Oeuvre: Tim Burton - Sleepy Hollow

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow was one of my favorite short stories as a boy.  Likewise, the animated Disney short of the same name was in constant rotation around the Halloween season.  The chilling tale of the superstitious schoolteacher, Ichabod Crane and his mysterious meeting with the Headless Horsemen aroused my curiosity and fired up my imagination.

So, how does Tim Burton's film compare?  The movie, Sleepy Hollow, may have a streamlined title but it also has a far more complicated plot.

At the turn of the 19th century, man of science, Constable Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp) is sent to a small, Dutch village to investigate a series of brutal beheadings.  The townsfolk believe that the killer is not of flesh and blood, but a hessian from the Revolutionary War they call the Headless Horseman, who has risen and is on the hunt for fresh heads.  Determined to find the true culprit of these crimes, Ichabod uncovers a sinister conspiracy deep within the heart of Sleepy Hollow, and maybe even... beyond the grave.

Andrew Kevin Walker and make-up effects designer Kevin Yagher conceived of this adaptation as a period piece slasher film.  This comes as no surprise, given that Walker also wrote Se7en.

Johnny Depp performs ably as the capable but cowardly Ichabod Crane, now constable instead of school teacher.  Also considered for the role were Brad Pitt, Liam Neeson, and Daniel Day-Lewis.  Depp is slightly goofier than Neeson or DD Lewis might have been and maybe if the film had been closer to the source material, they would have been better choices.  Unsurprisingly, Depp wanted a prosthetic nose and ears to match the description of the character.  Equally unsurprisingly, the studio refused.  He gives a performance that's vaguely feminine and fragile and while he's far too pretty to fit in with the rest of his surroundings, its always fun to watch Depp swing for the fences.

Christina Ricci is cast as Katrina Van Tassel and she is given more development than her character ever had in the book.  And yet, there's still nothing to her character.  Its some sort of mathematical paradox in which zero is somehow greater than zero.  I suppose she spurns Ichabod later but that's about it.

Brom Bones (now named Brom Van Brunt) is Ichabod's romantic rival but his role in the story is chopped down immensely, if you'll pardon the pun.  Ichabod's first run-in with the Horseman and the chase to the bridge remains intact, and even contains one of the possible endings of the original story, but it appears around the halfway point of the film.  Apart from that Brom acts more as the Jock in a slasher film, than the Gaston-esque figure he is in the book.

Apart from that, we are given a whole new cast of characters.  Baltus Van Tassel, Magistrate Philipse, Doctor Lancaster, Reverend Steenwyck, Widow Winship, Notary Hardenbrook, all great names, are played by an embarrassingly talented cast including Michael Gambon, Richard Griffiths, Ian McDiarmid, Jeffrey Jones, Michael Gough, Christopher Lee, and Miranda Richardson, most of whom play town elders and all of whom have something to hide.

Much is removed from Washington Irving's classic.  However, the tone of the film remains the same.  Eerie is the best word to describe it.  As I've said previously, the book is reshaped from a thrilling horror to a horror thriller.  My frustration at the changes aside, I have to concede that the film still works.  Burton turned this slasher film into a Hammer Horror film, even bringing in Hammer alumni such as Christopher Lee and Michael Gough.  The action and the kills are well shot and when the mystery really picks up, there is a modern energy that meshes well with the period setting.

"Their heads were not found severed..." warns Reverend Steenwyck, ominously.  "Their heads were not found at all."  There is a fantastic atmosphere that pervades most of this film.

The production design by Rick Heinrichs, from the imposing town halls, to the spindly scarecrows in a cornfield, to the twisted, dead tree in the middle of a forest are all straight out of what I like to call "horror by candlelight."  It all looks like something out of an Edgar Allen Poe novel.

The cinematography, shot by none other than the immeasurable Immanuel Lubezki is breathtaking and haunting.  His use of darkness and fog is classic horror the way it was meant to be seen.  Burton's frequent collaborator, Danny Elfman steps up to the plate in a big way.  Horror films are particularly difficult to write music for.  Low and ominous is an easy direction but its damn near impossible to make anything that stands out.  Almost any track would fit perfectly in a campfire setting.  He elevates the still and unnerving cinematography and provides a soundtrack that sends chills down your spine.

There is only one element of the movie I outright object to and that is the ending, which essentially amounts to a climb up a wind-mill (gotta milk that Dutch heritage for all it's worth) and a horse chase with the Headless Horseman.  Why does it bother me?  Well, I'll tell you.

SPOILERS FOR THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW BELOW!!!

