Rating: 
Summary: A very American beauty: deprivation made cute.
Review: 'George Washington' can feel like dutiful viewing, something you know is probably good for your moral and cultural health, like public service broadcasting. Like 'To Kill a Mockingbird' wrenched from its comfortable, white middle-class perspective, 'George' sacrifices realism to mood. We get many images of poverty and abandonment, of scrapyards, rusted debris, impoverished lots, rank public lavatories, delapidated houses, unemployment, but never any insight into how these things came about, beyond the odd photograph of the first President Bush. Furthermore, this poverty and decay isn't real, felt poverty and decay, but absurdly fetishised in gorgeously over-composed tableaux, where the bright glare of the sun seems to suffuse these meticulous long shots with glowing aureoles. this langorous summer atmosphere, the prevalence of mangy animals, the often excruciatingly precocious, cod-poetic voiceover, the 'mature', coffee-table-serious soundtrack, all bespeak a Harper Lee-style moral earnestness wrapped up in a sandwich bag of aestheticism. Even a deserted, bloody corpse looks pretty.what makes 'George' at all watchable, even enjoyable, is the cast. there is a mendacious assumption in some critical quarters that the use of non-professionals in film is somehow superior to and more honest than trained actors, with their tics, tricks and evasions. Amateurs couldn't be less 'real', their stumbling self-consciousness resulting in a stiltedness that has little to do with everyday life. What non-professionals bring is an awareness of the camera, an acknowledgement professionals try to hide. We watch amateurs performing beng 'real', and the best scenes here are not the moody, poetic ones of strained solitude, but the sequences of interaction, with the characters kidding around, trying to stage their own self-image, or the image they want to project. This results in some surprisingly funny moments, especially when George becomes a superhero, his cape and dogskin/racoon hat jarring against the rundown environment; but it also brings you so close to the characters, that you feel an unheard-of visceral identification with them, especially when bad things happen. A constant motif through the film is of light filtering through racks and gaps - for me this light emanates from the wonderful actors rather than the poverty-chic mise-en-scene.
Rating: 
Summary: ...
Review: ...For those customers looking for good advice on the movie, it truly is an awesome film. With breathtaking cinematography, and overall good acting performances George Washington is definitely worth your time and money to see. The tone the director has set for the lives of poor children is something unusually different than has ever been done before.
Rating: 
Summary: Time to clear away the myths
Review: A lot of harsh stuff has been said about this movie, some of it misguided and some of it just plain ignorant. Time to debunk a few myths. Myth #1--David Gordon Green writes snotty art-house dialogue.
Characters in George Washington use ordinary, everyday words that all kids know, whether their local public school is a good one or not. In fact, a lot of the dialogue in the movie is just random, everyday talk about food, feelings, funny stuff that happened yesterday, or whatever. Myth #2--David Gordon Green creates pretentious characters.
Although the characters in George Washington use everyday language, they do tend to take themselves seriously. It is obvious that each and every one of them wishes for happiness and wants something good to happen in their lives. I like this very much about his movies, not least because it breaks up the usual Hollywood stereotypes about rural life--the corny gas station attendant, the Deliverance redneck, the Daisy Duke slut, etc. Instead of all that mess, we get people who actually think about the past and the future and try to make sense of what is going on around them. What's pretentious about that? Myth #3--David Gordon Green condescends to his subjects.
As the commentary tracks and extensive supplements demonstrate, Green's relationship with his actors is incredibly sensitive and complex. Listening to Green and to his (mostly youthful) actors, you realize he's one of those rare adults that can treat kids as if they are real human beings. Critics and viewers are the condescending ones when they object to the dialogue as "pretentious." What they're really saying is that they're contemptuous of "regular people" who live off the cultural radar and can't take them seriously or bother to care about how their lives turn out. Myth #4--David Gordon Green has no story to tell.
Though it doesn't have a clear ending, there is at least a beginning and middle here, and in that sense this movie isn't any different than many a Hollywood character drama, from Affliction to American Beauty. And unlike those films, George Washington manages to tell its story with a voiceover that is neither obvious nor obnoxious. Myth #5--David Gordon Green makes everything in his movies look beautiful, but for no reason.
