MovieChat Forums > George Washington (2001) Discussion > GEORGE LET ME DOWN!!!!

GEORGE LET ME DOWN!!!!

posted 20 years ago by richard-waine
22 replies | jump to latest

I had been interested in this film ever since it was first released on cinema, having read reviews and generally liked the sound of it. A few years later I finally came to watch it, on my own, with full attention.

This film is shot beautifully and the narration is wonderful, a dreamy, lazy voiceover which completely fits with the setting of the film.

The problem I have is with the certain character that I believe totally lets the film down. We are led to believe that George is a troubled youngster who, due to his physical handicap, has developed into a young, shy and reserved teenager. Nasia says how although he doesn’t talk too much, she is attracted to him.

Now I don’t know if it is just because I believe the character is week and under developed or whether its because he is very poorly acted - his childish, monotone voice just leaves more with no concern what so ever. There is just no depth to him at all and as the film draws to a close with George’s super hero, I neither understood this bizzare turn of events – or cared.

I liked Vernon and thought he was a really strong and well acted character and along with Sonya I enjoyed how they coped after the death of Buddy. I also enjoyed the scenes involving the 2 larger groups, both the set of girls and the workers.

It goes without saying that the film is shot wonderfully and could have been a great film, I was just left feeling bored and frustrated by Georges weird and non-wonderful story.

Does anyone else agree?

"Watch the leather maaan!"

[–] toobitterforyou 19 years ago

i completely agree with you on this one.

i just saw green's new movie, undertow, which i really enjoyed.
that spurred me to see this one and i was disappointed.

the main reason i could not enjoy this movie was the george character.
he was just not interesting enough. and eventhough it is quite clear that these are non-actors, i still felt like there was something off about them. sometimes people aren't actors because they don't have the talent to entertain you, that was definitely the case with this film. although there were a select few with some real potential, i am glad that green is a more recognized director now and he has more options for real actors.

as demonstrated very clearly in undertow, the non-actors can steal any scene as long as they don't linger too long on screen.

[–] richard-waine 19 years ago

Thanks for the reply my friend. There really was potential with GW so I may give Undertow a look. Take it easy.

"Watch the leather maaan!"

[–] SherlockVonEinstein 19 years ago

I might be reading too much into this, but I gathered that the whole business with George saving the red-haired boy towards the end and becoming a hero was fantasy. The red-haired boy only appears in one scene before the drowning incident and everyone teases him but George, who just kind of stares at him with pity. Therefore, I just gathered that he was imaginging what it would be like to save someone, and chose the red-haired boy due to his pity. Perhaps his fantasies were his way of dealing with his guilt over Buddy's accidental death.

This makes sense to me because what you basically have at the end of the film is George acting like a fool in that wrestling suit and helmet, guiding traffic and so forth. It seems like he's trying too hard to be somebody, which is something Sonya speaks about in her voice-over.

With this interpretation in mind, George's lack of charisma and so forth seems appropriate. He doesn't cope well with reality or fit into the scheme of things.

[–] FrankDonlan 19 years ago

remember when the little red headed kid said he could hold his breath for six minutes? I wonder if he really was drowning. Maybe George just thought he had saved his life, and thought he was a super hero.

[–] nedwu36 19 years ago

George was supposed to act disinterested, quiet and immature. During the commentary Green talks about how much charisma and energy the actor who played George has. He comments on how they struggled to turn him into what George is in the movie. There are many people like George in real life who do not talk much or show emotion. That was the point. The movie wouldn't have worked if George was outgoing or "normal". Green also talks about how when he was 3 years old he thought that if he put a garbage can on his head he was Frosty the Snowman. Thats what George thinks like when he puts on the wrestling uniform and coon skin cap. He truely believes that he is a superhero. These are all kids messed up by their life experiences and that is when Green wanted to show. I love the movie so I obviously have a different take on it then the rest of you.

[–] rosenburger 19 years ago

Whether it was intentional or not, it wasn't intresting or compelling to watch. All those endless scenes with kids just muttering, it's just tedious. None of them were intresting people, some of the old characters seemed okay and funny. But all the child characters were dull and unintresting.

Plus I don't think many of them can actually act. A lot of their scenes felt false and too obviously scripted to be spontaeous behavoir. The narration was just irritating as well. And the end made little sense to me. I dunno if they just ran out of ideas and had no clue how to end the film, it never felt like there was any real point or purpose to any of it. Knowing about Green's tendencies to have improvised scenes and moments, it was probably just something they made up on the day. It seems like they never really thought about what they were doing in any real way, they just did it because it looked pretty or cool or arty or whatever. It felt more like the filmmakers were just showing off, trying to be artistic and poetic etc.