The short story is COMPLETELY different!  In Washington Irving's original tale, Ichabod Crane is a lanky, gawky, superstitious schoolteacher who comes to Sleepy Hollow to... well... teach school.  Despite his awkward appearance, Ichabod is surprisingly charming and attracts the eye of every woman in town, including Katrina Van Tassel, a young woman and heir to her father's considerable fortune.  Ichabod also has an appetite and daydreams about wedding Katrina so that, when her father passes away, he can inherit the fortune and eat, and eat, and eat.

All of this becomes a point of contention to the local bully, Brom Bones, who also seeks Katrina's hand.  He attempts to embarrass Ichabod, though the pranks fail to dissuade him.

Then, on a cold, autumn night, Ichabod attends a party at the Van Tassel's.  There, Brom tells everyone the ghost story of the Headless Horseman, an evil spirit who lost his head and seeks others to take it's place.  He warns that if anyone sees this specter, they must make for the bridge next to the old burying ground, where the Horseman will disappear.

That night, on his lonely ride home, Ichabod sees a man in the distance on horseback.  The massive man approaches him and Crane sees that the man has no head.  The Horseman charges Ichabod and chases him through the forest, with Ichabod running for his life.  Ichabod crosses the bridge and watches in horror as the Headless Horseman crosses the bridge and throws a severed head at Ichabod's face.

The next day, Ichabod is gone.  All that remains is his horse, a trampled saddle, a hat, and a broken pumpkin.  Brom Bones marries Katrina.  Did Ichabod truly run into the Headless Horseman that night?  Was he dragged to hell?  Or was it merely Brom Bones in disguise?  And if it were, did Ichabod flee the city?  Or was he savagely murdered and his body hidden?  The true fate of Ichabod Crane remains a mystery.

The End.

To me, that ending is WAY scarier than any ferris wheel fight scene.  The idea that our hero could be dispatched and we'll never know the truth is frightening.  I suspect that as children, we all have a fear that we will be taken and nobody will know what happened to us.  I understand that a story about a schoolteacher and only one supposed murder can't sustain a feature film but I prefer this sinister and ambiguous conclusion.

Its the movie's lame ending and a tired, bland love story between Ichabod and Katrina, that prevent this movie from being a horror classic.  That said, I still think that its a lot of fun and if you're in the mood for something to watch on Halloween that has that October spirit, I think this is a fun film to check out.

Oeuvre: Mel Brooks - Dracula: Dead and Loving It

After 'The Twilight Saga', everyone seemed in agreement that vampires were overexposed.  A common complaint lobbed at the the series (one of many) was that Edward Cullen and his ilk had nothing in common with vampires, except that they had sharp canines and an occasional thirst for blood.  "Vampires don't sparkle!" they cried.  "You make vampires look silly!"  Poor devils.  If only they'd seen Gary Oldman's hairdo in Francis Ford Coppola's 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' then they'd see how silly a vampire could really look.  Apparently, Brooks thought Oldman looked ridiculous as well for he set out to make his own Dracula parody just shy of the 100th anniversary of Bram Stocker's original novel.  And so, we finish off the films of Mel Brooks with his 1995 box office bomb, 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It.'

The plot closely adheres to most tellings of the Dracula tale.  A solicitor named Thomas Renfield travels to Transylvania to meet with Count Dracula over a real estate deal (no, really).  Dracula reveals himself to be a vampire and hypnotizes Renfield, making him his bitch before traveling to London to... suck some hot bachelorette neck, I guess.

Lets get all the Dracula puns out of the way.  It sucks.  Its lifeless.  It has no teeth.  It's a stake in the heart of Mel Brooks' career.  Bela Lugosee-something-else.  Yada yada yada.  The fact of the matter is that the film isn't very good.  Its more than not very good.  It's terrible.  It's a waste of time.  It's not very appealing to look at.  The cinematography, production design, special effects, and sets look simultaneously expensive and Party City cheap.  For a 90 minute runtime, it feels interminably long and what's worse, its boring.

But the devil is in the details.

Leslie Nielsen plays the titular Dracula.  He is humorous in his effortless Leslie Nielsen way and his comic timing is as impeccable as ever.  He finds a comfortable spot between Bella Legosi, Christopher Lee, and Gary Oldman but despite his decent Bela Lugosi impression, he never creates his own Dracula.  He's just Leslie Nielsen in a Halloween costume.

Peter MacNicol gives Brad Dourif a run for his money as Top Creep.  He starts the film steady as a weak-stomached, extremely British Renfield, but once he falls victim to Dracula's trance he turns into this horrible, screeching mess.  Every minute he was on screen, I wanted to staple my eyes shut.

