Club Obi Wan

haven't seen this quote from Deborah before on the hat:



"Here I had a character who I knew had to live in a fedora for the entirety of the film - what's a cinematographer going to do to light Harrison's eyes?�I went down to [London hatter] Herbert Johnson. They had a model called the Australian, which was silly because it snapped up on one side - that was completely the wrong thing. I thought, except for the chinstrap and the brim and the very wide hat and the brow this is absolutely the right style that I wanted. Harrison tried it on and with much shortening of the brim and much lowering of the crown, we created something entirely new. Once I gave my specs to Herbert Johnson, they were able to create an entirely new hat for me, which became the Indiana Jones hat. I worked on creasing the brow the right way and we took something that was entirely different, a Paul Hogan special, and made something completely different out of it. I think what disappointed me the most is that I never got the credit for making something new out of a Paul Hogan hat. It didn't exist, we made an entirely new hat."


source:

http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day29/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



CJ

'Paul Hogan hat?' Is she referring to the hat worn in Crockidile Dundee, or what? This 'quote' has me totally lost! W>

It's amazing to me how her story keeps getting tweaked with every re-telling all these years.

So, she's essentially ignoring everything that Richard Swales ever said, as HE told everyone, including sending out a letter with every hat order, that the hat he used to make the final Raiders fedora was the Poet, which he had in stock. He also said that Ford and Spielberg came into the shop themselves for the final fitting of his adjusted Poet model.

That said, D.N. also has absolutely asserted that the shoes Ford wore in Raiders were Redwings, which she, herself, specified. We ALL know that wasn't the case, so take the information for what it's worth. We have all to many screen grabs for proof to even consider otherwise.

I have tremendous respect for Deborah, but what she spec'd, and what actually HAPPENED according to the craftsmen who SUPPLIED the items are two completely different stories.

Regards! Mark

Besides, the real story is that one day I was trying on hats at Burlington Coat factory, and both
Steven & George happen in and saw me, and they insisted I give them the one I had on...

I never really found out what they ever did with it...

"I thought, except for the chinstrap and the brim and the very wide hat and the brow this is absolutely the right style that I wanted."

In other words, except for everything that makes a hat a hat, it was perfect.

Michaelson wrote:It's amazing to me how her story keeps getting tweaked with every re-telling all these years.

So, she's essentially ignoring everything that Richard Swales ever said, as HE told everyone, including sending out a letter with every hat order, that the hat he used to make the final Raiders fedora was the Poet, which he had in stock. He also said that Ford and Spielberg came into the shop themselves for the final fitting of his adjusted Poet model.

That said, D.N. also has absolutely asserted that the shoes Ford wore in Raiders were Redwings, which she, herself, specified. We ALL know that wasn't the case, so take the information for what it's worth. We have all to many screen grabs for proof to even consider otherwise.

I have tremendous respect for Deborah, but what she spec'd, and what actually HAPPENED according to the craftsmen who SUPPLIED the items are two completely different stories.

Regards! Mark

Well, perhaps in another ten years (maybe less) we will have yet another 'adaptation' to the story of 'The Hat' ! W>

I give it five.

I give it 'til the Blu Ray release

...even then.....

Michaelson wrote:I have tremendous respect for Deborah, but what she spec'd, and what actually HAPPENED according to the craftsmen who SUPPLIED the items are two completely different stories.

Regards! Mark

That and I wonder how much 30 years make the memory fuzzy, and with her limited involvement, after production started, she basically stepped away or had to leave, did she not? Red Wings was what she spec'd, but you can't hardly blame Ford for wearing his own boots, especially since they were already broken in and if he had to wear them for corrective reasons, etc. As it turned out, they rounded out the costume rather well, with the throwback style.

Agreed.

I think the main problem is her absolute insistance that because she spec'd something for the film, it was what was actually used. It wasn't, and as in the case of the boots, can be easily proven. She has stated at cons and in interviews that being the main constumer, wouldn't she 'know' what was changed and what wasn't? Once again, siteing the boot switch, the answer is 'apparently not'.

Regards! Michaelson

I'm sure we all know how newspapers, magazines always print everything exactly how a person informs them.

True, but she's made these same comments at forums and conventions that members have attended too.

