by Douglas Messerli
Jack Celestin, Frederick Hayward, H. F. Maltby, Tod Slaughter, and
Paul White (screenplay), George King (director) The Crimes of Stephen Hawke /
1936
The third is a series of collaborations
between George King and the British horror star Tod Slaughter, following Maria
Marten, or The Murder in the Red Barn (1935) and Sweeney Todd: Demon
Barber of Fleet Street (1936), The Crimes of Stephen Hawke was one
of the many films made to fulfill the quota of homemade products that the
British Government had required of the film industry, in part as a response to
the glut of the US films monopolizing the movie theaters of England.
Then begins the film proper which is about a mean-spirited moneylender,
Stephen Hawke (Slaughter) who in the very first scene is already up to no good.
As Mark Davis Walsh describes it: “He’s casing the mansion of rich nobleman
Lord Trelawny with an eye to a heist. But skulking under the radar isn’t really
in his special set of skills and he’s spotted by the old goat’s annoying
adolescent son.”
Confronted with the unpleasant Little Lord Fauntleroy who immediately
informs him “My father doesn’t keep a garden for nasty, common people like you
to look at,” Hawke, obviously offended, lures the nasty boy to him by asking
not if the boy might like some candy or to see a magic trick, but “Have you
ever seen a Paradoxical Tarradidilum?” It works perfectly, as the child comes
forward and the monstrous Hawke crushes him to death. And so we learn
immediately in this film of no deep secrets that Hawke is the notorious “Spine
Breaker,” with hands so strong that they leave red marks as a signature upon
the several bodies he squashes to death.
Hawke returns his standard pair of spectacles to his face, crawls into
the carriage that his dear friend—perhaps his only true friend or maybe even
somewhat more than that—the one-legged, one-eyed, hunched-back coachman/servant
Nathaniel (Ben Soutten) has held waiting for him, and rushes back to his town,
irritated that he was unable to carry through with his “business deal.”
His
son and partner Matthew (Eric Portman), moreover, is in love with Julia and she
with him, despite the fact that as one of the Letterboxd commentators
notes, “Portman with a mustache and effeminately curly hair wearing tights...
makes me wish he was in more period pieces. Gainsborough, where were you when
we (the gays) needed you?” He’s actually wearing high breeches of the 18th
century, not tights, but he is indeed the most beautiful figure in this film,
and throughout his tepid love scenes with Julia (Taylor)—particularly when he
has determined to track down and kill her father, deciding to end his
relationship with Julia forever—Portman barely attempts to disguise the fact
that, in real life, he was homosexual.
The
very night after doing away with the young boy, moreover, Hawke has arranged a
special ball for his daughter, inviting several wealthy people, including Lord
Brickhaven (George M. Slater) and his renowned emerald ring. Did I say,
invited? Let me correct that, he has demanded the appearance of Brickhaven,
despite his plans to be elsewhere, insisting his coachman find a way to get him
there. At the party, we learn that other than her constant dancing partner,
Julia has another man, Miles Archer (Gerald Barry), the chief of police,
interested in marrying her; or, as a friend of Hawke’s insists, is determined
to marry her. Hawke makes it clear, such a marriage would be permitted over his
dead body.
It
surely is no surprise that Brickhaven dies of a crushed spine at the party, his
emerald having gone missing, with his coachman declaring to the guests the
murderer is the host himself. Everyone is predictably incredulous.
Only Joshua Trimble is highly disturbed that the “Spine Breaker” must be
someone of their own set to have been able to access the Lord at Hawke’s party,
and he confronts his friend the very next day. Hawke, however, having just
received a new piece of sculptor, sits toying with it, not at all interested in
Trimble’s worries. When Trimble reminds his friend that the coachman had called
him the “Spine Breaker,” Hawke breaks the marble sculpture’s head off, forcing
the shipper to declare “Your hands! They have sinews of steel.” Trimble now
recognizes the truth, carefully backing out of Hawke’s office, and losing his
life for his knowledge when he is crushed to death in his bed the very next
night.
It
is at this point that Matthew abandons Julia, as he chases after her father to
bring him to justice for his father’s murder. And the rest of the story focuses
on a far different vision of Hawke, a terrified man trying to outrun his
nemesis, a man who would prefer to spend time in prison for a minor act of
thievery than to have to face his younger foe. Although Matthew tracks him down
to an inn far out of London and even follows him back toward London, the track
goes cold when Hawkes is imprisoned, and all believe him now to be dead.
But
when Hawke gets word that she is now marrying Archer, he finds a way to escape
and threatens to destroy not only Archer but anyone who dares to stand in his
way. Matthew also returns in shock that his beloved Julia has allowed herself
to be blackmailed by Archer.
Hawke’s return at least lets him chew a little longer on the scenery,
giving it some last gripping moments before he crushes the rest of the story’s
spine. The last we see of him before he falls to his death is on a crenelated
corner of his mansion’s roof, lobbing whole bricks at his pursuers.
Below, near death, he is comforted by his daughter, who having
discovered he is not her real father, still embraces him with love. But it is
the cry of despair of his servant Nathaniel and his final kiss that truly
surprises us: clearly there was more going on in their many nights together
than we might have ever imagined.
Back at the broadcasting studio where this all began, the music
hall-like performers are all asleep. Is the director suggesting that the rest
of us might have already joined them or, at least will now be given permission
to do so?
This film can’t be described as a truly gay film, but in its campy,
over-the-top performances and its somewhat perverted declarations of love, it most
definitely is a queer work. And naturally these 1930’s works by King and the
later Gainsborough melodramas of the 1940s, which have been tagged the “cinema
of excess” created problems for both British and particularly later US censors.
Los Angeles, July 11, 2023
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July
2023).







No comments:
Post a Comment