Amy Yasbeck returns as Mina.  She has worked with Brooks before, plus she is pretty and has a long neck.  However, she has given nothing to do until the last act when she too falls under Dracula's spell.  Her crowning moment is a dance scene between her and Dracula with wirework out of 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.'

Mel Brooks plays Professor Van Helsing and yup... that's about it.

The only shining light in this film is Steven Weber as Harker, Mina's husband-to-be.  He is the only character who consistently made me smile.  A friend of mine suggested that he may be struggling with a deeply buried homosexuality.  I think he's just fantastically repressed by the times and wants to grab some tit.  His restrained desperation never ceases to be amusing.  He's an oasis in this comedic sahara.

Nielsen stands out in this movie, not because he's particularly good or bad but because he is a legend of parody.  Thanks in no small part to 'Airplane!' and other Zucker Brothers comedies, Nielsen's deadpan delivery and stretchy visage make him instantly recognizable as a satirical icon.  He just doesn't belong in this movie.  He sticks out like a sore thumb and his casting feels like a desperate attempt on Brooks' part for a safe bet.

With 'The Twelve Chairs', Brooks introduced the world to Frank Langella.  Most people don't know this, but Langella played Dracula in 1979.  Why couldn't Brooks bring him back for this, as a knowing wink to the audience?  He was probably busy filming 'Junior.'

This movie is so cheaply made, it's baffling.  In the very beginning of the movie, we see a carriage riding in broad daylight.  Then a shot of the red sunset.  Then a shot of the carriage in broad daylight again.  Its that sort of carelessness that envelopes the film with a lingering scent of "who gives a shit?"  None of the characters have character except for Steven Weber and Leslie Nielsen and even he's just playing himself.  Its impossible to understand what's really going on because nobody has personality, fears, or desires, except "wouldn't it be sad if this woman I told you I loved became a vampire?"  All this could be salvaged if there was a sharp wit to the dialogue but Brooks just replaces the "Your name sounds like something else" jokes from 'Spaceballs' and 'Robin Hood' with the surprisingly less amusing "Aren't accents funny?" jokes.


This is not the worst movie I've ever seen.  Its not even the worst comedy I've seen this year (I'm looking at you, 'Hot Tub Time Machine 2!').  But its really amazing how much work can go into something and the finished product still looks like garbage.  I've always found the process of making comedies fascinating.  Unlike theater or live studio audience sitcoms, you can't tell if something's funny or not until you release it.  You tell a joke on film and nobody can laugh until the director calls "cut!"  I imagine you must feel incredibly stupid jumping around and screaming while dozens of crew members stand stone faced.  And how embarrassed must you be, when the film is released, and all those pin drop quiet, laughless moments are magnified a thousand times?

When 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' was released, it received universally negative reviews, as well it should.  For a thirty million dollar budget, it only made ten at the box office.  This brought about a firm and decisive end to Mel Brooks directing career.  Not with a bang but with a whimper.

The Director's Oeuvre: Mel Brooks - Young Frankenstein

1974 was a good year for Mel Brooks.  By this point, he was essentially a household name and a staple in American comedy.  In February, he released his western classic 'Blazing Saddles' and a mere 10 months later, he was back in theaters with what many would deem another classic, 'Young Frankenstein.'

This macabre tale is that of Dr. Frederick Frankenstein (pronounced Fronkenshteen), a physician, lecturer, and direct descendent of the legendary Dr. Henry Frankenstein.  He has made a reputable career for himself in the scientific community but is unable to escape the shadow of his infamous ancestry for which he has nothing but contempt.  His life is turned upside down when he inherits his family's estate in Transylvania.  With the help of a loyal assistant, Igor and a busty handmaiden named Inga, Dr. Frankenstein confronts the mysteries of his past and attempts to finish his grandfather's work.

Gene Wilder throws himself into the role of Dr. Frankenstein in a way we haven't seen before.  His manner is that of someone truly mad, struggling to keep himself in check.  His fear that he is just as mad as his grandfather is always present in his performance though never expressly stated.  His raw frustration and fury bubbles under the surface, eating away at him.  What we get is an explosive, bipolar performance.  But is that necessarily a good thing?  While this ferocity may work for a horror film or drama, comedy demands a straight man, someone to take the brunt of the craziness around him.  Wilder is conflictive with his own creation.  He wants to act as both the exasperated straight man AND the bombastic mad genius and its hard to latch onto both.

Marty Feldman and his iconic eyes plays the hunchbacked Igor (pronounced Eye-gor).  Like Frederick, he too is a descendant of the character we all know.  Bug-eyed expression and warm dimwittedness carries him a long way.  He succeeds in the role despite the jokes he's forced to deliver.  More on that later.  Teri Garr plays Inga, a well-endowed personal assistant concerned for the good Doctor but equally curious and loyal to a fault.  The three of them work together as a team infinitely better than Bender and Vorobyaninov ever did 'The Twelve Chairs.' All three of them share great chemistry.