Regards! Michaelson

If it was physically possible...I would kick myself for missing this. Look familiar?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... _500wt_949" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Note: Finished auction)

Gerry

Yeah, these have popped up several times over the years, as has the 'Australian' hat discussion started by DN.

I found over 400+ entries found regarding this item:


search.php?keywords=Australian+HJ&terms ... mit=Search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:True, but she's made these same comments at forums and conventions that members have attended too.

Regards! Michaelson

I have seen interviews and people have quoted her the wrong way and I'm sure people got their facts correct (not). I don't take 2nd hand info as fact. People tend to get things wrong. I have seen her in a interview and she said she used the australian model and she worked with that to show Richard what she wanted. shape, brim specs, etc. She used it as I would use a raw body if I wasn't a hat maker. I think some have added to the story.

I'm positive others have added to the stories, but I, too, have been involved in direct interviews with her back when we started Indygear.com.

The original story she told us was it was a hat Swales had laying around from stock, and she liked the hat but didn't like the brim width. She didn't recall what it was at the time, but it met with her approval with the brim changes that Swales recommended, specially the dimensional cut. This was based on the interview Indiana John did with her in 2002 and was included in the original COW FAQ section.

Richard Swales stated categorically from the very first day it was a Poet he used and showed her that had been untrimmed and was in open crown.

Next thing we knew, it had become an 'Australian' model, and turned up in an email she sent to the site in 2004. Here's the direct quote from that email:

Herbert Johnson did not carry a hat in their catalogue even close to the one I designed for Harrison - it was an Australian model that I converted to suit his face (and the cameraman's requirements!

Two years after our first interview it's now an Austrialian model she saw at HJ, and a hat that had 'never existed' before she came up with the design.

I'm sure she could care less what a middle aged hobbiest has to say on a private hobby forum, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter one way or the other to me either. If that's how she remembers it, so be it.....but there have been quite a few of us who HAVE been around this long who have watched things get tweeked and massaged over the years by the original players that really don't need to be doing so. They're already legends in the craft. Why keep messing around with things. In the long run, it really makes no big difference one way or the other.

Regard! Michaelson

I don't see how any retelling of the story invalidates the other iterations. I never tell a story the same way twice. In fact, sometimes, I change it up because I've told it so many times, just to keep it fresh, but always staying true to the facts. The story is basically unchanged with just a few anecdotal comments added here and there.

Dave

I don't see how it invalidates Swale's account of Spielberg and Ford coming in. These two people could have been telling two different ends of the same tale.

Dave

I just wish Richard Swales was still around to offer his counter argument, as it was completely different story, and he MADE all the hats. She designed the original. Swales never mentioned her coming into his shop at all but the one time, but always stated it was Ford and SS who chose the ACTUAL hat for use in the film in a personal visit, and that choice was the Poet.

I understand what you're saying, Dave. Anything's possible, of course.

Swales was an odd character, as has been said on other occasions. On whose memory I'd make a bet on being correct, I'd keep my money in my pocket.

In Swales case, though, he put the story in a letter he packed with every Poet he made and shipped, so he put it out there in public in writing early on.

Those left standing are the ones who get to tell the story last I guess.

Regards Michaelson

This is where I think the misshap happened. She never said the hat was the Australian model. She used a Australian model because it had a taller crown and bigger brim for her to work with. She took it apart, cut the brim and put the ribbon on to show Richard. She's not a hatter but wanted to give a visual of what she wanted. Richard then took a poet and turned it into more of what she wanted.

Sounds absolutely plausible. Wish it had been repeated that way by the principles. They were working so hard to take full credit, they've become parallel stories rather than a 'this action lead to that' type tale.

Regards! Michaelson

That the thing M in ever interview I have seen that's what she states. I think everyone else has added to it.

That seems entirely possible to me. I've had guys who don't know about guitar tone come up to me and say "Hey, there is something to your guitar tone I love. I don't know how to explain it, but it is a full tone." They can't exactly express what they want but they know what they want to say. I think this is what has happened time and time again with Nadoolman. She was not and is not a hatter. She is a costume designer. She had an idea and conveyed that to Swales as best she could. As far as she knows, the Australian hat she referenced to him is what he used. Swales, knows he used a Poet body. In come Spielberg and Ford and BAM! we've got the look down. That's all conjecture, of course, but quite possible. I just don't understand all the Nadoolman hate or invalidation on these boards. If Spielberg has allowed her to continue telling her story all these years, that should be a sign that there is, at the very least, a modicum of truth to it. That seems logical to me.

