The Earl of Chicago

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.

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!

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.

Most of the reviews already posted recommend against this film. I thought I'd chime in with the supporters.

Of the 8 films in the Warner Archive "Robert Montgomery Collection" bundle, this is my favorite, followed closely by Faithless (1932). Overall, I've rated 18 of his films, and gave 4 sevens, 9 sixes, 4 fives and 1 four. That fits my overall rating profile pretty well, except one should have been an 8 instead of a four or five. So I'm not a special fan of Montgomery.

I agree that Montgomery's portrayal here is heavy-handed. His character, the titular Earl of Chicago, talks and behaves like a cross between Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, with an annoying giggle to guild the dandy-lion. Oh, and leave us not omit the Cagney-esque shoulder-roll.

The Earl has a twist that is interesting, if unlikely for a Chicago bootlegger: he's gun-averse, to the point of breaking out in a sweat when he sees one in some circumstances. He's volatile and sadistic, as demonstrated by his ring-slapping a man who displays his gun "for a laugh." He happily pays his thugs overtime for after-hours physical intimidation of a customer who withdrew his business during these post-Prohibition days. (We don't get a fix on the year, but it must be close to the repeal of Prohibition in 1934, because his cousin Master Gerald is about 13 during the flashback (the actor was 15), but is with his regiment in France in the present-day of the movie, late 1939.)

The Earl learns and grows during the story. He is humbled by the grandeur of the House of Lords. He discovers history, both English and American. He learns the basics of the culture of the landed gentry and their tenants, particularly about noblesse oblige. Edmund Gwenn delivers his usual pleasurable and effective performance, helping to shepherd the American Earl through his discoveries.

Unless this print was politically enhanced for later re-release, this film was released in January 1940, in the middle of the Phoney War. Hitler invaded Poland September 1, 1939, and Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany 2 days later. America declared its neutrality 2 days after that. Europe languished in the Phoney War until Hitler invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in May 1940, although the Nazis began with other aggressions in March and April. (The History Place has a nice timeline, easily found by searching for "hitler's invasion of europe.")

Because the visitors to the castle in 1939 are mostly in uniform (not true during the flashback to 1934), and English troops in France are mentioned, I interpret part of the film's intent was to reduce America's isolationism, implying that it was OUR noblesse oblige to help defend Europe, especially England, against Hitler's aggression. The message is subtle, but I see it. MGM got more much overt about our noblesse oblige in 1940 with films Escape and The Mortal Storm.

The film's revenge plot line involves Edward Arnold's character (also delivered with his customary skill). One of the effective aspects of the film is that this character is written and performed to throw us off the scent. While we see his secret vengeful actions, he also interacts with the Earl and others beyond the need to disguise his intent. I wondered whether his actions were as destructive as they seemed.

MGM does its usual excellent job of providing beautifully designed and dressed sets.

I liked this movie. I only give a rating of 7+ if I recommend the film.

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.