George Washington - Criterion Collection | Mike Hertel, Jack Grindle

George Washington - Criterion Collection | Mike Hertel, Jack Grindle | not for everyone...but an indisputable masterpiece for others

DVDs:

George Washington ...

	George Washington - Criterion Collection Mike Hertel, Jack Grindle Criterion, 2002 average customer review:based on 29 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Over the course of one hot summer, a group of children in the rural south are forced to confront a tangle of difficult choices in a decaying world. An ambitiously constructed, sensuously photographed meditation on adolescence, the first feature film by director David Gordon Green features breakout performances from an award-winning ensemble cast.

A stunning and poetic debut film -- the rebirth of a nation

The children of this film speak of matters and in a manner that suggests a maturity beyond their years. They have to, since they have only peers to serve as moral guides. The adults in their life are preoccupied with other matters -- making a living by recycling the materials left behind from another age. While set in an unnamed small town in deep South, the film feels timeless -- the characters seem drawn from a Faulkner novel, the young woman who gives her voice to the film is not so much narrating as establishing a poetic space within which to assess the story, a story of innocence lost and of how to establish hope and meaning in a situation that appears to give so little opportunity for transcendence. It is in that context that a new George Washington, a young dreamer, with hopes for a brighter future appears -- the narrowness of the world experience available to these children is indicated by how they envision their potential: the narrator thinks that maybe George Washington, who she admires, could head up some kind of parade ... he decides to dress up as superman. There is something touching and profound and telling about the way that the children in the film respond to the tragedies both minor (jealousy, rivalry) and profound (accidental death, suicide) -- something about the fragility of the communities we build up, that suggests (without being bluntly allegorical) the difficulty of community in general and of American community in particular. How do we experience rebirth as a nation? Who can stand to unify us and give us hope? How do we hold out hope for the future as opportunities dwindle in our communities?

The film aims to explore a territory that adults know little about or choose to forget: that children (especially children who are left to themselves a good deal) don't think of themselves as innocent even in their play, and that they see themselves as making decisions fraught with moral consequences, that the questions who to be friends with, who to trust, who to love, and how to deal with hurt are every bit as profound for the child as the so-called "deeper" philosophical and political and moral questions that even adults tend to evade but discuss in situations of crisis. The film is slow -- it inhabits the same cinematic space as films by Terrence Malick, or some of the films by Gus Van Sant -- but it rewards patience (not in the sense of "its hard to watch but it is culturally important so suffer through it" but in the sense of the best films that, if you let them, and don't judge them by your own standards of entertainment, they can teach you something about what is possible in cinema). The opening sequence, in which two children break up, and we are introduced to the space of the story and to the voice of the "narrator," is one of the most thrilling openings in any film I've seen -- all at once the very first time I saw this film (on a whim) I knew I was seeing something profound and original. I've enjoyed everything by David Gordon Green that I've seen since (Undertow and All the Real Girls) but nothing matches the fluent and meditative originality of this film that overwhelmed me on first viewing and that continues to move and astonish me even after several viewings. In my book this is one of the profound and enduring debut films of a filmmaker whose work places substance over style and yet manages to be unique and original in the telling, films like "Badlands," "Stranger than Paradise," "Sex, Lies and Videotape," "Shadows," and, more recently, "Funny Ha Ha."

for more information click here

not for everyone...but an indisputable masterpiece for others

firstly; this movie is unashamedly derivative of terrence malick. structure-wise, down to the narrative techniques, it's a repositioning of 'badlands', but all i can say about that is, malick and green now work together. if malick doesn't care, you probably shouldn't either.
to hold to the malick theme and 'badlands' and address people's issues with the dialogue, all i can say is 'i found a toaster' (just one of many laughable, stupid lines of dialogue from 'badlands').
it is also very similar to 'gummo', less sensational, but both movies are remarkably important it their visually poetic displays of how we are letting this country rot and how the rusted and wrecked places the out of control, locomotive progression of our country/culture (ie: capitalism) leaves behind are still teaming with life like a desert. seemingly pointless and ugly life. both films leave this image sitting there almost as a question, how will we rectify this complex and very real situation? such things are so necessary that both films should be complimented and revered for putting them in our faces (see also: the entirity of 'the wire').
where the disconnect begins, i think, is in terms of the subject matter. this movie is about expieriencing death in the developmental stages of childhood. the pain, the guilt, the confusion, the struggle of little kids to say something or think something or do something that is as equally profound as death. being forced to ponder what life is about at a young age, to make sense of it before you should every have to do such a thing. being left behind to cope, create your own ritual, your own mythology, your own meaning, in a place that's been left behind and all set against a oh so meaningful festive backdrop with effectiveness unrivaled since shakespere. astonishing, simply astonishing.
to be honest, i haven't cared so much for green's other movies but this, it is my favorite movie ever.
there are definate reasons this film is so highly regarded.

for more information click here

A dazzling and imaginative debut

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 set in, and mostly filmed in Winston-Salem, NC (part of a metro area of over 1,000,000 people, though one wouldn't exactly see this in the film), one of the older and more industrial cities in the state, with a cast of locals.