Dave

Yeah, I think that John has hit the nail on the head here. He is approaching this in a true 'Sherlockian' manner.' IE: "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Looking at the end results of what we know the hat to be, what it truly was before -- and the two stories of how it got to be 'the hat,' this would seem like the most logical of all conclussions on the final product, as seen from two different perspectives and throwing in as John has so aptly mentioned the third perspective of how writers, interviewers, et all, take in the data and then turn around and report and purport it as 'truth.' As Mark has agreed here -- this approach truly seems as quite plausable. W>

Another way to define her statement of 'it didn't exist' was that it didn't exist at that time! That was true. Very few fedoras were being worn, and those that were harkened back to the styles worn during the 50's and 60's. That's what I wore at the time.

The tall crowned, tight front pinched fedora of the 1930's had disappeared by the middle of the 1940's and never returned to favor until Raiders came out. It existed, and in exactly the same style, height and shape of the Indy fedora, but it hadn't been seen but in news reels and old Depression era films.

So, it is all in how you read her statement. It DID exist...she didn't 'create' it' per se, but it did not exist in the late 1970's when the design work was ongoing. They had to re-invent the wheel and rediscover the 'old ways', so to speak, then they added their touch of the dimensional cut brim. That's how I've always understood it to mean.

Regards! Michaelson

Yes of course that what she ment. She never said she invented it. She said " she wanted it to look like a hat from that eara but wanted the viewer to be able to pick Indy out in silhouette." so she wanted it to be slightly taller crown and slightly wide brim. Slightly could mean 1/8 inch or 1/16 of an inch. Whatever she thought was slightly wider or taller. When she says we had to "make the hat" she could easily mean their wasn't any in the shelf for to just plop on Fords head. that's why Richard can't or never really replicate it. It was a bespoke hat, not his stock poet. He used the poet to make her the hat she wanted. I never heard her say she createded that's style of hat.

In our first COW interviews she claimed she did, but moved away from that stand when Swales came out of the woodwork in his interviews.

I think it has always been just individuals wanting to make something more of their individual efforts than spreading the credit around where it was deserved.

I remember Indiana John approaching her with a list of questions, and she gladly answered all of them in order. He posted them verbatim on the FAQ section of the main site, and from all responses she gave, she did it all.

In 2004 she sent a scathing email to the webmaster regarding information that had been posted in the FAQ that she said was totally wrong. Problem was, she was debating information that she, herself, had supplied. She had issues with her own direct quoted words.

When the list was presented to her, with her answers, and a respectful request made for her to correct the answers she had given in 2002 to reflect the RIGHT information....she apologized, stating she thought she had given that information to a DIFFERENT Indy website (not sure which one. She never said), and that was the last we heard from her. No corrections were ever given.

The quote I posted above regarding the hat being Australian came directly from the 2004 email. Those are HER words. She never mentioned it being as such in 2002. Not saying it wasn't...she just never mentioned it in 2002.

Things have slowly squared away, and I believe we're getting a clearer picture of what really happened, and who did what after all these years...though a lot of those answers either died with their creator, or were never told.

Regards !Michaelson

Sounds like people have miss quoted her to me.

Some have, I'm sure, but it's kinda hard to misquote yourself, which she claims she did right here.

Regard! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:The tall crowned, tight front pinched fedora of the 1930's had disappeared by the middle of the 1940's and never returned to favor until Raiders came out. It existed, and in exactly the same style, height and shape of the Indy fedora, but it hadn't been seen but in news reels and old Depression era films.

Yep. This was the demise of my first HJ. I thought it was too big (I was used to wearing tight ball caps) and found a local hatter who worked out of his basement to resize it. When I went to pick it up, it looked like something out of the Rat Pack, complete with a feather in the bow. There was no trace of Indy left in it. Needless to say, I was on the phone with Lee as soon as I got home.

I never seen the miss quite you speak of. Would like to see it first hand.

WConly wrote:Yeah, I think that John has hit the nail on the head here. He is approaching this in a true 'Sherlockian' manner.' IE: "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." W>

That's actually Spock you've quoted there, friend. Although it was great to see Cumberbatch use the line in the last season of Holmes. A great interpretation of The Hounds of the Baskervilles.

