10 · 23 June 2008]

Like reading a great novel. The words which pour out of these kids mouths, are at times completely natural and others poetic and rich. This is not your typical independent film, dealing with "life amongst the poor", in fact though destitute the setting is kinda magical and Utopian. (George doesn't get harassed, assaulted, while patrolling the neighborhood with a cape? Adults and children, speak to each other with no recognition of age, etc.) But none of this distracts from the "realism" of the story or characters, well realism is the wrong word...naturalism seems more fitting.

A group of friends in North Carolina (all played by real people, no actors) deal with boredom, crushes, and growing up, until tragedy strikes, and changes them all, some attempt to escape, others take to lofty (super-heroesque) heroism.

May seem a bit slow to some, but it's sincerely one of the best movies I've ever seen, it has a life and uniqueness all it's own which is difficult to put into words. I'd heard whispers of this movie for years, and now that I've finally seen it, I understand exactly the reasons for the hushed admiration and awe.

A moving and inspiring masterpiece, I wish there were more like this...for one it's a film with non-middle class black characters, which doesn't immediately fall into clichés of race, class, etc, allowing the characters to grow into actual 3 dimensional human forms, and not just sacrificial lambs for heavy handed social tragedy (Okay I'm getting a bit off point, and maybe personalizing this, but it did make a difference in my appreciation, and perhaps Gordon's directing. In the Charlie Rose Interview (for those of you with the DVD), Gordon mentions for instance using ambient and string music as opposed to traditionally expected "hip hop" or "urban music". It's small details like this which help establish the films tone apart from it's environment, and to show how tranquil and mystical even junkyards and vacant lots can seem to fresh eyes and minds.)....Anywho it's a great film.

"I just wish I had my own tropical island, I wish... I wish I was... I could go to China, I wish I could go out of The States... I wish I had my own planet, I wish I... I wish there were 200 of me, man... I wish I could just sit around with computers and technology and just brainstorm all day man. I wish I was born again... I wish I could get saved and give my life to Christ... then maybe he can forgive me for what I did... I wish there was just one belief... my belief."