The Earl of Chicago

One of Robert Montgomery's most amusing films which takes a very serious turn is The Earl Of Chicago. Just imagine someone like a Lucky Luciano inheriting some title in Italy and you've got the basic idea.

For those who think Montgomery was miscast I disagree completely. He certainly had an upper class background and most of his film roles were of that kind, but he did just fine as blue collar types in Yellow Jack and Here Comes Mr. Jordan and he does equally well here.

What Robert Kilmont, Chicago gangster who hasn't let up a bit even though Prohibtion is a thing of the past, has is one great deal of hubris and he's an awful bad judge of character. He's right at the prison door to meet Edward Arnold, a lawyer he framed when he couldn't buy him. He reasons like Diogenes he's found an honest man and he wants honest men working for him. What's so ironic is that the whole audience knows from the git-go that Arnold is going to pull a double-cross even though Montgomery is oblivious to it all.

The opportunity comes sooner than he thinks when some English barrister comes across with documentation that shows this man who was raised in a Detroit orphanage is indeed the new Earl of Gorley. Montgomery is used to dealing with all kinds of situations, but this one throws him. He takes his new found friend Arnold to the United Kingdom to claim his inheritance. As for Arnold, he may be a disbarred attorney, but he knows what to do with a power of attorney which he tricks Montgomery into giving him so he can watch his business interests in Chicago from Great Britain of course.

It's a dirty double-dealing trick Arnold plays, but Montgomery was such a fathead to think this guy was going to just let bygones be bygones. That's the hubris.

Montgomery is in for quite a bit of culture shock about Great Britain and its class system and the fact as a member of the landed aristocracy he has traditions and obligations to follow and meet. The only real friends he makes among the folks there are young Ronald Sinclair who would be his successor and his butler Edmund Gwenn who tries in his usual gentle manner to smooth some of the rough edges that Chicago left on Montgomery.

In fact Gwenn's is the best performance in the film. It's certainly one my favorites from this player. I like it even better than his scientist in Them or as Kris Kringle in Miracle On 34th Street for which Gwenn won an Oscar.

Arnold's double-dealing ends badly for both him and Montgomery, but I will say in the end The Earl Of Chicago went out with the class he sought all of his life. And The Earl Of Chicago courtesy of Robert Montgomery and Edward Arnold and a number of players from the British colony in Hollywood make it a film of class.

I really enjoy Robert Montgomery and his suave, sophisticated onscreen persona. I've tried to watch all of his films over the years and have enjoyed most - until I saw "The Earl Of Chicago". He was miscast here as a gangster who inherits an Earldom in England. The plot line was lame and not believable, but he tried too hard to be crude and unpolished and was clearly out of his element. In his pictures he is the personification of sophistication and the reversal just doesn't work here.

Too bad, because he was surrounded by A list character actors, such as Edward Arnold, Edmund Gween, Reginald Owen and several others. It must have sounded better in the planning stage as there were some plot holes apart from the absurd plot, which does not work for Montgomery. Perhaps they needed a different actor because this was not his cup of tea. Can't recommend it.

**** 4 stars. Website no longer prints my star rating.

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.

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.