The Crimes of Stephen Hawke

You owe it to yourself to see at least one Tod Slaughter film. His signature movie Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street or the career overview Crimes at the Dark House are two of the best examples, but The Crimes of Stephen Hawke is a worthwhile introduction to his work. Like most of the early Slaughter movies it seems uneasy about the (then) new film medium favouring more common forms of entertainment. His debut film Maria Marten or the Murder in the Red Barn opens with the entire cast being introduced like in a play and Crimes opens like a radio show complete with some hard to watch variety acts (singers Flotsom and Jetsom and a `comic' butcher) before Tod Slaughter is brought on to introduce his latest piece of `Strong Meat'. In the subsequent film/ radio play Slaughter (real name: Norman Carter Slaughter) plays the title role, an outwardly respectable moneylender who is really serial killer `The Spinebreaker' nicknamed for his ability to snap his victim's spines. His long time friend Joshua becomes his latest victim, however upon discovering the guilty party Jossua's son seeks revenge, forcing Hawke and his sidekick, an eyepatch wearing, one legged hunchback to flee, leaving Hawke's adopted daughter in the blackmailing hands of an upper class `lecherous brute'. For a film that barely passes the hour mark this manages to cram allot in, including a fake `talking' corpse, Hawke sent to jail for a year (for stealing a loaf of bread!), the obligatory romance, the honest guy vs the slimey rich guy for Hawke's daughter's hand and even some unexpected sensitivity. Its worth noting that the British censors banned all horror films during the WW2 years, although this falls a few years short of the censor's ban, during that time Slaughter was still making `meldrodramas' with tent pegs pounded into heads, human flesh stuffed into meat pies and lines like `I'll feed your entrails to the pigs' that were far more lurid than any banned Hollywood horror movie. Crimes opens to a sadistic scene where a pompous child is attacked by Slaughter and has his back broken, such scenes like that are not common in British movies of the time. Equally don't look for sub-plots about people being tortured with whips in Ealing comedies. Yet Slaughter's performance is incredible, extremely theatrical and barnstorming par excellence. You can almost hear the boos from the audience as he exits a scene giggling and cackling after `coming to grips' with some unfortunate. Some of the berserk expressions he makes in this film as he breaks spines makes it hard to believe he hadn't completely lost his mind. Call it hammy or over the top, but you'll never forget it. The director George King deserves credit for preserving most of Slaughter's body of work on film (even if he doesn't do it very well). Seemingly more comfortable on stage than on film, Slaughter's movies are little more than filmed plays, with cardboard sets, minimal (if any) camera movement, and unexceptional repertory players. Slaughter is the only reason to watch any of his films, for further proof see King's other Slaughter-less films like The Case of the Frightened Lady (1941) the old magic simply isn't there. Tales from Slaughter's theatre days are both hilarious and the stuff of legend. Actresses not needed would dress as nurses (in case anyone died of a heart attack), while Slaughter reviled in the sort of grand guignol butchery that could never be shown on film and would walk around after the show in blood stained clothes. Whether all these tales are true its hard to know. My relatives remember seeing the guy `live' sometime in the Forties and the man himself definitely left an impression running around the audience covered in blood (actually beetroot juice), waving a big knife and offering to `polish people off'. Now dead for nearly half a century, Slaughter's films are the nearest we'll ever come to experiencing such mad genius first hand. Technically the movies should be unwatchable, but they exert a strange fascination that you'll have to see for yourself, there really hasn't been anything like them before or since.

This time around Tod Slaughter plays Mr. Stephen Hawke, a limping, kind-hearted bespectacled money lender by day with a beautiful, faithful daughter and the friendship of a local shipping agent and son, and by night he is the "spine-breaker," cruelest of all killers as he kills the rich for their money and treasure in a serial-like fashion. As with any Slaughter film, Slaughter is the main focal point of the film. The film is barely over an hour in length, but it has much to offer in plot. We have Slaughter kill a spoiled rich kid, trick a man into bringing an emerald to his home, kill his friend, and run from the vengeance of his son. Throw in some lecherous guy that wants to force Hawke's daughter into marriage and a hunchback for extra measure. The rest of the actors are adequate(or less than so) but they do not detract at all from the presence of Slaughter on film. His build, his speech, his whole demeanor brings life to each and every scene he is in. Is he a great actor? No, but he sure can grab your attention and keep a "grip" on it. As with many other Slaughter films, George King directs in workman-like style if nothing else. The beginning is set up like a radio play with some "entertainers" doing some kind of real bad vocal act prior to Slaughter coming on talking about his "new" old melodrama. Good old-fashioned fun!

