Hat, Coat, and Glove

"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...

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.

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.

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.

This is an interesting film, somewhat of a departure for Ricardo Cortez from the dapper ladies man he generally portrayed in films of this period. He is a dreamer, a man who has been in love, is divorced, but is still in love with his wife. He also has to endure the reality of his 'ex' and a younger man who are now doing 'light housekeeping'. The script's OK, not great, but economical and to the point. Cortez is a lawyer who must defend his ex-wife's present lover on a murder rap, and does so against his better wishes. But he knows a lot more about the murder charge than he lets on. This flick came on late at night in the city, and the station cut the tail end of the flick so I couldn't comment on the end...because I ain't seen it. They gave the film short shrift, which is a drag. However, knowing the Hayes code of the period, I am almost certain that I could write the ending without having seen it, and it wouldn't be too terribly far removed from the ending that I did not see, thanks to the neglect of the local TV station. Be that as it may, the part I saw was slightly above average for 'B' film fare of the period.