Hat, Coat, and Glove

Hat, Coat and Glove (1934)

** (out of 4)

Mildly entertaining drama about lawyer Robert Mitchell (Ricardo Cortez) who is trying to get back with his ex-wife (Barbara Robbins) but she's seeing a man named Jerry Hutchins (John Beal). One night Robert goes over to Jerry's house to confront him but Jerry's ex is there trying to kill herself. Robert accidentally kills her, while she's trying to kill herself that is, and then Jerry is charged with the crime. Robert agrees to defend him when his ex-wife asks him to. Did you get all of that? I watch every single crime picture that turns up on Turner Classic Movies but I honestly can't remember one with such a dumb story. I mean, there are so many things that happen here that are just downright crazy and it really seems like this story was written by someone who lost a bet and had to turn something crazy in only then someone gave it the green light. The entire court sequence just contains so many dumb moments that you can't help but be slightly entertained by them. The entire structure of events that have to happen in order for this crime to take place is just so silly that you can never believe it. Still, the performances are somewhat interesting especially seeing Cortez playing a role like this. This type of character isn't something we often saw from the actor so his fans might be interested in this. Beal and Robbins are both good in their parts as is Paul Harvey and Margaret Hamilton. Just wait to you see Hamilton's turn in the witness chair. HAT, COAT AND GLOVE isn't a very good movie and it would be wise for most to just avoid it unless you're the type, like myself, who tries to watch all of these movies when they show up.

"Hat, Coat and Glove" is a film that really strains credibility--so much so that the only way to enjoy it is to turn off your brain and not question things that seem too coincidental to be believable. However, despite this, IF you can put aside your brain for a few minutes, the film is rather entertaining.

Ricardo Cortez plays a very erudite lawyer--but one whose marriage is all but over. In fact, he and his wife haven't lived together for some time and she's already got a new boyfriend. However, and here where it gets goofy, when Cortez goes to have it out with this boyfriend (because he still wants a reconciliation with his wife), he isn't home but a crazy lady is there. This unstable woman has a history of suicide attempts and when she is talking to Cortez, she starts behaving irrationally and ends up getting shot when Cortez was pulling the gun away from her. But, Cortez doesn't call the police--and soon they arrest the boyfriend and think he murdered the woman. Cortez knows it was NOT murder but decides to exploit the situation. He agrees to defend the boyfriend IF his wife agrees to return! However, through the course of the trial, the wife starts to notice that some of the evidence seems to point to her husband! How all this ended, though, really confused me--especially what the wife did when she realized the truth. Baffling to say the least.

None of this is particularly believable....none. But, Cortez was enjoyable to watch and the film was enjoyable. HOWEVER, my favorite part involved seeing if a glove found at the site belonged to the boyfriend--and a Johnny Cochran moment at the OJ trial came to mind. It was, in so many ways, like the script that Cochran used! Pretty funny...

You know that a film is going to be a camp precode treat when it begins with the protagonist, attorney Robert Mitchell (Ricardo Cortez), waxing poetic about mannequins, to the point that even the department store sales staff is giving him odd looks.

Robert is separated from his wife, Dorothea, because she wants it that way, not him. She is in love with Jerry Hutchins (John Beal). Unfortunately for Jerry, he had a brief affair with what today we would call a stalker, Ann Brewster (Dorothy Burgess). Nobody could play the precode crazy woman like Dorothy Burgess.

Ann shows up in Jerry's apartment one night, in his bed, in a negligee, demanding he love her back. He leaves and goes to see Dorothea. Robert goes to have a man to man with Jerry and winds up trapped with crazy Ann, who, for some strange reason, knows Jerry has a gun and where he keeps it. She decides to kill herself, she calls what she thinks is Dorothea's number but misdials, Robert struggles to get the gun from her but it goes off, and Ann falls dead.

The next day this woman with one deadly bullet in her is mentioned as "the bullet riddled body" in all of the newspapers and Jerry is blamed for the crime. His alibi, though, was that he spent the night with Dorothea, and he doesn't want to create a scandal and use that alibi. But he wouldn't have this problem if Robert had just called the police and said what happened. He didn't have any past relationship with Ann and she did have a history of suicide attempts. Instead Robert just left the scene, stealthily.

So Dorothea appeals to her estranged husband to save her lover by defending him in court. He agrees, as long as she agrees to come back to him. Was this his plan all along or did he just panic the night before? The trial is a riot with lots of nuttiness that only one person sees through. And then the highlight of the film is Margaret Hamilton as a milliner with a "stage name" of Madame Du Barry. That's first name "Du", last name "Barry". This great character actress steals the entire film out from under the script, cast, and director.

Lots of people pan this film, but for ridiculous dialogue and a ludicrous plot full of precode naughtiness that was actually released after the code, this one fits the bill.

This film is extremely weak in all categories, particularly acting and screenplay. As a courtroom drama, it is downright pitiful. An attorney is involved in a murder; it was an accidental shooting but the attorney could well have been a suspect. He agrees to represent the defendant in the case without disclosing his own involvement. Moreover, the defendant has to agree to forego his alibi because he was with the lawyer's wife (from whom the lawyer was then separated) at the time of the killing. The trial itself is absurd with such nonsense as the prosecutor calling the defendant as a witness and expert witnesses popping up in the courtroom and volunteering to testify. Although there is a glove scene which is amusingly like the O.J. Simpson case (in this case, the glove fits both the defendant and the defendant's lawyer), there is nothing else amusing or worthwhile about this film. Originally a B movie, it rates a D minus.

I've always been a Ricardo Cortez fan. He rarely gets a chance to stretch his acting wings but he does so here. Cortez is exceptional in playing older men. In Torrent (1926) you'd swear he actually aged. In Hat, Coat and Glove he plays age, hopelessness and loneliness quite well. It is unfortunate that the effect is damaged by shoddy makeup. His graying hair varies between scenes and virtually disappears in some. Dorothy Burgess was never better. The wife and her lover are somewhat weak. Frankly, I didn't see what the husband or lover saw in her. But it didn't matter; this is Cortez's film. The twists and turns of the plot are anything but conventional. For all it's absurdities this is a quality programmer that will hold your interest.