Green's rural South is prettified, no doubt about it. In fact it's hard to think of a more beautiful use of color film in the last ten years or so. But the beauty does have a purpose, namely to suggest that the world is full of joy and potential. The camera sees run-down neighborhoods, abandoned cars, and factories through the eyes of youth. To Green's protagonists, the world is a place where one can be happy, despite the fact that the good life, as DC or Hollywood or New York imagine it, is nowhere to be seen. The film's title, not to mention the repeated images of George Bush, seem to make a subtle but definite point about the difference between the American Dream and the different, but still meaningful, reality that many people inhabit. This difference comes to a head in a great speech that owes a debt to Medium Cool by Haskel Wexler, one of Green's big influences. In a way this is a very political way to see, and though it's not exactly Norma Rae or Matewan (two movies for which Wexler did cinematography), Green's commitment to seeing beauty in ordinary lives is significant in its own right. And, for those who think that only foreign film has any complexity, it's a distinctly American way to approach youth. Myth #6--Criterion overestimated the importance of Green's work when they added George Washington to their collection.
The fact is that Green's vision is a very unusual one, and in a time where indie movies seem to pride themselves on haphazard camera work and smart-ass pessimism, this film definitely suggests a better direction. Might be the beginning of a great career, might not, but definitely an American film that needs to be preserved. The extras are superb, by the way. Admittedly there's stuff wrong with George Washington. Some side stories should have been edited down, a little more plot exposition would have been nice, and the murdered dog who gets turned into a hat is maybe a little too cute of a plot device. But these are youthful offenses and you can't expect Green to hit the clarity and precision of Walkabout or Days of Heaven on his first try. This is a talky movie, and if you can't handle that, stay away. But don't confuse this with Steven Soberberg-type art-house sobbery. This is a movie that sits on the porch and watches life pass quietly, beautifully, joyfully, tragically by.
Rating: 
Summary: Was there a movie here?
Review: Contrary to what too many people told me, George Washington has to be the most over-hyped piece of listless boredom to grace art houses without subtitles. Even through the film is less than 90 minutes, my ... felt like it sat through three hours of a movie. While the cinematography is a notch above most low budget indie films, it's such a crutch for the lack of a clear storyline. I'm still not sure why the kids didn't call 911 when their friend dies - how do they know the kid is dead? And why doesn't anyone notice the living kid running around town in the dead kid's athletic suit? And the business with the dog hating guy who turns the pet into a hat was like a bad David Lynch moment. If anything, David Gordon Green created a spoof of a Terrence Malick film - anytime he needs to cover the plot holes, he does a cut away to some piece of debris or has a character give a flake filled voiceover. And why was the director talking to his actor about Lloyd Free at the end. What was the deal with the aimless two minute scene of the guy riding the motorscooter that has the music change in the middle? What a waste.
Rating:
Summary: amazing debut film
Review: David Gordon Green has created a lush, vibrant film showing not just immense potential, but genuine talent. Set in the deep south during the recession of the 1980's, GW captures the melancholy of childhood in a rarely (if never before) seen light. While obviously influenced by the great talent of Terrence Malick, Green's choice of cinematographer and talent demonstrate a fundamental understanding of film as a visual and sensory medium, and not a dumping ground for rehashed dialogue and filler about bad relationships with witty quips. Green throws aside the usual bad dialogue and poor camera work of most first time film makers, and finds language in imagery and visuals in dialogue. The exploration of heroism and simple responsibility are given appropriate weight, but with no small sense of the absurd (perhaps appropriate when dealing with the perspective of children). This is an excellent film, and should stoke the drive of all wannabe or potential first-time film-makers. The bar need not be set low just because of a constrained budget. Films can be made that are meaningful and well-shot without a $100K budget.
