Fortunes rapides

This film marked an early career milestone for Spencer Tracy. He'd scored a sensation on Broadway as a tough convict in "The Last Mile" in 1930, at the very moment when the Hollywood studios were desperate to recruit stage talent for the talkies. He appeared in a couple of Movietone shorts made in New York, then went to Hollywood for his feature debut in a hastily produced prison picture called Up the River. (Also in the cast was another up-and-coming stage performer, Humphrey Bogart.) But Quick Millions was Tracy's first starring role in a prestige project, Fox's high-profile entry in the hottest genre of the day, the gangster saga. The picture is built entirely around Tracy's character, Bugs Raymond, and the plot traces the rise-and-fall trajectory of his career in a fashion that was already becoming standard for crime kingpin stories.

Quick Millions is an interesting, well-written movie that offers some colorful supporting characters and several memorable scenes, but it's not hard to see why it was overshadowed by the other gangster movies of its day, the ones with flamboyant central characters and lots of shoot-outs. Spencer Tracy's Bugs Raymond is a smart racketeer who plans his moves carefully and gets his strong-arm guys to do the dirty work- - dirty work that generally takes place elsewhere, so he doesn't have to see it. As the man himself says: "I'm just a guy with a one-ton brain who's too nervous to steal and too lazy to work. I do other people's thinking for them and make them like it." He's no angry kid from the slums, no mad-dog killer with an antisocial streak; he's a cool customer who uses basic business practices, backed by the threat of violence, to get what he wants.

When the story begins Bugs is still a truck driver getting into foolish scrapes with the law. His girl nearly walks out on him, but when he tells her that he's been working out the "angles" to achieve material success we believe him, and before long he's taken over the trucking business and is forcing the city's respectable businessmen to kowtow to him. Some of his associates are irredeemable low-life hoodlums with no ethical standards at all, but Bugs makes it clear that there are limits to what he will and will not countenance. Raymond's new status brings him into contact with prominent civic leaders and their families, and he begins to clean up his act. He actually dons evening clothes and attends the opera. Unfortunately for him, however, the old gang doesn't take it well when "Mr. Raymond" puts on airs and aspires to class. Like many another gangland chieftain, Bugs' fatal mistake comes when he forgets where he came from and how he got to the top, and treats his partners in crime like they're poor relations he has come to find embarrassing. In the end he pays for this mistake in traditional gangland style.

For a gangster flick this movie is remarkably non-violent. There is an undercurrent of potential violence that charges several scenes, but when violent events are shown they are usually handled in an oblique, stylized way. (We know that Bugs Raymond strikes his girlfriend, but unlike Tom Powers in The Public Enemy he does so off-camera.) The focal point here is Bugs Raymond's perversely creative use of American business techniques, and the subsequent hubris that brings him down. It should be added, however, that the screenplay does not let Raymond off the hook: he's still a thug, and no better than any other racketeer, just a little smarter -- for awhile, anyway -- and less willing to get his hands dirty.

This is a film that deserves to be better known, and for fans of the genre it's a must, but first-time viewers should be aware that Quick Millions is more talky and cerebral than most gangster movies, and a little slow going at times. The dialog is generally sharp, but there are also scenes that could have been trimmed, and a couple of plot points that are never adequately explained. Bugs Raymond does not leave the indelible impression made by Edward G. Robinson's Rico Bandello in Little Caesar, Jimmy Cagney's Tom Powers, or Paul Muni's Tony Camonte in the 1932 version of Scarface. Still, this rarely shown movie is well worth seeing for a number of good scenes, a memorable finale, and a great party sequence where hit man George Raft performs a sinuous soft shoe dance to "St. Louis Blues" shortly before gunning a man down. That's worth the price of admission right there!

"What difference does it make whether laws are made by a bunch of lawyers for other lawyers to break, or whether they're made by hoodlums for other hoodlums?"