You also 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. The sort of STEEL MAGNOLIA faux-drawwwwliness that has crept out of the quaintest and cutsiest Southern lit is completely banished from GEORGE WASHINGTON; a move I'd advise just about anyone wishing to set (or shoot) a film in this part of the country follow. In another wise decision, Green sidesteps the reflexive quirk and posturing that infects too much American indie film.

I also love - finally - seeing a film with a fascinating story, enacted through a predominantly African-American cast that dodges the clichés and stereotypes seen in 'black film.' A rather depressingly common filmmaker complaint is the utter impossibility in getting more literary or intellectually intricate African-American stories off the ground in Hollywood (witness the essential disappearance of Charles Burnett's KILLER OF SHEEP, a slice of DeSica-style African-American neo-realism unseen now for more than 30 years) - GEORGE WASHINGTON is an independent film, with a tiny theatrical release, and was made on a tiny budget, though Green makes extremely good use of the budget he had to work with.

Green's love for allowing his actors' personalities room to express themselves should also 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.

I would add a note concerning both the cinematography, and Green's use of dialogue here: parts of my childhood were spent in neighborhoods in Charlotte (a city of 600,000+ people) that look VERY much like what I saw in GEORGE WASHINGTON, and recall occasions of running around some grimy neighborhoods with other friends engaging in plenty of the kinds of daydreaminess that occupies the characters here, even when those characters (and you: the viewer) must also deal with the intrusions of ugly or unpleasant realities. Green nailed something here that almost no one else seems to get: even the grimiest places can occasionally startle with unexpected charm, and even the most impoverished people can occasionally remind one of just how vast and playful the human imagination can be. Qualities in this film that first seem like impressionistic wooziness are in fact more real than many critics would seem to be able to fathom.

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 Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer and Italian neo-realism, and if Green isn't yet their equal, he's still well ahead most of his indie film contemporaries.

-David Alston

for more information click here

Good start

George Washington was the first feature film ever made by indy wunderkind director David Gordon Green. It was released in 2000, to generally favorable reviews, and it truly deserved them. It has been recently released on an invaluable Criterion Collection DVD which I recently purchased. Most critics erred and went in for a facile comparison to filmmaker Terrence Malick, but this film has several things that Malick's films do not have. Yes, like Malick, Green is fond of lingering poetic shots of seemingly everyday things, but Green's film is far more concerned with individuals than any of Malick's four feature films are. Malick's 1978 Days Of Heaven does have its reach, though, as the black and white still photographs at the end of George Washington homage the black and white stills of that film, just as a young girl's narration echoes the young female character's in Days Of Heaven. But, the characters in George Washington are mostly poor North Carolina preteens of an eternal present, not historic artifacts, and they convey a sense of self that is absent in Malick's films, which mostly deal with issues, not people.
That said, this film is not really a narrative, more of a simple series of linked vignettes that trace a several week period over a summer, which opens with a dreamy panoramic and poetic monologue spoken by a young girl named Nasia (Candace Evanofski), that weaves poetry out of the banal snippets that drift in and out of even the most prosaic minds, such as, `I like to go to beautiful places where there's waterfalls and empty fields.' This is not immanently poetic, but juxtaposed with the camera work it takes on a heightened, almost ecstatic, state. Some criticize the film by stating real children do not speak that way, but, a) I've known them, and a read of Anne Of Green Gables shows they've always been around, and b) the poesy is not of the character, but what the character says in relation to her station on life.... This film is not a great film, but it shows great potential, just as Malick's first film, Badlands, showed great potential, but not accomplishment. But it is a special film because it makes its specialness from what is remembered by all people, from their youth. As they go on with life, George and Nasia will likely drift apart, but both will have their own reasons for remembering that long ago summer the film charts, and we viewers will understand why.

for more information click here

I should like this film, but....

On paper, I should love this film. It has many thing I admire in films. It's beautifully shot in scope, it has a leisurely pace to it, and it's very understated at times. But it's also muddled, sloppily edited, incoherent, and the dialogue leaves something to be desired. The film has a real disjointed feel to it, and I don't think this is deliberate. David Gordon Green's follow up to this, All the Real Girls, had the same sloppy craftmanship that this film does, except that film has better performances. Some might say Green is attempting an expressionistic type of film, but he doesn't really pull it off. Directors who do make expressionistic films like this one was trying to be (Tarkovsky, Tarr, Sokurov, Kieslowski) do pull it off, and their films feel remarkably coherent, despite the ambiguity that exists in them. Here it doesn't work. Green gets points for making an independent film that really isn't like Hollywood at all (many indie films have an eye towards the mainstream), but it doesn't fully work.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

products you might be interested in