I saw All the Real Girls first. Which has a lower rating than George Washington, so I was expecting GW to be better and I found it to be much more amateurishly made and a bit irritating. I think Green really matured as a director in between making George Washington and All the Real Girls. His direction, the mood, the characters, the dialogue, the music, the story all felt much richer and were far more accomplished and intresting than anything on George Washington.

[–] JesX 18 years ago

I agree the redhead boy wasnt't really in danger. After the 'rescue', when George is losing consciousness you see the boy's eye open slightly to peek at George. But I don't agree with the previous poster, Sherlock. We know this isn't a fantasy because the mother of the redhead (didn't he have a name) came to George's aunt to thank him.

Hey Mr. Noblet, I like your new fake mustache... looks real. -Jerry Blank

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] guitarguy95 18 years ago

I first came across David Gordon Green when I caught 'All the Real Girls' halfway through on satellite. I thought it was decent but all together lazy. The dialogue was unrememberable and the ending left me unfullfilled. I'm a pretty forgiving guy and love to give directors the benefit of the doubt and a chance to redeem themselves. So I go to my Netflix account and read up on him and rent his first movie 'George Washington' which is supposed to be so damn good. God what a piece of pretentious arthouse crap this movie was. I didn't care about the characters or the dialogue. The stupid narraration that was trying to be poetic and eloquent but was just meaningless. When Nasia says about how she can almost see the bones inside her friends' feet, i mean who cares? what does that mean? To me Green is a lazy film maker that doesn't have a point of view other than being different for different's sake. All the critics admit that nothing goes on in his films and how great that he doesn't use plot at all. Why am I paying $9 for a ticket to see a movie where nothing happens? If I got out a camera and followed myself around with it, shooting the events of my day, does that make me a genius director?! Only if I hire a real good cinematographer to make it look good and put some low-fi coffeeshop acoustic drivel on the soundtrack. There's no meat to his movies and I can't understand why he's being praised so much. I also saw 'Undertow' which I thought was his best movie but still it left me unsatisfied. Now I love independant film but I just because it's non mainstream doesn't automatically make it good. There's a lot of good main stream stuff out there too. To me that talent of any good any good artist is their ability to entertain people that wouldn't neccessarily be interested in their particular genre and I think Green only appeals to the arthouse indie snobs who think if you don't get it your just not cool or smart enough to understand.

[–] Spamlet 18 years ago

Guitar Guy,

You're just not cool or smart enough to understand.

Seriously though, folks: This is one of the best and most beautiful films of this young century. As a professional actor myself allow me to say that in my expert opinion it is also one of the best acted films ever made. The fact that these kids aren't actors is why they're so breathtaking. Like the similar and equally devastating "Ponette" everything they are doing is completely authentic and that's why you're correct in saying that as "actors" go they are "bad" because they aren't faking it.

We're all so used to judging great acting on trickery we forget that the actor's true job is to convince us that a scene is supposed to be about real life happening in front of us for the first time. The actors in this film all accomplish that goal beautifully transcending the typical b.s. approximations of truth without an ounce of self consciousness. Observe any good actor you know watching this film and I guarantee you they will be in awe of the purity and honesty brought to every moment of it.

BTW, Anyone who says that the actor playing George lacked depth needs to watch it again on a bigger screen. This kid is nothing but depth as he keeps nearly everything he feels buried inside, barely allowing the slightest glimpses of his pain to emerge. Make no mistake, though, it's all there- a secret he refuses to share because he wants to be perceived as strong enough to lead the entire free world. His brave, pensive face is a mask that's as necessary a piece of armor for achieving his dream as was his helmet.

This is a kid who has to deal with (SPOILERS AHOY!): a dead mother, a father in prison, a cruel uncle who selfishly kills the dog the boy loves, accidentally killing one of his best friends, a rare medical condition which requires him to protect his head at all times and who almost dies because of it trying to save someone else's life.

Someone please explain to me: How is that not an absolutely fascinating and complex character?

Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die. Tryin'.

[–] cocorosie 18 years ago

"Seriously though, folks: This is one of the best and most beautiful films of this young century. As a professional actor myself allow me to say that in my expert opinion it is also one of the best acted films ever made."

.I think that if a spoiled, rich kid from suburbia played the part of one of these characters I would be more impressed with their accomplishment.
The "actors" in this film are about an inch away from the characters that they are playing. Feed them some lines and it's basically what we see on television these days passing as ~Reality Television.

"everything they are doing is completely authentic and that's why you're correct in saying that as "actors" go they are "bad" because they aren't faking it."

.what? didn't you say that this is one of the best "acted" films ever made?

being an actor, your expert opinion means nothing more than the opinion of the
average movie watcher. If 9 out of 10 thought the movie was boring and that the characters were dull. That 1 vote of confidence coming from the "professional actor" does not tip the scales the other way.

on that note:
I liked the film. It was very poetic. The photography was amazing
and I think that it's the glue that holds this film together.
Artistic-yes.
Entertaining-almost.

