Sherman's March
Tags: murder

Plot synopsis:
The documentary chronicles General William Tecumseh Sherman's historic "March to the Sea" through Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina during the fall of 1864. It shows Sherman marching 62,000 Union troops over 650 miles in less than 100 days, and losing only 600 men along the way. The march introduces a new concept to the already brutal Civil War: total war, where the distinctions between combatants and civilians is blurred. While hated by white Southerners as a destroyer, Sherman is hailed by black Southerners as a liberator. It ends with Union victory and closes with Sherman as an old man living in New York and fondly remembering how his "nephews" and their "uncle Billy" would make ten miles a day.
The documentary utilizes state of the art production techniques including CGI, special effects and historical re-creations. It relies on historical reenactors to play Sherman's soldiers and all dialogue is in fact quotes from historical sources: letters, Sherman's memoirs, diaries, etc. The documentary features a psychological profile on Sherman, stating that in the months leading up to the Civil War he was accused of being insane and that he contemplated suicide.
Bill Oberst, the actor playing Sherman, states in a behind-the-scenes featurette that while the general will always be a controversial figure, he hopes that the documentary will shed light on why the man did what he did. It emphasizes that Sherman was loved by the enslaved blacks whom he freed and that while he did not see himself as fighting to destroy slavery, he nevertheless made a point of treating blacks whom he met with courtesy and respect. (The documentary also shows the reactions of his soldiers as they met blacks along the March. Many had never seen a black person and were surprised to learn that blacks were ordinary people.) The documentary also mentions that Sherman killed far fewer Confederate soldiers and civilians than did Ulysses S. Grant, his friend and fellow general, yet Sherman was the one vilified. The scholars interviewed postulate that the South had need for a scapegoat in the wake of the Civil War and that Sherman was the easiest target. For his part, Sherman is stated to have seen himself as only doing his duty and that he did not care what people said about him one way or the other.

Review: MIddle Of The Road Effort. So, documentaries are a very tricky game. After an awesome Civil War series, all other subsequent efforts are to be compared, measured and considered in the light of that awesome Ken Scott's work. Here, they tried well, and History Channel did their best to promote this footage with not so bad budget, actors, large number of Civil War buffs in mass scenes. The thing is, this film is still very much on the mediocre level and does a fairly sour job, especially when it comes down to main heroes dialog and portrayal. Not bad, must say, but nothing new or exciting or revelatory. Good Documentary on the Subject. Sherman's March (2007)*** (out of 4)Good, well-detailed documentary taking a look at the controversial move by Gen. William T. Sherman to take 60,000 Union troops through the heart of Georgia and all the way to the sea. SHERMAN'S MARCH is certainly an extremely well-made movie that goes into great detail in regards to just about everything that was going on during this period. We get a brief history of what Sherman had been doing with his life up to the Civil War and then we get to hear how he was able to rise during the war. Once it comes time for the march we hear about the original plans, the fact that both Grant and Lincoln thought it would fail and we also hear about the changes in plans as things moved along. I think history buffs will be very happy with the way everything is shown here as we get some pretty good re-enactments as well as several history experts talking about the legendary march. There's a pretty good talk about Sherman's own thoughts on slavery and how his views were often quite different when he would actually meet slaves. While this thing isn't anywhere near the brilliance of Ken Burns' THE CIVIL WAR, it's still a good documentary that film and history buffs should enjoy.. Decent history lesson.. This brand new documentary on The History Channel isn't bad at all, though it seems to carry with it a certain limited view of its own demographics.It's historically accurate, at least as far as I can tell, and has reasonably good production values.When I say that it has a limited view of its demographics, what I mean is that it is designed as if its intentions were to draw in the lowbrows and pubescent kids in the audience and have them cheering at the violence and villainy. It reads rather like a tabloid news article and begins by telling us right off the bat that William Tecumsah Sherman is still thought of in many circles as a bloodthirsty and ravenous pillager. Fortunately, by the end, the myth of Sherman's march has been corrected and that, maybe, is the most important feature of the film.There are quite a few quotes from letters, diaries, and official records. They tend to keep the dialog stilted but thoroughly believable. The actors don't help. Whoever plays Sherman LOOKS enough like Sherman. The poor guy who plays Grant looks like he was chosen because he happened to look more like Grant than any of the other non-actors available. Under that kempt beard he seems Hollywood handsome.Maybe I'm asking too much of the film to address itself to an adult audience. Maybe there should be a bit of the tabloid style in it. It was only a few years ago that a national survey revealed that more than half of high-school seniors couldn't place the American Civil War in its proper half century. (It was 1861 to 1865, kids. PS: the North won.) Sherman's mythos has grown glorious over the years. Every Southerner's great-great-grandfather seems to have had his barn burned by Sherman, even if he was nowhere near it. Northerners tend not to know or care about Sherman because their great-great-grandfathers lived in Lithuania at the time and their families didn't come to these shores until 1902. I'm only kidding, but I'm doing it in order to emphasize the fact that Sherman is a much more important figure in Southern folk history than he is in the North. Hitler's "popularity" will probably also outlive that of the men who won the war. For all our faith in angels, we really seem to NEED the devil.Some tidbits are left out. After first Bull Run, says a talking head, Sherman was "unjustly accused of being crazy," whereas he sounds like a pretty good example of a bipolar to me. And Sherman didn't simply "hate the South," as the film says. He actually had many Southern friends. He was not only the "failed businessman" of the film; he'd been a professor for some years at an institution that was to become Louisiana State University.It would be nice to believe that this program will be seen by all school kids. Maybe we can bump up the percentage who have heard of the Civil War. Adults will find it interesting as well. It's colorful, full of action, and presented in a way that doesn't make the issues difficult to grasp.