Sleepy Hollow Compare And Contrast Essay

The short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" was written by Washington Irving in 1820. The story was inspired by the changing times before, during, and after the American Revolution (1765-1783). The film, Sleepy Hollow is an adaption of the short story written by Washington Irving. It stars Jonny Depp as Ichabod, Christina Ricci as Katrina van Tassel and Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman.

A major difference between "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" (1820), by Washing Irving, and the film adaption by the same name, directed by Tim Burton (1999) is the characterization of Ichabod Crane, Katrina van Tassel, and the Headless Horseman, in particular regard to their personalities, appearance, and behavior. Ichabod is very tall, lanky,

and skinny with large nose in the short story. Irving writes that, "He was tall, but exceedingly lank, with narrow shoulders, long arms and legs, hands that dangled a mile out of his sleeves, feet that might have served for shovels, and his whole frame most loosely hung together. His head was small, and flat at top, with huge ears, large green glassy eyes, and a long snipe nose.” (Irving 9) However, in the film, Ichabod is shown as a well-built man with brown hair. He has a pale and hollow face. In Irving’s version, Ichabod is a schoolteacher, but his occupation doesn’t pay very well. He lives with his pupils, as he cannot afford a home. Proof of this occurs when Irving states that, “With these he lived successfully a week at a time; thus going rounds of the neighborhood, with all his worldly effects tied up in a cotton handkerchief,” (Irving 10). In the Tim Burton film, Ichabod is a constable sent to Sleepy Hollow for the investigation of the murder of 3 persons. In the original story, Ichabod’s pursuit of the Van Tassel estate led him to chase after Katrina, and anger Brom. His greed drove him to his destruction. He left Sleepy Hollow and he lost the girl and land he wanted. Ichabod Crane was portrayed as a greedy self-absorbed man who would do anything to get what he wanted. The movie portrayed Ichabod as a decent man whose only goal was to do his job correctly and to stand up for people’s rights.

In the short story, as a well-read teacher, Ichabod becomes fascinated by the stories about the supernatural. The author mentions that, “His appetite for the marvelous, and his powers of digesting it, were equally extraordinary; and both had been increased by his residence in this spellbound region. No tale was too gross or monstrous for his capacious swallow,” (Irving 12). He truly believes in the ghosts and spirits he reads about, so much that after reading he would hear and see things, such as, “the moan of a whip-poor-will from the hill-side; the bedding cry of the screech owl, or the sudden rustling in the thicket of birds frightened from their roost.” (Irving 12) On the other hand, in the film, Ichabod is a man of science. He didn’t believe in the headless horseman until he saw him kill someone first hand. He often argues that the horseman isn't real: " 'You believe the father killed her?' 'The Horseman killed her.' 'How often do I have to tell you? There is no Horseman, never was a Horseman, and never will be a Horseman.' " ( Burton 1999). Though Ichabod is shocked to discover the Horseman is indeed real, he manages to

look at the issue logically and realize that there is someone behind this controlling the horseman. Ichabod is a flat character in the original version because his character doesn't develop. However, in the film, Ichabod is a round character because his character learns that there isn't a scientific explanation for everything. Katrina is another character who is presented differently in the book and movie. In the short story version, she is aware of her beauty and seems to use it to her advantage. She is described to be:
a blooming lass of fresh eighteen; plump as a partridge; ripe and melting and rosy cheeked as one of her father’s peaches, and universally famed, not merely for her beauty, but her vast expectations. She was withal a little of a coquette, as might be perceived even in her dress, which was a mixture of ancient and modern fashions, as most suited to set off her charms. She wore the ornaments of pure yellow gold, which her great-great-
grandmother had brought over from Saardam; the tempting stomacher of the olden time; and withal a provokingly short petticoat, to display the prettiest foot and ankle in the country round. (Irving 12,13)
It appears that Katrina is used to getting everything she wants, and uses Ichabod for the mere purpose of making Brom jealous. Further proof of this occurs when Ichabod begins to doubt their relationship. However, in the movie she is quite different. She may be beautiful and rich, but she is also very kind, caring, and brave. She genuinely shows interest in Ichabod, as seen when she follows Ichabod into the Western Woods knowing that everyone else was too afraid to go. She is often wearing white, which symbolizes purity and her good nature. Another character that is displayed differently in the short story and the film is the Headless Horseman. In the Washington Irving's version he is presumed to be Brom, trying to scare away Ichabod. But the legend is he was a Hessian trooper who lost his head to a canon. The short story describes the Headless Horseman as, “ the ghost of a Hessian trooper, whose head had been carried away by a cannon-ball, in some nameless battle during the revolutionary war; and who is ever and anon seen by the country folk, hurrying along in the gloom of night, as if on the wings of the wind.”(Irving 7) However in the Tim Burton film, he is certainly real. His backstory is much more detailed and his cause of death differs. Baltus tells Ichabod that, "he was a Hessian mercenary, sent to our shores by German princes to help keep Americans under the thumb of England. However, unlike his compatriots who came as muscle in trade for currency, he came willingly. For love of carnage. He was infamous for taking his horse, Daredevil, hard into battle... chopping off heads at full gallop. Just to look on him made your blood run cold, for he had filed down his teeth to rapiers to add to the ferocity of his appearance." (Burton 1999) He is described as a bloodthirsty soldier who met his end when his head was chopped off by his own sword, rather than a canon like in the original.

The headless horseman is also a murderer controlled by whoever has his head. In this case it was Katrina’s stepmother. Tim burton’s film also included additional characters not present in the short story. Some examples would be Lady van Tassel, Jonathan Masbeth, and Magistrate Philipse. Katrina’s stepmother, Lady van Tassel (Mary Archer) is the antagonist of the story. She is consumed by greed and wants to get revenge on those who wronged her. Young Masbeth and magistrate Philipse are both supporting characters who aren’t involved with the central conflict all that much.
A major similarity found in both is the setting and mood. The events in each piece are located in the town of Sleepy Hollow and the outskirts in the woods. Both are set in the 1790's time period. They both have an eerie and mysterious mood that the setting evokes. The short story evokes this mood through the curiosity about the town being wicked, whereas the film does this with the gloomy weather, run-down buildings, and the mystery behind who is controlling the Headless Horseman. Both stories have exciting events which create some suspense. This is because the central conflict has similarities. Both works use man vs man and man vs supernatural.
I think that the original piece made by Washington Irving did a better job at conveying its message because the plot was very simple and the theme was easy to identify. The theme of the power of greed is present in both versions, where a character is willing to do anything for wealth but this selfishness leads to their own destruction. Ichabod in the short story and Lady van Tassel (Mary Archer) in the film both are the antagonist of the plot, it is their self-centeredness that makes them this way. In the short story version Ichabod learns that greed will get you nowhere. He is obsessed with Katrina’s wealth and beauty and doesn’t realize there are more important things in life than money. The conclusion of the story occurs as Ichabod leaves town out of fear of the Headless horseman and humiliation of being rejected by Katrina. However, in the film, Mary’s greed is also a hatred of the Van Tassel’s because they are the reason her family lost their home. Stealing their fortune is out of revenge and pursuit of their wealth, but Ichabod gives the headless Horseman his head back so that is no longer controlled by Mary. As a result, the Headless Horseman takes her back with him to hell. I think that since we are aware of Ichabod’s true character in the short story, rather than having Lady van Tassel’s true motives exposed later in the movie, the reader can sense the lesson this version is expressing more effectively.