Rating:
Summary: Terrence Malick Wannabe
Review: Dear David Gordon Green, I know what you are doing. Its not working. In "George Washington," David Gordon Green tries to extract the natural beauty and poetic simplicity of Terrence Malick's films to the point of absurdity. The quick cuts to nature shots, the pseudo-casual speaking tone of children who stutter and say "oh-so profound" things... This dvd contains his student films, which speak for themselves to show you what a talentless filmmaker this guy is. His Charlie Rose interview is nauseating. He lets Charlie stroke his ego about what an interesting new visionary he is.... Sickening and insulting.
Go buy Badlands and humble David Gordon Green before the master...TERRENCE MALICK
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful, abstract
Review: George Washington is beautifully photographed. The colors are vivid and saturated, and the framing is excellent. Occasionally the cinematography is distracting, with jarring zooms and pans. But for the most part, it's a delight to watch. The plot is barely there, and that made it a little hard to watch. 89 minutes is a long time to look at pretty pictures with very little story. The acting is a mixed bag; some performances are convincing, some are artificial. If you're looking for a movie where something happens, this isn't it. It's mostly a loosely-strung collection of thought-provoking imagery.
Rating:
Summary: It's Difficult To Explain Just How Bad This Is
Review: Hmmm, maybe some people just don't get this masterpiece. That's fine. To each his own. It must be said, though, that its impressive for a debut film to be released on Criterion Collection. Even more impressive is the fact that Terrence Malick himself hired this young filmmaker to direct a script that Malick originated. But this is all the hype stuff that creates the kind of backlash I'm reading on these reviews. If we just discuss the film, I would have to say that it is slow, it is deeply moving, and it is as powerful as it is long. An incredibly polished, mature and confident work of art. Green is an auteur and has already established himself, at the age of 28, and after only two films, as one of the most important filmmakers today. He will be in the ranks of Malick, Scorcese, Kubrick, and the like, by the time that he is 40.
Rating:
Summary: An American masterpiece
Review: Hmmm, maybe some people just don't get this masterpiece. That's fine. To each his own. It must be said, though, that its impressive for a debut film to be released on Criterion Collection. Even more impressive is the fact that Terrence Malick himself hired this young filmmaker to direct a script that Malick originated. But this is all the hype stuff that creates the kind of backlash I'm reading on these reviews. If we just discuss the film, I would have to say that it is slow, it is deeply moving, and it is as powerful as it is long. An incredibly polished, mature and confident work of art. Green is an auteur and has already established himself, at the age of 28, and after only two films, as one of the most important filmmakers today. He will be in the ranks of Malick, Scorcese, Kubrick, and the like, by the time that he is 40.
Rating:
Summary: No title
Review: I am tremendously happy to have seen this film. I spent a little time in areas of urban and rural North Carolina growing up and I never imagined it could be depicted so wonderfully. Green found a wealth of beauty where I saw very little and showed me a new side of a place I thought I knew well. That impresses a guy. George Washington is only ninety minutes long, but in the mind it seems to occupy a much larger space. I believe this was not merely a promising debut, but an extremely important film. This film is working in a very rarefied genre terrain, one with very few precedents (Green has cited his main influences and they are specific and few: Malick, who's made like three films, and the movie "Walkabout", "Oh Lucky Man", maybe one or two others) and it set some pretty strict barriers for itself: it was going to be pastoral but also intense, inarticulate yet profound, it was going to try and do justice to growing up and was going to try to show this obliquely, without a very clearly defined set of plot devices (the film trusts that you aren't going to be affected and snobbish about the fact that ordinary people, i.e. kids, uneducated adults, etc., may occasionally have extraordinary things to say) and it was going to try to be about spontinaiety and non linearity and process, which is a philosophy totally opposed to most film-making being done at this point, and it was going to take risks in casting via the use of non professional child actors. But anyway, that's beside the point. The main thing is that George Washington actually works. That's why it will continue to be watched. Maybe this film is not a "perfect masterpiece", whatever that means, but this one seems to have shaken the confederacy of dunces. I feel sorry for certain critics here who feel they must be affected and satirical in their style in order for people to listen to them, and who disrespect the film for the sake of this affected style.
|
