El conde de Chicago

Despite all the miscasting and other plot gaucheries complained of by everyone, and with which I agree, there remains something very quirkily unique about this movie. Certainly my wife and I couldn't take our eyes off it till it was over. Besides the wildly satirical send up of those British ceremonial upper-crust ways which so amuse us whenever the present queen and her various entourages make those occasional appearances on public television, the very undeniable miscasting of Montgomery which rubbed so many the wrong way left us with a high admiration of those acting skills of his which enabled him to portray so well a character very much against his normal type. And his last lengthy monologue from the accused's dock was positively Lear-like in its crazed insanity. Despite all its flaws the chance to see Montgomery, Arnold, and Gwenn all acting their heads off in the same movie make this a rare and worthwhile 86 minutes.

I've seen a lot of reviews of this film here claiming it's a gangster drama that would've worked better as a comedy. Did you miss the laughs? Some critics argue that Robert Montgomery was doing an unintentionally comedic gangster with Silky. I disagree. It's clearly satirical, with more depth added as the character becomes more exposed to another culture and from the decency shown to him by his new acquaintances. Sure, some parts could've been expanded on, and there could've been another half an hour of exposition. For me, many of the old studio pictures suffer from an assembly line mentality and are often dated or limited by today's standards. But I find satisfaction in the individual performances, scenes and the various technical and artistic contributions. Sadly, I feel there's a shortage of even those traits in today's Hollywood tripe.

Robert Montgomery plays a gangster named Silky who framed his lawyer Doc Ramsey (Edward Arnold) seven years earlier. When Doc is released from prison he finds he is disbarred and can't work as an attorney, so he has to go back to work for Silky as his general manager. But Doc is bitter and waiting for a chance to get his revenge. A chance that comes when Silky is discovered to be the heir to an English title.

Uneven blend of comedy and drama. The comedy works well. The drama not so much. Montgomery's hammy gangster persona just doesn't jive with Arnold's angry man hell-bent on revenge. Edmund Gwenn is good as Silky's butler. The ending is pretty bad and makes you wonder what the point of the whole movie was. Still, top stars make it worth watching.

Former Chicago bootlegger 'Silky' Kilmount (Robert Montgomery) opens a legal distillery after prohibition. He hires 'Doc' Ramsey (Edward Arnold) to manage it. Seven years earlier, he had framed Doc which sent the innocent man to prison. When he inherits the title "Earl of Gorley" with its estate, Doc finds the opportunity to take revenge..

I don't see Silky hiring Doc after what happened before. It could only happen if both Silky and Doc agreed to it. There is no way that Silky would trust Doc. More than that, there is no way that he would trust Doc to the point of giving up the Power of Attorney. He is more likely to pay him to make amends. Montgomery is playing him like an idiot. In which case, I don't see him achieving any success as a bootlegger. No matter which way I look. I don't believe the basic premise. This could be interesting for everybody else. I could never let it go.

As much as I like Robert Montgomery as an actor, he doesn't cut it as a Chicago ex-bootlegger and gangster. His idea of acting tough is to jut out his lower lip and say "yeah" a hundred or so times. And when the plot also calls for him to inherit an earldom, a British title and become a member of the House of Lords, it results in utter failure for the film. A fish-out-of-water scenario doesn't work as well for drama as it does for comedy; the lengthy sequence for Montgomery's investiture into the House of Lords was painful to watch. I think I was more uncomfortable than Montgomery was, as he fumbles throughout the centuries-old pompous ceremony which includes a pledge of allegiance to the king. There were some nice moments in the film: butler Edmund Gwenn teaching Montgomery about "noblesse oblige" so that he visits an old sick man and his wife (Ben Webster and Tempe Piggot) to comfort him; how she refuses money, despite her poverty, for the cookie he takes because she says "it would deprive me of my pleasure"; when Montgomery also visits another old tenant (Zeffie Tilbury) and learns she nursed his father as an infant. But these moments were far too few, as the plot concerns itself mostly with Montgomery's greedy desire to cash in on his newfound wealth and with Edward Arnold's revenge for his serving seven years in prison because of a frame-up by Montgomery. There were too many holes in the plot: I would have thought everyone would be happy to get rid of Montgomery instead of pleading with him to stay. And surely the writers could have written a better ending.

I couldn't get over the feeling that Edward G. Robinson would have been so much better in the role that Montgomery played. Curiously, David O. Selznick bought the rights to the novel with Robinson in mind, but then sold those rights to MGM. What a shame!