Customer Reviews

George Washington (Widescreen)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

The most striking thing about George Washington is the incredibly unrealistic dialogue of the children. The funniest thing is that I later read the director say he was seeking realism. I would strongly warn against anyone considering buying this without having seen it first. I was also thinking of this after reading a review that favorably compared the film's narrative to that of Harmony Korine's Gummo, which I like very much. That's all I really wanted to point out. As well, I'll just say that the reviewer who posted the 'myths debunked' review is, if not involved in the production of the film, in some way profiting from the sales of it. All the others who have posted five-star reviews can just be put down to poor taste (click more about each one and see five stars given to a 98 Degrees album and similar products).

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.

I do not think there is any need for critcism for this distinctive film. If this film was made for the purpose of racial exploitation the characters would more likely be urban drugdealers. If Mr.David Gordon Green was at all to pretend himself into any sophistication---His hero would be Woody Allen, not McCabe and MrsMiller. The feeling from my heart about this experience is that the quality was overwhelming, and more than that---there's magic in the frames. There's humour too---unconventional humor, and much more that gave me a peak of what material really is exciting to make. But anyway, Perhaps the film's too quiet for this generation or what have you, or this film's true viewers aren't yet born, but believe me, the real intentions of this film, is like the director said himself on Charlie Rose: You won't just think oh, what's for dinner, but that this experience is something that lingers.
So really, get that chance to see it if you're genuinely interested. thank you

This is a film that I loathed with such visceral intensity that I felt compelled to publicly ridicule it. I realize that this isn't perhaps the most welcoming disclaimer for the following review, but if even one--and only one--person resists the urge to trust the (usually more discriminating) film selectors at the Criterion Collection and thereby withholds the approval and appreciation that additional sales of this DVD might signify to the writer-director of this film, then this review has been successful.

First, let me say a good thing about George Washington: its cinematography is exceptional. But needless to say, cinematography is generally not a sufficient reason to watch or to want to watch a movie. As if intent on not allowing the audience to appreciate its sullen, dilapidated visual aesthetic, George Washington betrays its beauty at every step--populating these sad and evocative landscapes of the South with the pretentious musings of children who are supposedly capable of articulating profound truths about their own situations and, more philosophically, about life itself. The problem, of course, is that children of these ages do not speak this way because--and this would seem apparent--they are children. That isn't to say that some children are not gifted, intelligent, and astute, but simply that this is not their "voice." Instead, it's the unmistakeable voice of a young film school graduate who imagines (1) that he has poignant insights about these characters and their situations and (2) that he has the artistic maturity to integrate these insights into a film without being didactic, preachy, and--worst of all--false.

Unfortunately, the director has neither the insights nor the talent that a film like George Washington demands. Mostly, the "profound" self-revelatory dialogue (uttered, I must remind you, by pre-teens) is achingly contrived and ponderous--expressly foreign to the general experience of being a child--and, moreover, the non-professional child actors are incapable of delivering their line-readings without sounding self-conscious and unnatural. Of course, the blame isn't all theirs; their readings are unnatural because the dialogue, purportedly earnest and naturalistic, is at all times unnatural and false. Occasionally, the film lapses into such fits of self-indulgent ponderousness and the dialogue becomes so clumsy and unwieldly that it becomes unintentionally humorous.

Ostensibly, the film is (roughly) about the interactions of a group of poor Southern children who sense the oppression of their impoverished, dead-end environment. If the plot sounds excessively vague and uneventful, then rest assured that tragedy strikes and one of the children dies; the others are peripherally involved and try to cover up the death, after which the child who is/feels most responsible for the death enages in eccentric and symbolic behavior (like dressing in a super hero outfit and directing traffic). It probably doesn't even need to be mentioned that this child has a psychopathically abusive father, who figures largely in one of the more absurdly maudlin threads of this storyline.

Within all of this coming-of-age ilk, there is a discernible exploitative quality. One cannot escape the realization that this a film about miseries of rural (and for the most part black) southern poverty created by a young white (pseudo-)intellectual film-maker who shows, by his writing and direction, that he possesses no deep understanding of this particular milieu. Even if he grew up within it, its (more prosaic) realities evidently eluded him. There is, in short, a mawkish do-good sentimentality which undlies and seems to motivate this film, and it is nothing short of embarrassing. It wants to exalt but instead degrades its subjects.

...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.

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

I first saw George Washington on the Independent Film Channel. Actually, made it a point to get up early to watch this fil after seeing some advertisement about it.

The movie is beautiful.

Melancholy, sad, full of perfect imagery that tells the tale. I would agree this movie is not for everyone.

George Washington takes awhile to get into. The plot is dragged out but this film is worth the time to sit through and do more then just sit watching it as another film. There are many little pieces to this one, some not as forth right as the others but it offers great viewing and craftmanship which has become some of the most prominent forces i nthe film industry.

Do not expect anything glamorous or Hollywoodish frim this film. It is a bare bones raw film which great human tragedy.

Another Independent Film which now takes it's place with pride on my DVD shelf.

Like Abbas Kiarostami's "Taste of Cherry", George Washington is a masterpiece that uses images as a narrative. I admit that this film is not for everyone. But for those who are reluctant to see this film, please give it a try. This film is the best evidence in years that film is art.

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.