MovieChat Forums > Sherman's March (1986) Discussion > Problem with the film

Problem with the film

posted 14 years ago by tw_sm
11 replies | jump to latest

My main problem with this film has to do with the writer/director's lack of having a cohesive work. Instead of making the film more focused on the subject of his meditations on romance, he muddles it with the segments on Sherman and his fears about nuclear war. All three of these subjects are interesting, and he could have worked them together, but I never experienced a moment in the film when these subjects really came together. The segments on Sherman felt tacked on, at best, and, at worst, felt like very inadequate comparisons to the director. I understand that his segues into the Sherman segments reveal his inability to make a commitment, both to his work and to a romantic partner, but this makes the film come through as a haphazard and unpolished flood of personal, film journals. The film then became bogged down in his self-absorbtion. The moments when he mentioned his fears about nuclear war were fine in terms of just his personal anxiety and recurring nightmares, but he never took the opportunity to explore more concrete ideas and issues about nuclear weapons and energy. Aside from visiting his ex-girlfriend who was the activist, he never researches and discusses more substantial information that might have made this subject both more thoughtful and more compelling. Perhaps had he dropped the subject of Sherman, or made a stronger commentary on the total war Sherman waged and the way warfare was conducted in the 70s and 80s and the role nuclear weapons play in targeting civilian populations, these subjects would have resonated much better with each other. Instead, I felt he missed a great opportunity in favor of his own triviality and that of the various women he so trivially became infatuated with--leaving this a very immature meditation on all three themes.

[–] SeanOBackHair 14 years ago

Very well written. I'm a big fan of documentaries, and had wanted to see this one for quite awhile, but now that I've finished I feel disappointed. If he wanted to film flings from his past, then he should have focused on that, if the film was to fall in love with random women, he should have focused on that. I was bored throughout most of the film, and this film begged for follow ups to the women. What happened to the girl who went to Hollywood, or the singer etc.

I also just thought he came off as a bit of a creep at times, and not a lovable loser that we're supposed to root for. He got money to make his documentary, had dated some interesting attractive girls and just acts so melancholy and bored throughout the whole film. Maybe I just need to reflect on the film a bit, but overall I was very unsatisfied.

[–] fuzzynormal 14 years ago

Yeah, kuz real life is always wrapped up nice with a pretty bow...especially in the south, right?

The scene where Ross talks with his friend the mechanic is perfectly sublime.

For me it all worked. Even the boring stuff.

[–] criticman2000 14 years ago

This is a film about altered expectations. That's the point. It's about wanting one thing and getting stuck with another; it's also hilarious. The scene on the island where insects keep attacking him-- well... I just couldn't believe my eyes. It is stunningly brilliant filmmaking.

[–] BwlBoy 13 years ago

I agree with the first 2 comments on this thread. McElwee basically paid lip service to Sherman and we are left with a rambling mish-mash about relationships, old and new. I was very underwhelmed by it.

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

I think the segments on Sherman are meant to be a running gag. After all, McElwee was given a grant to make a documentary about General Sherman; to make an entire movie about his attempts to find a girlfriend would constitute fraud. So the Sherman segments are meant to be McElwee's attempts to tell his benefactors, "See? I didn't forget you. This is really a movie about Sherman." The Sherman segements are actually pretty funny when you think about it.

[–] sharilyn3 13 years ago

Who cares? It is what it is. And it's pretty damn wonderful. As Gene Siskal once said, How about reviewing the movie that was made and not the one you think should have been made.

[–] rob2661 12 years ago

Tw sm,

That post is much too long to bother reading. Try making concise points next time
and I might read what you have to say.

[–] jmeaux7 12 years ago

I understand your concerns and you are right: Sherman's March is not a cohesive documentary work in the conventional sense. Two comments about this.

One, I don't think that McElwee would be too bothered by this since it is probable that he wasn't trying to produce a "cohesive" work in the first place. Or at least not one that clearly connects themes and plot lines. He is working off of a sort of verite modified standard as seen in his previous works. McElwee does not believe in the "fly-on-the-wall" approach to filmmaking. Instead, he points the camera toward the very deepest and most personal subjects (his family in the South, old girlfriends, etc.) which inevitably leads to him to taking a substantial role, where he interacts with the people he films and engages in introspective meditation on these events. So long as McElwee has film in his camera, you can bet he is going to document whatever is in front of him, especially if it is a pretty girl. Editing his 25 hours of footage into a "cohesive" documentary would have forced a foreign standard onto his footage and most likely have contradicted his original intentions behind the project. We are "along for the ride" of McElwee's journey, whether we like it or not, so we should not expect the documentary to paint "a neat and cohesive picture of the world" when McElwee's world is neither neat nor cohesive.

Secondly, I do agree that the story of Sherman takes a back seat compared to the personal trials and tribulations of the filmmaker. But this is, as others have pointed out, part of the big joke in the film. Ross was given a generous film grant to make a film about General Sherman's ravaging conquest of the South, but the general's story only comes in a few times and seems almost forced when it does. This is a result of Ross' efforts to fulfill his "contractual obligations". This film is not the story of General Sherman's conquest but rather Ross McElwee's. The filmmaker himself is the one "laying waste to the South", not General Sherman.

[–] tonyinjapan 11 years ago

The 'problem' with the film is its brilliance. Its got little to nothing to do with Sherman's March...it's a fraud, a conceit...it's the director's personal march through his unsatisfactory/unsatisfied life. Is he equally 'destructive' as Sherman - his comments about the Sherman-era couch which belongs to his relative remaining unstitched all these years after its probing by Sherman's troops for valuables...the director's life is like that - all his exposed personal wounds for all the viewing world to see.

Just wonderful. No problem at all.

[–] daddie0 10 years ago

I know this post is quite old, but I was stunned by this documentary. While some have said that the Sherman bit was a gag, I do see the whole film as cohesive. I think the film maker, in his haphazard decision making (?) ended up reaching to the top shelf. The film weaves a tapestry that for me does create a whole movement.

To me, the film's angle turns toward permanence and impact we have in our lives. How many times does he ask about what "remains" of Sherman's great (in)famous conquest? The movie hinges on the diatribe delivered by the would-be matchmaker: when she says "Hell, even the army doesn't last!" (from the center of an abandoned army barracks) She then says something like all that matters is that we deceive one another into believing that love matters, that the moment matters, and that in the end it's all that will matter.

In the end he explores how Sherman dies such an arbitrary death...and how another "great" soldier dies of the same for refusing to wear his hat for honor.

If you can't see the connections...I just don't get it. This film was brilliant, and for me worked in every way--including as a whole.

[–] soma-2 7 years ago

I loved the way the movie weaved these three topics together. Imagine if Ross had made a movie limited to only one of these topics: William Tecumseh Sherman, Ross's love life, or the threat of nuclear war. Such a movie likely would have been boring and inadequate. But when he puts the three together, it works very well. The sum is greater than the parts.