[–] robertrosado 18 years ago

being an actor, your expert opinion means nothing more than the opinion of the
average movie watcher.

Not necessarily true. We can tell if an actor is faking it.

----------
If you enjoy cinema, please check out my website @ FILMPIX.NET!

[–] mordaut 16 years ago

that wasnt racist at all...

[–] oblidi_oblida 17 years ago

"This is one of the best and most beautiful films of this young century."

I didn't want to finish reading your whole post because I wanted to call you an idiot really bad.

[–] Spamlet 17 years ago

Yeah obli,

Your crediblilty on idiocy is remarkably high, seeing as you yourself admitted this film was "gorgeous" in another thread and that you honestly think "Dave Chappelle's Block Party" is one of the best films of all time.

Plus, you've made it a point to never say anything insightful about films yourself, instead calling people names who've had the nerve to actually post thoughtful comments. How dare they ruin your fun with intelligence? You should ask your mommy to make you a coloring book version of IMDB so you can follow it due to your whole "not wanting to finish reading" people's posts before you comment. Seems you have too much trouble understanding all those big words.

So I'll talk to you in your own language:

Go back to blowing yourself, troll-boy.

Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die. Tryin'.

[–] ninja-mut 18 years ago

You commented on how much you hated the dialogue and blamed the director for that, but the director's not responsible for that. I personally didn’t like this movie, but I think that for what it was, it was good. The directing was interesting, a little experimental. And the acting was subdued but engaging. I think that making movies for a specific type of audience is acceptable. I know there are way too many horror movies that try to appeal to wide audiences that just fail because they don't stay true to the true fans. This film and they way it was written was meant to be shot this way. It's successful at what it set out to be.

[–] ten6279 18 years ago

I feel like it was almost a story on how the town idiot became the town idiot. That in the end George lost his mind. While the other two children dealt with it as best as they could the mental stress of it all was just too much for a child that was already slightly mentally ill and he just went over the edge. The movie did end strangely but I got the impression that George continued to wear the Superhero cap and dog/racoon cap as he continued to grow up in the town and as I said before simply became the town idiot. I must say the death of Buddy was very disturbing. It seemed so real. I was curious as to why before he died he went into the bathroom and starting pounding the inner walls with a stick (I think it was?). Was it the damage going on in his brain? The build up of pressure? It was terribly sad and realistic & well played by the young boy.

[–] cocodemario 18 years ago

The acting by the kids was ok, I enjoyed some of the scenes a lot, even though the kids seemed like non actors. Some scenes like when george is directing traffic are great. A lot of the dialogue by the train workers went on a bit too long though, Maybe the writer is just trying to establish how depressing it is in this small town. It was hard to watch, but compelling in a few scenes. The cinematography was great, but I think that the dialogue could use some work.

[–] reiland55 18 years ago

I thought it could have been much better. The voice-over narration did bring to mind Days of Heaven, though it wasn't close to the level of beauty Mallick's voice-over achieved. The cinematography in this film was interesting and many of the scenes and characters were well done. I didn't think the acting was a problem; I thought much of it was actually very good. However, Buddy's death really turned me off of the film. Not just because it is so disturbing. When I started watching this film, I thought it was going to be really excellent, without reverting to conventions to be "powerful." It's billed as a coming of age film, and it could have been so much better if the kids came of age in a different way. People come of age in so many ways, and not just because of manslaughter. It's so easy to make a film where a kid accidentally kills another kid and then he comes of age because of it. And this film especially, with these kids growing up in poverty in rural North Carolina; that idea could have been done so much better. A better writer could have thought of a much more profound and complex way for the kids to come of age. But instead, the film is very simplistic in its themes. And I agree that the ending is just ridiculous. There's no way you could excuse it as he's going crazy or something, that would be even worse. And to say he's growing up to be the town's fool just can't be; there are no clues, subtle or obvious, to suggest that he's going to stay like this all his life. It's more an attempt at this surreal idea at being a hero because of his guilt. That's an interesting idea, but to do it like this is so against the rhythm and naturalness of most of the other parts of the film that it's just contrived. His becoming a "super hero" is just a ridiculous attempt at being profound or something.

I did like the film other than those things. I like to see things like this rather than most films that come out today.

[–] imwithstupid_35 17 years ago

WTF is with all the bashers? This movie is great.

my ymdb site

http://www.ymdb.com/mehsuggeth/l35858_ukuk.html

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] just1Hitch 10 years ago

Richard-Waine, I agree with you and most of the replies. I can see its merits in terms of fine cinematic technique and character development but the sudden tragic event is brutal and difficult to watch. The rest of the film never really has a resolution and left me dissatisfied. In a way, I wish I'd never seen it.

Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting.