Film Review: Sleepy Hollow - 25th Anniversary

  "Sleepy Hollow"

  ** 1\2 (out of ****)

 Tim Burton's "Sleepy  Hollow" (1999) wages a beautiful and sinister Gothic battle between head versus heart and science versus superstition.

"Sleepy Hollow" is Burton's adaptation of Washington Irving's famed short story, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow published in 1820. Many however may best remember the story as an animated Disney short from 1949 with Bing Crosby as the narrator. 

Neither is a faithful adaptation of Irving's work but if we could somehow combine both of these versions together we'd get something close to Irving's short story. While Burton's interpretation takes more liberties it does hit on a central theme in Irving's story that Disney ignored - science versus superstition. And yet Burton gives us a more "Disney" ending than the animated short!

Johnny Depp reunites with Burton to play Ichabod Crane, who is no longer a school teacher but now a constable in 1799 New York. As a new millennium approaches and we enter the 19th century, Ichabod is in a constant struggle to get others to come around to his way of thinking and accept a more scientific method for solving crimes. This, interestingly, doesn't necessarily make Ichabod more enlightened than those around him. In fact Burton and "Sleepy Hollow" go to great lengths to make Ichabod the butt of several jokes and present his scientific inventions as oddball devices. Science isn't something to be warmly embraced but suspiciously looked upon and aggressively questioned. Can you imagine living in such a time?

Ichabod's theories will be put to the test when a Judge (Christopher Lee) suggest he go upstate to a small town called Sleepy Hollow, where there have been a series of murders. Three bodies have been found decapitated. The Judge would like Ichabod to find the killer so he can face the long arm of justice.

When Ichabod arrives in Sleepy  Hollow, he makes his way to the home of Baltus Van Tassel (Michael Gambon), a wealthy farmer and respected member of the community. There he also meets the rest of the Van Tassel family, Baltus' wife (Miranda Richardson) and daughter Katrina (Christina Ricci), whom we are supposed to conclude is instantly attracted to Ichabod and vice-versa. Also at the Van Tassel home are the important community elders - Rev. Steenwyck (Jeffrey Jones), Magistrate Philipse (Richard  Griffiths), Dr. Lancaster (Ian McDiarmid), and Notary Hardenbrook (Michael Gough). After meeting these men, Ichabod is given the background story of who is believed to be behind the murders, a Headless Horseman. Once thought to be a Hessian soldier, he was beheaded by his own sword and now 20 years later is on the prowl for his lost head, collecting those of others.

Here we are given a glimpse into the dichotomy of the Ichabod character. A man of logic, unwilling to believe in such a thing as a headless horseman is never-the-less terrified upon hearing the story. His mind tells him one thing and yet his emotions tell him another.

While Ichabod is not exactly presented as Inspector Clouseau - the famed character from "The Pink Panther" movies played by Peter Sellers - the townsmen and the audience suspect Ichabod may be in over his head. He doesn't seem to have a real plan for his investigation, simply going in whichever direction the wind blows him. Critic Stephanie Zacharek for Salon described this element of the Ichabod character in her review as "His stammering and fake confident strutting give the movie a touch of brightness, without disturbing its brooding undertones."

One of the many ways Burton and the film's writer Andrew Kevin Walker alter Irving's story is by creating a backstory for Ichabod, meant to explain how he became the person he is today. The story involves a relationship between Ichabod and his mother (Lisa Marie). Ichabod describes her as a innocent almost child like woman, who seems to have dabbled with magic and spells. She was killed by her husband (Peter Guinness) on suspicions she was a witch. First, this opens up the theme of religion within this story. The townspeople of Sleepy Hollow invoke religion quite a bit and one of the characters is a Reverend. The Headless Horseman is a character intended to represent pure evil. It creates a contrast between science and religion. Second, Ichabod's story reminded me of "Edward Scissorhands" (1990) in ways a young Edward was left alone in the world after his creator (Vincent Price) died. Which made me think this has become a staple in some of Burton's films - "Batman" (1989), "Scissorhands", "Dumbo" (2019), "Frankenweenie" (2012). All examples of the effect death has on children. Third, it is meant to explain Ichabod's attraction to Katrina. She is also a student of magic and spells. It sadly implies all men are looking for women that remind them of their mothers. I'm sure Freud would approve.