Your enjoyment of this weaker entry in the pre-Code gangster film space may depend on whether lots of little things when taken together add up to an enjoyable experience. For me, let me be clear, the scene with George Raft in his first credited role dancing at 41:15 was well worth the price of admission, and there were enough other moments in its 72 minute runtime that I came away happy.

One of the things the film reflected, two years into the Depression, was the age's deep cynicism for American institutions, like the banking industry and justice system. Spencer Tracy plays the main gangster and is shown in a sympathetic light, voicing lines like the one I started this review with. We see the corruption in the powerful men of society, and hear a citizen express "Why last night at dinner by own daughter said to me, we have the best judges that money can buy. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the attitude of the younger generation..." There are also statements about millionaire racketeers avoiding income taxes by hiding their money, public money being wasted on putting people in jail, and a cynicism that extends even to the newsreels, with a producer in a truck remarking, "Gee Andy, the audiences certainly ought to be tickled to death they don't have to listen to all the baloney that I do," before literally giving the finger to what he hears about the completion of wealthy man's construction project.

Tracy's character shakes down a big businessman by forcing him to pay a percentage on a building project, otherwise the trucks won't run and the mayhem he's causing won't stop. It seems to me he was standing in for the little guys during the Depression, those wishing they could stick it to the businessmen who played a part in cratering the economy, and were viewed as just as corrupt as these crooks.

That aspect worked for me, but overall, Tracy's character is portrayed in too good a light. Let's just say, the "gangster with a heart of gold" should be considered as weak a trope as the one for hookers. Oh, there are scenes of his strong-arm tactics to rise in the world of organized crime, like him smashing up cars so their owners will start using the garage whose owner he's "protecting," and him blowing up a trucker who won't fall in line as he amasses a monopoly on trucking, but they're brief. Meanwhile he looks out for the kids in the neighborhood, and draws the line at keeping an incriminating letter from a judge's lover that comes his way, one he could use as blackmail. "It might get him in bad with his old lady," he says while tearing it up. What a guy, right? He's got a classy office, with modern art on the walls and a fancy phone, and despite a few tough words, generally acts the gentleman (and too much so for my taste). There was a fantastic moment when his ex-girlfriend (Sally Eilers) slapped him hard across the face, which is shown, but his reaction, which is to knock her to the floor, is not, softening the impact.

Tracy's actions are also shown as having positive benefits, e.g. Intimidating the foremen of the workers to have the steel girders in place on the building before a critical date when he says they might not make it. He's also far better than what we see out of his old buddy Nails (Warner Richmond) when the latter tries to take over the mob. He's got all the bases covered, running his various schemes, and says with a smile to a woman he's trying to woo, "Racketeering is just getting what the other guy's got, in a nice way." Gosh, perhaps Trump et al will use this line of defense.

George Raft as his right-hand man is also not menacing enough, though he has some nice moments aside from the stellar dancing bit, including the scene where he tries to pick up a secretary (Dixie Lee). "Say baby, what do you with your spare moments?" he asks. "I like to go to wrestling matches," she sarcastically replies, making 'wrestling' sound like 'wrassling.' After he commits a murder, he walks through a hotel lobby and looks like someone who's guilty but trying to be as casual as possible. You can certainly see why he got more parts, including of course Scarface the following year. It's pretty funny that the real-life gangster who may have played a role in getting Raft in this film, Owney Madden, is referenced in a horse racing tip (Owney M in the 5th race).

Despite the film being pre-Code, the moral forces of the community rise up, but this felt very much unforced, and like a natural reaction. It was refreshing that the daughter of the businessman (Marguerite Churchill) was a strong character, and stood up to the gangster, despite his overture of a $12,000 square-cut diamond ($241,000 in 2023 dollars). Still, the scenes they have together, like Tracy making a five-cushion finesse carom in billiards, or hitting a nice golf shot by pitching out of a sand trap while she looks on in her fetching golfing outfit, were enjoyable. I also loved that little folk song we get from one of Nails' gang near the end (I wish I knew who this was, or where the song came from):

"When I was a boy / I was the pride and joy / Of my folks way down in Arkansas / I left my old hometown / Bad company I found / I done some things that was against the law / There's one thing I've been taught / You're right until you're caught / As long as I'm free I'm gonna do just what I choose."