Dave

DR Ulloa wrote:

WConly wrote:Yeah, I think that John has hit the nail on the head here. He is approaching this in a true 'Sherlockian' manner.' IE: "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." W>

That's actually Spock you've quoted there, friend. Although it was great to see Cumberbatch use the line in the last season of Holmes. A great interpretation of The Hounds of the Baskervilles.

Dave

It's pretty close to the original quote in the second Sherlock Holmes novel, The Sign of the Four:

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)

We now return to our regularly schedule gear discussion...

Best wishes,
Nebraska S.

Oildale Jones wrote:

NES wrote:

DR Ulloa wrote:

WConly wrote:Yeah, I think that John has hit the nail on the head here. He is approaching this in a true 'Sherlockian' manner.' IE: "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." W>

That's actually Spock you've quoted there, friend. Although it was great to see Cumberbatch use the line in the last season of Holmes. A great interpretation of The Hounds of the Baskervilles.

Dave

It's pretty close to the original quote in the second Sherlock Holmes novel, The Sign of the Four:

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)

We now return to our regularly schedule gear discussion...

Best wishes,
Nebraska S.

Seems I need to crack open the Complete Holmes collection again and brush up on my Sherlock.

Dave

DR Ulloa wrote:

NES wrote:

DR Ulloa wrote:

WConly wrote:Yeah, I think that John has hit the nail on the head here. He is approaching this in a true 'Sherlockian' manner.' IE: "When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." W>

That's actually Spock you've quoted there, friend. Although it was great to see Cumberbatch use the line in the last season of Holmes. A great interpretation of The Hounds of the Baskervilles.

Dave

It's pretty close to the original quote in the second Sherlock Holmes novel, The Sign of the Four:

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)

We now return to our regularly schedule gear discussion...

Best wishes,
Nebraska S.

Seems I need to crack open the Complete Holmes collection again and brush up on my Sherlock.

Dave

Trust me it was 'Holmes' and the correction is right, as well -- it is ' eliminated ...' not, 'remove' as I paraphrased here. Shoot, I am getting as bad as D.N. ! W>

I haven't met the lady (yet) but is it possible that she "backed off" from her account to avoid a conflict with Swales? Was she being polite?

I've never seen that quote, but it's good. It seems she does have a strong recollection and she's hid her long felt annoyance with not getting her "props" with the hat. Maybe it's time to credit her with the great design for HF? It looked perfect on him - better than the hats to follow (except CS, of course!)

-Todd

I think no matter what she said, let her have it. Kudos for the outfit she put together for a groundbreaking film that 30 years later, we are still discussing and admiring. We know the truth. At this stage of the game, most members probably know more about the look than shes does, or did. I'm just glad we didn't stuck with the Wilson's or Redwings.....it worked out perfectly just like it was.

Puppetboy wrote:I haven't met the lady (yet) but is it possible that she "backed off" from her account to avoid a conflict with Swales? Was she being polite?

I've never seen that quote, but it's good. It seems she does have a strong recollection and she's hid her long felt annoyance with not getting her "props" with the hat. Maybe it's time to credit her with the great design for HF? It looked perfect on him - better than the hats to follow (except CS, of course!)

-Todd

Thank you Todd. The proof is those two other movies.

I'm sorry Scott. Let her have it. She deserves it. We didn't bring the costume to life she did. Maybe the reason she doesnt remember every detail is because it's one movie, one project, one person, one costume she put together. I can't remember every hat I ever made. Maybe we should remember that ther have been a lot of false info out there. I would take her word over other. She does this as a living not a hobby. No disrespect to anyone but let's not forget she came before all of us.

She's also trying to sell a book.

Regards! Michaelson

Do you have a link. I bet it's good.

Sure do!

http://www.amazon.com/Dressed-Century-H ... 0060816503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards! Michaelson

Have it. That's not new.

Sorry, but glad you have a copy.

The point is, she's still promoting it at conventions with book signings and sales.

According to a google search, this one IS her latest, and is dated June 2012:

http://clothesonfilm.com/filmcraft-cost ... dis/26617/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have this one too?

Regards! Michaelson

Yep. She should be. I put my money on her more then all the 2nd hand stuff I have read or heard.

Good for you.

Regard! Michaelson

M, that was not meant as a insult to you but recent history should teach us one thing. You can't rely on 2nd hand info.