While I believe Christina Ricci is a fine actress, she was miscast in this role. I understand Ricci had garnered a reputation after appearing in movies like "The Addams Family" (1991) and "Casper" (1995) for dark-ish supernatural material, which would seem to make her a perfect fit for "Sleepy Hollow" but she is too young for the role. In 1999 Ricci was 19 while Depp was 36. Their age difference is noticeable to me and distracted me from accepting their romance. The age difference may explain why Ichabod and Katrina have no real love scenes to speak of. Their feelings for each other are implied rather than discussed in a forthright manner. Perhaps Winona Ryder would have been a better choice. However Katrina is supposed to be a young woman, so Ricci's age would be appropriate for this character. Depending upon how committed we are to having Ricci in role, dare I say Depp should have been recast, even though I like his performance. The romance is the weakest link in the story for me.

There will be those that say, we don't watch "Sleepy Hollow" for a love story. Point taken but don't tell me American viewers don't make an issue of age differences in movie romances, always implying it is a wet dream of the older male filmmakers. In the few reviews I read of "Sleepy Hollow" no one mentioned the age issue. The biggest complaint was how unfaithful the film is to Irving's story.

The real treat watching "Sleepy Hollow" is to be found in Burton's production team. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he wrote of the film, "This is among other things an absolutely lovely film, with production design, art direction and cinematography that creates a distinctive place for the imagination." He even states "This is the best-looking horror film since Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula." Burton and his team have given "Sleepy Hollow" the combined look of a beautiful Gothic love story and a Hammer horror film rolled into one. I would almost recommend watching the film with the volume turned off and just allow your eyes to soak in the aesthetic. Of course if you did that then you would miss out on Danny Elfman's score, which as always is worthy of praise.

Ultimately however that explains my impression of "Sleepy Hollow" as an example of style over substance. The plot of the film doesn't live up it its end of the bargain making it deserving of all the craft that went into it. I'm nearly tempted to just advise seeing the movie for the visuals alone and bump up my star rating. But that wouldn't be fair. As a horror movie, there is just something slightly off with "Sleepy Hollow". There are no big scares. As a love story, there is no passion and outburst of emotion. As a kind of satire, there are no big laughs. 

And while we can see what influenced Burton in the making of this film, rewatching it again was the first time I became aware of Burton's "stock company" and how the appearances of certain actors made me think of previous Burton films. I loved a pre-credits sequence involving Martin Landau (who won an Oscar for his performance as Bela Lugosi in Burton's "Ed Wood" (1994) as a Nobleman who encounters the Headless Horseman. It could have been a stand alone five minute short film. The appearance of Jeffrey Jones will make you think of "Beetlejuice" (1988) as seeing Michael Gough will make you think of "Batman", he was Alfred. But don't forget, he too was in a Hammer horror film.

Looking back at "Sleepy Hollow" for its 25th anniversary and for its horror elements for the month of October, there are very few live action movies I can think of that have been inspired by "Sleepy Hollow" and Tim Burton in general. Maybe Guillermo del Toro and his "Crimson Peak" (2015) but I see Burton's influence more so in animation - "ParaNorman" (2012) and "Coraline" (2009). In fact the only two times Burton has been recognized by the Academy Awards has been for his animated work - "Frankenweenie" and "Corpse Bride" (2005). And yet Burton has such a distinct style and vision, you would have thought younger directors would try to clone it. It is difficult to believe there is not a generation that has been influenced by his body of work. Burton's films are unique experiences.

Perhaps the answer to this is explained by the questionable "critic" Jonathan Rosenbaum, who in his Chicago Reader review of "Sleepy Hollow" wrote of Burton he "is only secondarily a storyteller, which is why someone else generally writes the scripts. Like many of the best movie comics, he tends to think in terms of shots and sequences rather than longer stretches." 

"Sleepy Hollow" earned three Academy Award nominations - Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction-Set Direction, for which it did win the Oscar for. Most critics liked it but it hasn't gained a reputation as one of Burton's best films. It may get lost in the shuffle as audiences usually name films like "Batman", "Beetlejuice" or even "Ed Wood" as contenders for their favorite Burton film.

Despite its best intentions "Sleepy Hollow" has a kind of lackluster plot, turning Irving's story into something resembling a Jack the Ripper serial killer movie. Its nod to Gothic romance, Hammer horror movies, and German Expressionism are appreciated but its not enough to make the film succeed. I am usually not someone that complains about films not being faithful adaptations of books but I do wonder what in Irving's story was interesting to Burton and why did he feel the need to make the changes he did? Would any of us consider these changes "improvements"? A true adaptation of Irving's story with the Burton touch may have been something wonderful to see on-screen. The always wonderful New York Times critic Janet Maslin noted "Offering a serenely unrecognizable take on Washington Irving's story...the film brings its huge reserves of creativity to bear upon matters like the severing of heads." Can this be a critique on society and our lack of respect for classic literature? How modern adaptations of classics merely cheapen the originals in order to accommodate less literate audiences? If you want to see a better adaptation of Irving's story, watch the animated version instead.