Sleepy Hollow
a review by Chris
My
theory is that when it comes to movies, there are really four "faces"
of the whole experience that you have to consider.
The
first face that many of us see is the all-important trailer, or coming-attraction.
These trailers, so named because... they arrive at the theatre in trailer
trucks... um, I don’t know why they're called that, maybe they used to come
after the film, are little films in and of themselves. At best, they contain
the essence of a movie - hopefully not all the best parts, but highlights
enough to entice you to see it. I would pay to see a showing of JUST trailers,
believe it or not.
Sometimes,
sadly, the trailer is the best part about a film. It ends up that the film may
not be very good as a whole, but there are enough good shots and sounds, that
in bits, the movie looks not too bad. This is why you must NEVER miss the
previews when going to a movie. When the Phantom Menace trailer came
out, we found out what theatre was showing it and in front of what movie, and
bought tickets specifically so that we could see it. AND - when the previews
inexplicably started 10 minutes before the movie time, making us miss the
trailer, we asked the manager to let us stay and see the next showing, which he
did, believe it or not.
Another
face of the movie is everything you hear or read about it before you see it, be
it criticisms, good or bad reviews, what your friends says, what the lead actor
said on the E! show. This is the second way a lot of us experience the movies.
The
third face is the movie poster. Sometimes THIS is the first contact you have
with a movie. Movie posters are wonderful little capsules of the movie, and are
ALSO sometimes better than the movie.
The
point is, each "face" of the experience is - more or less - an art
form in and of itself. And in an ideal world, people would make judgments about
the movie based only on the fourth - and obviously most important - face, the
film itself. Sometimes it's hard to do that.
I
mention this because for Sleepy Hollow, the preview made me so excited I
almost wet myself. It was a Tim Burton movie! It was going to be about THE
HEADLESS HORSEMAN! It was produced by Francis Ford Coppola (as a part of his
ongoing series of lavish Halloween retellings, I assume)! It had Johnny Depp as
a sort of Ichabod Crane we'd never seen before!
The
point of my lengthy four-faces intro is to describe to you how I view the movie
experience, and to admit that perhaps my criticisms are based too much on my
eagerness to see the film after the preview. Decide for yourself. Now let me
stop to reiterate my stratification of reviews, which was originally found in
the Matrix review. It is thusly:
Go
see this film at the theatre at the best movie theatre in town.
Go
see this film at the theatre
Go
see this film at a matinee.
Go
see this film at a matinee if your first choice is sold out.
See
this film on video.
See
this film on video if your first choice has already been rented.
See
this film when it shows on cable.
See
this film if it ever shows on regular TV.
Do
not see this film.
Encourage
others to not see this film.
Sleepy
Hollow earns a Go see this film
at a matinee. It falls short of being a great film because, despite looking
simply beautiful, the story tended to meander through a few too many themes.
But note that I AM saying you should check this out at the theatre!
Firstly,
the fog-filled, shadowy town of Sleepy Hollow is wonderfully realized. It's
like a place where the sun has been banished, or where the Horseman has scared
it away. Burton's visual sense is usually so prevalent that it really takes
over the film - not here, however, and to great effect.
The
movie quickly sets up Ichabod Crane as a champion of science, and so we seem to
know where the movie is headed: the man of reason thinks he can use that reason
to dispel the ghost but quickly learns that not everything can be explained.
(Sort of like Indy realizing that maybe there WAS something to that Ark
business after all when all the Nazis exploded.) Maybe it would have been
better if it HAD followed this standard formula.
Instead
we get man of science argues with the superstitious yokels for a while about
how superstitious they are, sees the Horseman himself and instantly drops the
science angle, but then goes about finding out the explanation of why the
Horseman is in Sleepy Hollow anyway. The problem with this was, the explanation
was not very interesting. Suffice to say that it involved unraveling a
not-all-that sensational conspiracy in the town. The best sections of
the film dealt with learning how the Horseman came to be Headless. I am a
sucker for an origin story of horror characters which I never even considered
needed an origin story before - the best part of Coppola's Dracula were
the "origin" bits that bookended the whole film. But when Sleepy
Hollow came back around to the present, it lost steam. I prefer the
Horseman as restless spirit - not as a sort of voodoo gris-gris that can be
controlled by black magic. I am more interested in the Horseman than who's
controlling him.
Also,
the Horseman was surprisingly mortal and vulnerable as a spectre. Bullets
knocked him off his horse. He had swordfights, and could be fought off. When a
victim hid in a church, the Horseman
had to become strangely crafty and handy with a rope to draw him out. He could
be fairly easily drawn into and diverted inside a giant windmill.
Besides
that, once the plot dispensed with the idea of science or reason vs. magic,
(when Ichabod resolved to face the Horseman), the subplot about the fate of
Crane's nature-child possibly-witch mother seemed unnecessary. Maybe the film
could have used more grounding in this subplot, and less in the conspiracy.
Still
- go see it at the theatre. Depp does an excellent job as the nervous
Crane, and Burton continues to astound. It's all worth it for the origin
sequence.
LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THAT - HOME
© 1999
Absurd Pamphlet Press