The late Peter Boyle plays The Monster (that's right, not Frankenstein, the Monster) and he is fantastic.  He plays the part, as all great Frankenstein's Monsters do, with a childlike understanding of a cruel and unforgiving world.  Despite being buried in prosthetics, Boyle has a remarkably expressive face that endears us to him.

Chloris Leachman has a small part as Frau Blücher, a housekeeper so horrifying that the very mention of her name is enough to frighten the horses.  Kenneth Mars plays Inspector Kemp, a one-armed policeman torn between wanting to maintain law and order in his community and wanting to get a good ol' fashioned riot going.  Madeline Kahn also appears briefly as a vain socialite who just won't put out.  She's barely in the movie but she makes the most out of every minute.

Young Frankenstein is Mel Brooks' most technically accomplished film to date.  While The Producers just told a comedic story and Blazing Saddles skewered westerns, Young Frankenstein has a far more specific target in its crosshairs, namely the Universal Horror Films, 'Frankenstein' and to a lesser extent, 'The Bride of Frankenstein.'  The cinematography by Gerald Hischfeld, production design by Dale Hennesy, and score by John Morris are all impressive the same way Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood' was.  However, I would hesitate to call it a classic, or even a wholly successful work.

Pacing wise, this movie is abysmal.  I was watching this film with a friend and we hadn't even gotten past the title sequence before my friend muttered, "these are going on forever."  She wasn't wrong.  The opening credits are simply names and crew positions superimposed over a shot of a looming castle while slow violin music plays.  The whole experience is reminiscent of 'Frankenstein' and films of that ilk but one thing those movies were not is funny.  In general, that is Young Frankenstein's greatest problem.  It mirrors the style of the horror film without countering with the timing of a comedy.  Not every joke in Blazing Saddles lands, but it is throwing a joke at you every 10 seconds.  The jokes in Young Frankenstein are far too infrequent and when they do appear they are hit and miss.

Wilder wrote the screenplay with Mel Brooks adding support and its painfully apparent.  That's not to say that there aren't good jokes, there are, but there are just as many clunkers that have no business being in this film.  At one point Gene Wilder arrives at a train station in Transylvania.  Despite the fact that the conductor has just told us that we have arrived in Transylvania, Wilder leans out the window to a passing Shoeshine boy and asks, "Pardon me, boy.  Is this the Transylvania station?"  The boy responds "Ja, ja.  Track 29."  He turns away before asking, "Hey, can I give you a shine?"  "No thank you" says Wilder.  Hilarious.  For those of you who are totally lost, "Track 29. Can I give you a shine?"  are lyrics from the 1941 song "Chattanooga Choo Choo."  First off, this is a stupid joke.  Second, it doesn't make any sense other than making the audience say "we know those lyrics."  And third, it steps over the REAL joke which is that Wilder was able to get to Transylvania by train.

Brooks is also far too fond of 'looking at the camera' humor.  9 times out of 10, its just Brooks explaining jokes to the audience.  "We must accept our failures with quiet dignity and grace" sighs Frankenstein before he throws a tantrum and cries.  Igor looks at the audience.  "Quiet dignity and grace."  He rolls his eyes.  "GET IT?!" shouts Brooks off camera.  "He didn't accept the situation with dignity and grace!"  Yes Mel.  We get it.

Once the Monster rises from his metal slab, the script picks up with its jokes.  It suddenly has purpose and direction.  One slapstick scene with the Monster and a generous Blind Hermit is particularly effective.  But at the same time, some elements of the story, like The Monster meeting a little girl by a well, are riffing on the 1931 film so specifically that I can't imagine they'd be anything other than chuckleworthy for an unfamiliar audience.  The scene serves no other purpose but to make fun of its predecessor scene by scene and in doing so, fails to work as its own narrative.  I'm not sure why this is viewed as a classic.  It's nowhere near as funny as The Producers or Blazing Saddles.  It is a well made visually but I've never known the average moviegoer to say "you should see this movie Young Frankenstein, the cinematography is Uh-May-Zing!"  That being said, there is more than enough in this movie to recommend.

Following the success of The Producers: the Musical, Brooks and company tried to milk that prized heifer again and turned Young Frankenstein into a Broadway Musical.  The show received mixed reviews and faded from the public consciousness.  Don't worry guys, we'll always have Transylvania.

Gene Wilder has gone on record saying that this is his favorite film he's ever been involved with.  I feel bad for the poor man.  He doesn't know how good 'Will Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' is.