Roland Brown the director was a hell of a guy. He had ties with the underworld, was a boxing sparring partner for Jack Dempsey, he knocked down a producer.... So, he was not the common bland film maker. This one is his first film, the first of a short list of features. It is a light hearted crime drama, but not a comedy. Not a pure gangster film either. However I was so surprised to see Spencer Tracy co starring George Raft, one year before SCARFACE. Spencer Tracy in a role not so far from Sylvester Stallone in F. I. S. T, a bleak character. But I would have prefered a grittier movie. I expected a bit more from Rowland Brown, maybe because of his reputation, hard boiled reputation.

"Quick Millions" is a shadow of better gangster films made the same year (Public Enemy and Little Caesar) but for all its awkwardness it grows with the viewing and is better the second time around.

Aesthetically, it is not an important film and explores only familiar territory. Still, there are unexpected delicious moments. The studio seemed to be trying to make Spencer Tracy into James Cagney with this turn as a racketeer trying to class himself up.

In film history, "Quick Millions" is important. It was Tracy's first starring role, and he needed it badly. It's not a common character for him and yet his skills at underplaying are clear and marvelous. For George Raft, who looks totally GQ in his every scene, this film was the direct reason he landed a similar henchman role in the terrific "Scarface," which proved to be his breakthrough. It also got him his contract with Paramount. Despite a rough beginning, Tracy and Raft became good friends while filming "Quick Millions." It's an interesting aspect, almost an unconscious battle of screen chemistry. Just try to keep your eyes off Raft doing absolutely nothing in the background except shifting his weight while you're supposed to be paying attention to Tracy's important dialogue with other characters.

What works: Great lighting direction during the holdup at the "testimonial dinner." Focus on Raft's legs while dancing at a party, which initially seems to be just showing off his deft moves but in fact is leading up to the next time we see his legs in a brilliantly shot murder scene. Surprising musical interludes. Tracy incorrigible and so believable in carrying the film.

What does not work: Ham-fisted camera work - even in '31 cinematography was advanced beyond this clumsiness. Long-winded anti-racketeering speeches. While dialogue is often sharp, the storytelling leaves gaps.

And watch out for a flip of the bird.

Spencer Tracy is not readily linked with gangster pictures, yet he started off his career with a number of efforts in this vein: these included John Ford's UP THE RIVER (1930) and Michael Curtiz' 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING (1933); this film (which happens to be director Brown's debut) is another and certainly the most typical.

In fact, its narrative follows much the same path as those of 'rival' productions (notably Warners', who were to the form what Universal was to Horror) which sees the protagonist – a former truck driver – build a criminal empire but getting his come-uppance eventually, for attempting to climb one step too many along the society ladder (while pushing his devoted commoner girlfriend around)! Tracy's entry into the racket is depicted via a droll sequence where he systematically destroys a number of parked cars, so that he can then offer his protection to the affected business!

While less inclined towards showing off with his camera here than in Brown's two subsequent – and only other – movies, this still emerges as possibly his best work owing to Tracy's compelling portrayal (on the strength of which I have set out to acquire a number of his early and, by all accounts, minor vehicles) and another stalwart 'gangland' presence i.e. George Raft (in a supporting role, which goes from lackey to defector to victim while also incorporating a rare opportunity to showcase his dancing skills[!], he would refine in Howard Hawks' SCARFACE [1932] on his way to achieving personal stardom).

The film (accompanied on the TCM-sourced copy I acquired by forced French subtitles!) is a breezy 66 minutes long – though other sources give its official running-time at 72! – highlighted by smart dialogue and a handful of nicely-judged action sequences (the ending is particularly great). Pity that, reportedly due to his temper, Brown would get into hot water with Hollywood bigwigs and eventually forced to abandon his directorial career for good (a brief sojourn to Britain in order to make the 1934 version of THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL would similarly fall through and end up being handed to someone else!)