The 39 Steps: Robert Doughnut's Hat...

[kiltie]

I was watching this one the other day. Robert Doughnut loses his hat at some point in the first third of the movie ( trades it for a milkman's hat ) and goes without for the rest of the flick. Before that though, he pics up the mysterious woman who sets the story in motion. There is a pressing crowd moving out of a theater and he has his hat in hand, then puts it on outside. The couple then return to Doughnuts apartment. At some point between exiting the theater and standing in the lobby of his apartment building, he has his hat off, doing some bit of verisimilitude. Holding the hat absently at the front , just above belt level, with his free hand he just ever-so-slightly runs his hand over the top forming a smooth center dent.
It's a totally automatic move, and the hat reciprocates by shaping perfectly. A fine bit of "hat business" in that really caught my eye for two reasons. For one, it would be completely unremarkable at the time or to someone casually watching. For another: what a hat it must have been! Soft and pliable, big straight-sided block...
I've been wanting to post on this observation since I saw the movie the other night. I almost paused the DVD to do just that. I must have seen The 39 Steps five or six times, but this was the first time I ever noticed this snippet. It's funny how, as I said, it would have been entirely unremarkable at one time, but with my "critical hat eye" on, it became something mesmerizing.
Anyone else enthralled, not necessarily by a particular movie hat, but by bits of "hat business"?

 

[Pduck]

I'll have to watch for that movie. BTW, Robert Donat.

I seem to recall a Spencer Tracy movie where he take his hat, punches it out to an open crown and then re-bashes it the way he liked it. It was like he had done it a million times before. I can't remember which movie it was.

 

[kiltie]

I'll have to watch for that movie. BTW, Robert Donat.

mmmmm...doughnuts...
See multiple posts on loss of: irony, sense of humor, inflection, etc...
with regards to internet forums*.

*unless you were being funny, too

 

[dhermann1]

Ohhhhhhh . . . . . I guess we missed the invisible wink.

 

[Fletch]

Best stills I could Google

Donat's beltback coat and suit are also worth noting.

Who IS that waiting in the bus queueue?

mmmmm...doughnuts...
See multiple posts on loss of: irony, sense of humor, inflection, etc...
with regards to internet forums*.

Of course Robert Donat (1905-1958) is not to be confused with the very much alive Donut Robot.

All you need is $900, a 220v outlet, and gobs of batter and shortening and you can be up to your beltback in toothsome fried cakes at the rate of 32 dozen every hour. And you think old Bob had a delectable handful in Madeleine Carroll!

 

[kiltie]

Great stills Fletch!

Especially the second one, showing the center dent I was talking about. Thanks!
The first pic really shows the dynamic nature of these kinds of hats in general. It ( the picture ) would convey a totally different sense without the hat. Just incredible the way the hat is part of the character, the scene, the mood...
DONAT does indeed wear two great overcoats, as well.

delectable handful in Madeleine Carroll!

^^^^^^^^^^In my top ten favorite movie female roles. Goodness she's pretty in that movie.

 

[Lefty]

That's one of the few times that I literally laughed out loud at a computer.
lol lol lol lol lol

 

[jazzncocktails]

Center dents...

Gotta admit I missed the irony of "Doughnut" too...but more to the point, it seems the doughnut robot favors a c-crown over a center dent...or would that be considered a teardrop?

 

[dhermann1]

OT

I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief at the movies, and that movies exist in a parallel universe, and all that, but I always wondered , , , when they were handcuffed together for all that time . . . . how did they manage to go to the bathroom discreetly? Or even indiscreetly?
Yeah, I know, let's not even go there.
Great pics, Fletch.

 

[Dewhurst]

I didn't get the "Doughnut" bit, either.

Regarding "hat business": I've never really understood why so many people in the movies continually mess with the hats they wear. I'm one of those people who like to bash the hat, and then keep it that way.

I do like to feel/stroke/rub the brims on my hats when I am holding them though. I hope I don't wear them out.

 

[just_me]

You guys need to turn on your sense of humor buttons. lol Can't believe anyone thought kiltie seriously thought Doughnut was Donat's name.

 

[Feraud]

You guys need to turn on your sense of humor buttons. lol Can't believe anyone thought kiltie seriously thought Doughnut was Donat's name.

Why not? For all intensive purposes people misunderstand names or phrases all the time.

 

[Panamabob]

Why not? For all intensive purposes people misunderstand names or phrases all the time.

"I might just fade into Bolivian, you know what I mean?" Mike Tyson

 

[FATS88]

Donat's beltback coat and suit are also worth noting.

Who IS that waiting in the bus queueue?

Of course Robert Donat (1905-1958) is not to be confused with the very much alive Donut Robot.

All you need is $900, a 220v outlet, and gobs of batter and shortening and you can be up to your beltback in toothsome fried cakes at the rate of 32 dozen every hour. And you think old Bob had a delectable handful in Madeleine Carroll!

I LOVE IT!:eusa_clap
I Love that hat in the film even more.
Now I know what to watch later this morning...
The film I mean, not the grease heating up.

 

[kiltie]

^^^"...intensive purposes..." ^^^

I GET IT! :eusa_clap lol :eusa_clap - and you didn't even use a smiley.

Thanks, just_me. Also, if you consider the likelihood of seeing the name in print vs. hearing it, it'd be hard to mess up. In fact, I think the only time I've EVER heard the name DONAT said aloud was in the movie V for Vendetta. I've seen it spelled out plenty of times.
Oh, well... I suppose I could be tedious and clinical in everything I do...zzzzzzz. The emoticons are kinda like the laugh track on a sitcom, reminding you of how you're supposed to respond.

Save your breath. I know I just set myself up for an intensive lesson on the use of emoticons and how they help with interpretation, and blahblahblahblah...

 

[Corky]

In reply to the statement posed above...

''...Regarding "hat business": I've never really understood why so many people in the movies continually mess with the hats they wear. I'm one of those people who like to bash the hat, and then keep it that way...."

The answer to your dilemma is: That's What Members Of The Screen Actor's Guild Do To Attract The Viewer's Attention When The Camera's Pointed In Their Direction.

For an example of this, consider Steve McQueen's performance in John Sturges's remake of "The Magnificent Seven". You will observe that McQueen spends most of his on-screen time (particularly when he shares the frame with Yul Brynner) endlessly punching, shaping, and toying with his hat.

Come to think of it, that's probably why Sturgis did not let McQueen wear a hat three years later in "The Great Escape".

 

[H.Johnson]

I hate Mr. Donat - he stole my moustache...

 

[kiltie]

''...Regarding "hat business": I've never really understood why so many people in the movies continually mess with the hats they wear. I'm one of those people who like to bash the hat, and then keep it that way...."

The answer to your dilemma is: That's What Members Of The Screen Actor's Guild Do To Attract The Viewer's Attention When The Camera's Pointed In Their Direction.

You think so? I would think that in movies made before a (un)certain time, hats wouldn't be considered props, per se. That whatever is done with the hats would be more natural. In the particular case you cited ( McQueen ), the western hat would be more of a prop as a.) it's a bit foriegn, even in a "hat friendlier" era, and b.) that era was not as hat friendly as the decade prior. Thus the hat is more of a prop.
I'm not disagreeing outright, just wondering aloud, so to speak. In McQueen's case, he's the comer, Sturgis knows he's the comer, but Yul is the star. Sturgis does have something of an obligation ( likely from the studio, even ) to sell McQueen. But in the 39 Steps, and other flicks with an established star doing hat "stuff", they're already the focus of attention. Also, as stated earlier, I'd think having a hat would be more natural at that time anyway. In DONAT'S case, it's very brief and clearly not a put on. The shot could have been just as effectively framed as a "head and shoulders". Nothing unusual to a viewer of the era, or even a modern viewer not watching with an eye critical to all things hat.
But then, maybe there was something a bit more...spiritual...about hats, even then. Not being remotely old enough to remember ANYONE in hats, I don't know what the particular affinities were in that regard; purely utilitarian, an extension of self, etc...

 

[Fletch]

To me Hannay's hat is an appurtenance of his "normal" life, which is over as soon as he has to go on the lam. He spends the better part of the film bareheaded - a man of action unprotected in a world of threat - on his uppers, but plucky, resourceful, and even retaining his gentlemanly polish.

At least he still has an overcoat. He'd have perished in Scotland without one.

 

[kiltie]

Fletch,

That's funny; I never thought of that. In another thread, I offered that Tom's hat in Miller's Crossing was his "soul" or his direction, and as long as he had it, he had a sense of his own ethics and ( muddied ) morals amidst the double and tripple crosses. The hat in that movie is obviously an extension of the character in many ways ( comedic, symbolic, plot device, etc...), but I never would have considered the lack of a hat in 39 Steps being a symbolic element, even if you are being a bit tongue in cheek. I guess in all the idealizing about the hat once being commonplace, you can miss out on some of the subtleties (sp?).
I suppose it could be related to ( and please, I'm not being self indulgent here, or otherwise pretensious - it just happens to be something I remember...) a line in Much Ado About Nothing in which one character remarks about anothers' lack of whiskers. Something that wouldn't be noticed by anyone today, but apparently a big enough deal to make a remark about, once upon a time.