George Washington (2000)

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 *****

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

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.