Where’s George (2005) (review)

Veteran documentary filmmaker Peter Davis, whose award-winning sociopolitical films have been featured on nearly every major global television network, turns his lens on the Vietnam War era with the film Where’s George? (2005). The footage for the film was shot in 1969 but edited in 2005, and it is apparent that Davis sees parallels between the Vietnam conflict and current American military operations in Iraq.

Where’s George focuses upon the story of soldier George Caputo who deserts from the military and seeks refuge at St. Paul’s Chapel on the campus of Columbia University. Students gather to support and protect George, but when he disappears after three days, the community engages in an acrimonious debate over how to help George. The soldier is often ignored in the ensuing discussions which often focus upon George as a symbol in political discourse rather than as a flesh and blood person. For example, we learn little about George’s life and background.

Davis does not provide viewers with a narrator guiding our voyage through these seemingly endless and repetitive debates. We are allowed to reach our own conclusions as Davis employs the cinema verite of a Frederick Wiseman. The grainy black and white footage primarily focuses upon the intense faces of the young people, none of whom are identified, providing a sense of claustrophobia and limited options. As the debate drones on, the camera shifts its lens from speakers to audience members whose eyes almost appear to glaze over from the barrage of words. And it is interesting to note that most of those willing to take up the microphone are white males.

Some speakers provide a class analysis of the situation, asserting that supporting draft resistance would allow for a bridge to be constructed between working class youth and privileged students with college deferments. Others find this perspective to be too theoretical, arguing that how to best serve the individual deserting the military should be the primary mission. The suggestions range from smuggling the refugees to Canada via a modern underground railroad to providing attorneys and sympathetic media coverage for their plight.

The return of George alters the debate. He is frustrated by the seemingly endless discourse, proclaiming that he has no intention of going to Canada and that if the authorities attempt to seize him the only alternative will be to “kick ass.” This initiates a heated discussion of tactics involving the dilemma of whether resistance should include violence. More militant voices want to assure a security force for George that will go down fighting, while others deplore such a strategy as suicidal. There is considerable talk about the power of “the man” or establishment to crush the opposition. Some even implore George to leave the premises. The film concludes rather abruptly with the caption that George left St. Paul’s Chapel after five days, proclaiming that he had achieved his goals—although his objectives are less than clear.

This ambiguous ending might lead some to conclude that the film demonstrates the impotency and futility of the left in the 1960s; divided over tactics and lacking the courage to pursue their own convictions. A closer reading of the historical context, to which Davis alludes in the film, offers a more complex rendering of the events in St. Paul’s Chapel. It is worth recalling that the student protests at Columbia University in 1968 brought a violent response from the police and university authorities. Also approximately six months after George left St. Paul’s Chapel, President Richard Nixon invaded Cambodia, and student unrest was silenced by gunfire at Kent State and Jackson State Universities. Also internal divisions within the antiwar movement were exacerbated by government programs of domestic surveillance which are now well documented. This sense of paranoia and loss of innocence are well reflected in the film’s soundtrack featuring Buffalo Springfield and Simon and Garfunkel. And the lack of consensus in the debate about George is less important than the fact that the students were having this discourse which...