The Crimes of Stephen Hawke kicks off with a tune from Flotsam and Jetsam - sadly, not the '80s thrash band (that would be cool!), but rather a musical comedy duo, Mr. Flotsam sat at the piano singing like George Formby, with Mr. Jetsam, a heftier dude with a deeper voice, standing. They're performing as part of the radio show that is the pre-amble to the film's main story. After Flotsam and Jetsam, we get a comedic butcher called Henry Hopkins, who sells cat meat, followed by an interview with actor Tod Slaughter, who talks about the many murders he has committed on screen, playing characters such as the infamous barber Sweeney Todd, and this film's maniac, crazed 'spine-breaker' Stephen Hawke.

Mr. Hawke is a seemingly affable moneylender who secretly makes extra cash on the side by snapping the backs of the wealthy with his bare hands and stealing their valuables. He is aided in his nefarious work by one of the best sidekicks I have seen in an old black and white horror: the guy not only has a hunchback (standard issue for drooling horror henchmen of the day), but he also has only one leg and one eye. Unlucky for him, but great for fans of cheesy B-movies.

When Hawke's friend Joshua Trimble discovers the terrible truth about the evil moneylender, he also has his spine snapped, leaving Trimble's son Matthew (Eric Portman), who is in love with Hawke's adopted daughter Julia (Marjorie Taylor), to take revenge.

After pursuing Hawke across the country with no success, Matthew gives up and returns to London in time to save Julia from scoundrel Miles Archer, who has blackmailed the poor girl into marrying him. Meanwhile, Hawke returns to London, ready for the film's finalé, which, in time-honoured fashion, sees the villain take to the rooftops and fall to his death - right in front of poor Julia's eyes.

Tod Slaughter, Britain's answer to the likes of Boris Karloff and George Zucco, puts in another wonderful theatrical performance - all wild eyes, evil leers, and exaggerated movements - that is perfect for the occasion. He doesn't have a moustache to twirl or a cape to swish, but if he did, he would. It almost feels mandatory to boo and hiss at the screen whenever he makes an entrance. While not the greatest story ever told, The Crimes of Stephen Hawke is still a lot of fun thanks to its star's special brand of ham/cheeze, the likes of which I doubt we will ever see again, and the rather strange wraparound radio broadcast that is just too bizarre not to be entertaining.

Todd Slaughter is at it again folks,, this time playing a well -mannered banker by day, and being a father to his adopted daughter , but by night folks he becomes...... wait for it..... the Spinebreaker.. very gruesome killer. he kills the rich I guess because he figures that they don't need it. In the Daytime he plays a successful banker, and he also protects his adopted daughter from a potential suitor whom he doesn't really like that much,, I really liked this one because it moved quickly , there was very good dialogue between the characters, and there was some action and mystery,, very good film for the time period.. and Todd Slaughter continues to shine in this horror film.

The Crimes of Stephen Hawke (1936)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

London is under a crippling terror as people are being crushed to death by a man known as The Spinebreaker (Tod Slaughter).

THE CRIMES OF STEPHEN HAWKE starts out unlike any other movie that I can remember. It starts off at a radio station where we basically get a radio broadcast for the first seven or eight minutes and then we finally get to the main story. In a rather shocking manor, it starts off with a child being murdered.

This here was the third film Slaughter made following THE MURDER IN THE RED BARN and THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET. Britain had pretty much put a ban on American horror movies and these British films had to walk a careful line. With that said, this here makes the murder of a child all the more shocking. There are some rather graphic and violent deaths for the era, although they aren't bloody or gory. The sound effects and screams of the people being crushed are certainly the highlight of the picture.

As was often the case with these films, the main reason people watch them today is for the over-the-top and at times wacky performance by Slaughter. I don't know how to describe him other than saying he was like John Barrymore had he gone insane and had a mental breakdown to the point where he was a raving dog. Once again he's all over the place here and he really makes himself stand apart from the other actors. The other actors are good but they just can't overtake the all-mighty Slaughter.

As far as the film goes, it's certainly a bit better than the star's previous two films and a strong argument could be made that this here is about as entertaining as his horror pictures got.