Just as the books we read in class, “George Washington” (2000)
represents childhood differently than my perspective and experience with
childhood. Not only is there a lack of trust for adults that leads to
disruption, but also (albeit, arguably) a lack of optimism.
The film works for our class’s
theme of diversity because it takes us to a place we’re not familiar with, and
also through unfamiliar morals. The
de-centered narrative places a different perspective at the center of the
story. Growing up in Maryland, I am familiar with the vernacular used in the
film, but the hardships dealt with are another story.
I was also a latchkey kid. Both of
my parents worked, and I was able to wander aimlessly after school and during
my summers, except that my parents fostered my development differently than
these parents so I didn’t end up being aimless. I know there is love in these
relationships with guardians and children, but there is a lack of trust. The
adults that interact with the children most on the railroad speak nonsensically
and are just as immature as the children themselves. “George Washington”
emphasizes this by paralleling their stories for the first fifteen minutes of
the film. Behavior and cinematography mimic one another with both groups.
The storyline itself also displays
this lack of trust for adults as George hides the dog he found for fear of his
uncle killing it. It is further revealed as the kids hide their best friend
after he falls and dies. The death is clearly an accident, but, because of a lack
of trust for who should be authority figures, they feel a need to hide the body
and lie about it.
The film is without hope not only
because the children have no source to trust in, but also because there are no
solutions to this lifestyle. (But there is honesty from the filmmaker as he
mirrors reality.) It is cyclically oppressive and detrimental as we see the
uncle struggle in getting along with his boss and railroad friends, and the
older sister experiencing a lustful relationship with one of the other
“adults.” The dark grainy look of the film only furthers this feeling of
futility. I suppose that the director was hoping there would be some kind of
charm in George trying to redeem himself by developing a hero-complex, but it
feels empty. The other adult friend turns to that, too, as we see them side by
side directing traffic. There seems to be no other way to help their community
than to make believe.
“En Mi Familia” by Carmen Garza
there is a similar theme, but with lightness. She felt limited by her
community. She was told not to speak Spanish. But she used it for inspiration
and made a sacred and cathartic picture book to express what she could not in
her childhood. Her book is full of color, culture, and vitality. She shares her
story to uplift and encourage unhindered expression.
I am unaware of what director David
Green’s intent was, but I do know that I felt powerless after watching the
film. However, it was enlightening to experience another perspective of
childhood through “George Washington” and learn that not everyone grows up with
adults they can trust and a community that fosters potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment