User Reviews

For those of us who live in Tarrytown, New York, a town whose northern neighbor is called Sleepy Hollow, Washington Irving's tale of Ichabod Crane and his encounter with the Headless Horseman is never far from our consciousness. Irving lived here, wrote here and set many of his stories in the area. The image of the Horseman is used in logos for a number of local businesses, and the souvenir shops are chock-a-block with Sleepy Hollow memorabilia, especially since Tim Burton's 'Sleepy Hollow' came out a couple of years ago. The Horseman has decidedly edged out Rip Van Winkle as Irving's best remembered tale, or at least his most heavily commercialized one. The Disney studio produced a terrific Headless Horseman cartoon in the late '40s, by far the best screen adaptation to date, but when it comes to live action the tale doesn't seem to lend itself readily to the cinema, and this silent feature film starring Will Rogers demonstrates why.

The Oklahoma-born Rogers was a most likable screen figure, and on a purely visual level his offbeat casting as Yankee schoolmaster Ichabod Crane works surprisingly well, though he couldn't have played an Easterner convincingly in a talkie. (Although come to think of it, Will did just that in the 1931 version of Twain's Connecticut Yankee; perhaps his casting in that case was something of an inside joke). But anyone expecting a comic rendition of this story featuring Rogers' characteristic wit will be disappointed, for the filmmakers followed Washington Irving's story all too faithfully, giving us an Ichabod Crane who is deeply unsympathetic. We expect comedy when we first see Will dressed as Ichabod, looking so gawky in his 18th century clothes and funny little pigtail, but Rogers plays it straight; his Ichabod is a pompous nerd, just as the story dictates. When the schoolroom sequence begins we expect Our Gang-style gags with pea-shooters or something similar, but this Yankee schoolmaster is self-righteous, prissy and stern. When a boy makes a sassy comment about the local flirt, Ichabod beats him briskly. What humor there is comes from the title cards, generally at Ichabod's expense, as he makes one foolish, arrogant remark after another.

All of this serves the story Washington Irving wrote, but it doesn't serve our nominal star, Will Rogers, or the demands of entertaining cinema. We don't like our "hero" Ichabod Crane very much, in fact he comes off as a jerk: the title cards make it explicitly clear that his courtship of local belle Katrina Van Tassel is driven by greed for her money and property. What a guy! So if we don't like the leading man, who else is there? We are told, again by one of those convenient title cards, that Ichabod's rival Brom Bones isn't such a bad sort, but the next thing we know, Brom is enjoying a cockfight with great enthusiasm -- and shortly afterward, inflamed by jealousy over Katrina, he attempts to use fake evidence to establish that Ichabod is in league with the devil, and nearly gets the guy tarred and feathered by local hotheads. So much for Brom Bones. And as for Katrina, she prefers Brom.

So, we've got a story with absolutely no one to root for, where even the charismatic Will Rogers comes off as a greedy, conceited little schnook, in a town full of rubes, dupes, and superstitious fools. (I should add that where my fellow citizens are concerned, to paraphrase Monty Python, "We got better.") This adaptation of The Headless Horseman does have nice period detail and some amusing touches along the way, and the climactic chase is well-handled and stirring. In sum, however, this film suggests that Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow is inherently off-putting material for a live action feature film, and it did so long before Tim Burton proved the point, once and for all.

Today's viewers of early silent movies might think that actors-and especially actresses-all applied a thick application of lipstick and eye-liner since those areas were so dark. And the skin tones looked like they never had been in the sun, so pale were their faces. The real truth is the film stock used in early movies was orthochromatic, invented in 1873 for still photography, and is still used by photographers today for landscape and some portrait photos.

Technically, orthochromatic consists of silver halide crystals, which are sensitive to the color blue. One can notice movies in the late 1800's and early 1900's where daylight scenes have white skies on a cloudless day. In close-up shots, actors with blue eyes appeared to have nearly white eyeballs. In addition, orthochromatic film can't detect red light; it converts reds simply to black. So actresses appeared to wear black lipstick even though on the set they wore red.

A German chemist, Herman Vogel, tinkered with several ingredients knowing the weaknesses of orthochromatic film. Others built on Vogel's work, inventing in 1906 the panchromatic process for still photography. By 1913 Eastman Kodak, the supplier of motion picture film stock, was able to introduce the advanced process to flexible celluloid, but it was high unstable and expensive. Finally in 1922, Kodak's panchromatic film quality was much improved and the cost to manufacture it dramatically dropped.

The first movie to be entirely shot using panchromatic film was November 1922's "The Headless Horseman." It may appear the new process didn't make much difference since the surviving prints of "The Headless Horseman" are worn and washed out. This was a major problem with early panchromatic motion picture film since it had such a short shelf-life. By 1926, more refinements in stability were introduced. With an extended preservation of its sharpness and depth of visual tones, panchromatic became the movie industry standard, forcing Kodak to discontinue orthochromatic movie film stock by 1930.

Showman Will Rogers headlined "The Headless Horseman," appearing as the stern teacher, Ichabod Crane. The movie is the earliest surviving film version based on the Washington Irving's short story. Rogers went against his normal friendly and homespun persona by acting as the harsh, rigid school taskmaster. His character didn't quite mesh with the small Sleepy Hollow, New York, villagers, who were about to railroad Crane out of town.

Rogers was in his fifth year in cinema when he appeared in "The Headless Horsemen." Samuel Goldwyn had signed the Broadway star to a multi-year contract in 1918 to appear in silent movies, an unusual move since the Oklahoma-born performer was known more for his verbal witticisms rather than his pantomiming. A 10th-grade high school drop-out who had spent time learning the ranch ropes in Argentina and in South Africa, began performing tricks with his lassos. Catching on to vaudeville circuits in the United States beginning in 1905, he became popular performing his horse and pony stunts. Ten years later, as a performer for Florenz Ziegfeld's 'Midnight Frolic,' in New York City, he mixed his lasso tricks with chitchat about the days' events gleaned from the daily newspapers. "All I know is what I read in the paper" became Rogers' trademark opening line.

His real personality, despite appearing in 48 silent films, wasn't fully appreciated until the advent of talkies in 1929, where he was able to express himself verbally.

Merely adequate retelling of the famous story. Its chief interest lies in the location filming in New York's Hudson River Valley, including the actual Old Dutch Church in Sleepy Hollow. The screenplay introduces a non-Irving subplot of Ichabod Crane being accused of witchcraft in a prank by Brom Bones. None of the comic scenes are particularly funny; one can imagine what Buster Keaton might have done as Ichabod. Some attempts are made at pictorialism, aided by the panchromatic film used here. But the valley's autumnal colors described by Washington Irving are sadly missing in black and white. And the day-for-night scenes of the climactic chase look like pure daylight without the deep blue tinting undoubtedly used in original prints.

This adaptation of the Washington Irving story is watchable, and it has some good moments, but that's the best you can say about it. It makes you feel as if somewhere it missed the opportunity to be a little better. While it tells the story in a clear and capable fashion, that's about all it does. There is never really a distinctive atmosphere or any sustained tension, and there are only a few brief moments of comic relief, despite ample opportunities for any or all of these.

It seems a bit of a shame to have the thoroughly likable Will Rogers portray a smug and rather petty character like Ichabod Crane. Rogers does a satisfactory job, but he is limited by what the role has to offer. The other characters likewise are believable, and are recognizable from the story, but it needed some atmosphere or creative touches to make the characters and the situation more compelling.

It's probably still worth seeing for silent movie fans. The climactic sequence - which offers material much more cinematic in nature than the rest of the narrative - is done well, and it allows the movie to end with some energy.

This is an early telling of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and runs 71 minutes. Considering that this film starred Will Rogers, I had very high hopes for this silent picture and assumed it would be a comedy. However, I soon noticed that the print was extremely horrible and often difficult to watch. Then I noticed that although Rogers was very talented and funny, in this film he was about as funny as Walter Cronkite. And then I noticed that I kept falling asleep during the film--strike three! The bottom line is that although this is a relatively faithful retelling of the Washington Irving short story, there just isn't any life in it. Plus, given that practically every viewer knows what happens at the end, there isn't any suspense either. It's watchable and interesting to note that they actually filmed it in Upstate New York, but that's really about it.

Sadly, the film is bundled another silent,THE MECHANICAL MAN, on DVD. This Italian film manages to be even less interesting or entertaining that THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN and so I strongly caution all sane people from buying this DVD. Fortunately I got it from Netflix--otherwise, I'd be feeling pretty angry now!

I always liked the Disney version of this story and since I like Will Rogers and I find it fascinating to see silent versions of more modern films I like, I made my way into the screening room at Cinevent 2012.

Our star, Will Rogers, is best known for his wit, which cannot be on display here because it is a silent. Strike one. The buildup to the reason to watch the movie, the headless horseman, was so long and dull, that I found myself nodding off several times, as were many of the people around me. Strike two. The climax came much too late and suddenly to justify watching this movie. Strike three.

The runtime on this movie is a little more than an hour, but it feels like triple that. It is painful to watch.

This is not a great film. It is very slow. The book was very scary. The 1999 film Sleep Hollow based on the same book Legend of sleepy hollow by Washington Irving. The short cartoon the Legend of sleepy hollow is very entertaining. This is badly written. It is also badly acted. There try to makes short story into a long movie. By adding stuff that just for the sake of making it long. So they could make a full length movie. They did not capture the fear of the book. The book is one of the scariest stories ever. And this is just boring and slow. It is not scary at all. There should have made it a short film then it might have been fun. Instead of being just boring.

This was a movie that I originally picked up after seeing and enjoying Sleepy Hollow. I was familiar enough with the source material, having read it when I was in junior high. It isn't necessarily on the level of H. P. Lovecraft or Edgar Allan Poe when it comes to the classics, but most everyone knows of the story of the Headless Horseman and Ichabod Crane. For this version, our synopsis is the village of Sleepy Hollow is getting ready to greet the new schoolteacher, Ichabod Crane (Will Rogers), who is coming from New York. As he tries to get ingrained in his new village, not everyone likes the new teacher.

Much like the synopsis states, we start this movie with the village of Sleepy Hollow preparing to greet Ichabod. He is a man of science, but he also has knowledge of ghosts and other supernatural things. This makes him quite familiar with the legend of the Headless Horseman. Upon arriving, he is greeted by a welcome committee. It is most of the higher ups of this village, which includes Baltus Van Tassel (Bernard A. Reinold). He is the richest farmer in the area. His daughter is also the most desirable bachelorette. Her name is Katrina (Lois Meredith) Abraham Van Brunt, who is also known as Brom Bones (Ben Hendricks Jr.), has his eyes set on her and is jealous when she seems interested in Ichabod.

He goes about teaching the children, but he upsets Dame Martling (Mary Foy). Her son is Jethro (James Sheridan) and he's a troublemaker in school. To get back at Ichabod, she tries to find ways to punish him and get him run out of town. Brom Bones helps here as him and his friends tear up the school. Ichabod believes it to be witches. Jethro relays what happens and she sees a way to get the elders of the village to turn on him.

Before ending this fleshing out of the story, Katrina is interested in Ichabod. He must work up the courage to share his feelings. He also won't be easily run out of town. Part of this is having no money, but there is also his pride. An encounter with the Headless Horseman could change things though.

Now I'll be honest, the version of this I watched ran about 75 minutes or so. There isn't a lot to this story if I'm honest. It has been so long since I've read the source material that I'm not sure about the characters outside of Ichabod and the Headless Horseman. I'm inclined to think that the Van Tassels, Van Brunts, Van Rippers and Martlings are all there. This is in the era of filmmaking where you'd take an established story and adapt it to the screen. This movie does well in presenting the characters and even a bit of the mythology here.

This last bit is what makes this story interesting, the mythology. The Headless Horseman is an intriguing character. It is thought to be believed that he was a soldier, who lost his head and at night searches for it. There are stories shared from different townsfolk about the entity. Some claiming that the Headless Horseman wanted to race them. We get a character one night that wakes up thinking she hears the horseman. Her husband quiets her fears informing her that it is just Brom Bones and his crew. We get a cool ghostly effect to see the horseman early in the movie. The problem is that we don't see him again until the end. What I wanted was more of this like we get in the movie Sleepy Hollow. This isn't that type of movie and I also don't think they had resources to show it more. I like the effect that is used that first time. I'm not a fan of the reveal at the end of the movie though. Since this movie is part comedy, I think we're trying to play it for laughs.

That will take me over to an issue I have here, this movie is boring despite its low runtime. I think its due to what they focus on. Rogers is good as Ichabod and I even like the arrogance he plays the role with. Meredith works Katrina. We don't flesh her out all that much, but we can tell she has a crush on Ichabod. She is in a tough position with Brom Bones interested in her. I even think Hendricks is solid as that character. The problem is that we focus too much on them when we don't need it. The movie bogs down because of it. I also wanted to give credit to Foy, Sheridan and the rest of the acting as it all works. It is over the top being that this is a silent film so they needed to play it that way.

There's not much else that I can talk about with this movie. I think that the cinematography is good for the era. We are early into cinema, so it is static and we don't get much in the way of cuts. I like what they did with the introduction to the Headless Horseman. The costumes do make it feel of the era it is set. The only other aspect would be the soundtrack. This can get dicey as I'm entirely sure what should be synced up. What we get though is good. It adds atmosphere to the movie. We get the same songs played over and over, but it doesn't ruin it.

In conclusion then, this is decent take on the source material for early cinema. This is an era where they would base many movies off established works. I like Ichabod and Rogers does well in portraying the character. The lore of the Headless Horseman is good, but I wanted more there. This movie has a tinge of comedy that didn't necessarily work for me. I would say that the acting worked and how this was shot was in line with the era. There are movies from the same period that did more there and even with the effects. Other than that, I'd say the soundtrack my version had fit and helped with the atmosphere. I believe this is above average. It is just lacking some parts to go higher for me.

My Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

I'm a sucker for this story but this version lacks what it takes to hold someone's interest for very long. They are missing atmosphere! There is no real imagery - not Gothic, not ghostly, nor ghoulish - and this is a ghost story! The main focus here is on the Ichabod, Tassel and Brom Bones triangle -- forget the ghastly horseman, he's not really here.

They seem to be relying on the comedy 100% and forgetting the horror aspect of the story - and it's the Headless Horseman that is the big draw here - not this "romance" triangle. Need more of the ghostly scaring towards Crane, the rivalry of Bones and Crane.

2/10

This is perhaps the most boring movie I ever seen. It was difficult to sit though because the story took so long to get to the point of seeing the headless horseman that you begin forgetting what the point of the story is.

When Will Rogers made this film in 1922, the story by Washington Irving was just 102 years old. Since then, and another century, the world has seen unbelievable change and technological advancement. What we have lost in equal measure is the magic of time, silence, imagination and great storytelling.

Not only do I find this film watchable, I appreciate the remarkable realism of the action sequences, the astonishing horsemanship of Mr. Rogers doing his own stunts and appearing to be a novice, some remarkably beautiful images of landscapes, dirt roads, old bridges and houses in the very location that partly inspired Irving's short story.

The tales of ghosts, thunder beings, old Dutch and Native American traditions could have been forgotten along this stretch of the Hudson River Valley were it not for Washington Irving. There is a multi-layered historic link to generations past in every frame of this film.

Is it my imagination or are there traces of Will Rogers' brash, western brand of humor in some of the inter-titles? If that is true, the combination of the new American West with the older traditions, spiced with European tales and superstitions, is a first, if not unique contribution to American films.

Watching this version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow can teach us some worthwhile and even entertaining values. Take yourself back 100 years to a time before sound movies, television, freeways and cell phones. You find yourself in glens of green silence, clear brooks running under old wooden bridges strong enough for horsemen, but not for cars and trucks. You get back days full of physical work with the welcome respite of reading by fading light. It becomes easier then to mentally go back in time another hundred years to a time before the railway, before photographs, before electricity (of course before codified human rights and many beneficial things) to a time when Washington Irving could have strolled through the already venerated Dutch cemetery in Tarrytown, NY, drinking in the old wives tales of Hudson Valley lore. He could have looked out across the Tappan Sea, the widest expanse of the Hudson River, long before a bridge crossing it was imagined. In our day, looking back, it may be that land, space, clean air/water and time are the most precious commodities. These are what abounded for both Irving and Rogers.

Our luxury is that we can take the time if we choose to immerse ourselves in the rich imagery of The Headless Horseman. I find the background houses, outbuildings, clothing and interiors fascinating. There may be elements there that did not exist in 1820, but most did and were used even then in much the same way. Small details of history that have never made it into books may be discovered in films such as this, even if they were unintentional at the time.

For these reasons, I give this film a 10 out of 10. It offered entertainment a century ago; now, it offers so much more.

Can't think of an awful lot to recommend this picture to any viewers, except that you can see a youthful Will Rogers perform. This being a silent movie, you can't hear his voice or any of his folksy aphorisms. So, we are left with his image and his pantomime ability, and it's not enough to satisfy.

Thanks to the Disney studio, this Washington Irving story has already been brought to life on the silver screen, and to much better effect. The cartoon had some humor, some suspense, some rooting interest, some more definition in the characterizations. The cartoon, in short, was more interesting. (Didn't see the Tim Burton feature).

This picture is about a group of mean-spirited, shabbily-dressed locals unattractively photographed and who seem to wander about without definite purpose. Nothing of great import happens, and day for night is used for the climactic sequence involving Ichabod Crane's confrontation with the Headless Horseman - the opposite of scary. This picture was filmed on the Rockefeller Estate in Pocantico Hils (Tarrytown), N.Y. It still exists today and in comparatively pristine condition as depicted in the movie. This, and the appearance of Rogers, may be the only reasons to watch this dull affair.

Headless Horseman, The (1922)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Pretty poor version of Washington Irving's tale. Will Rogers plays the school teacher who travels to Sleepy Hollow only to discover the mysterious headless horseman. For some reason this film pays more attention to the teacher and his personal affairs rather than the headless horseman and the legend surrounding him. The movie only runs 76-minutes but it feels like a couple of hours. The story is all over the map without too many of anything actually going on. The miscasting of Rogers hurts the film as well, although the special effects and sets are good.