When Ladies Meet

I saw and reviewed the 1941 remake of "When Ladies Meet" almost three years ago. I was a bit cold on the film--and thought it should have been much better considering the star-filled cast. However, when I saw the 1933 version today, I really appreciated it. This leads me to wonder--is the original version that much better or has my taste just changed over the last few years? I am not sure which--but I can highly recommend this earlier film.

The film is about adultery--a common topic during the Pre-Code era (up until mid 1934 when the new Production Code tightened the moral code within Hollywood's films). At first, it appears to actually endorse it or take a judgment neutral view--as Myrna Loy and Frank Morgan prepare to run off together even though Morgan is married. However, Loy's friend (Robert Montgomery) inexplicably loves her and wants to split the pair up because he feels this relationship is wrong. So, he connives to have Loy meet the wife (Ann Harding). What happens here is what makes the film so good--the women don't know who the other one actually is and they become friends. Only later do they discover the truth. I loved this final portion and I'd say more, but I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, it handles this moral quandary in a responsible and satisfying manner.

Aside from a few quibbles (such as why Montgomery wants Loy is she shows such selfish behaviors), I really enjoyed the film. Fine acting and a nice script make for an adult film that really is as good and hard-hitting today as it was back in 1933. Well worth seeing.

This first film version of the Rachel Crothers play finds Robert Montgomery as the irrepressible playboy who will do just about anything to win Myrna Loy back from the clutches of married publisher Frank Morgan. Even if that means bringing Morgan's wife Ann Harding into the picture. And When Ladies Meet, watch out.

A later version was done by MGM but with more of an emphasis on the mistress than the wife. Joan Crawford had Myrna Loy's role and Ann Harding's part was done by Greer Garson.

Robert Taylor played Montgomery's role and the difference between the two films is the quality of their performances. Taylor had developed a real gift for light comedy, but for Robert Montgomery this kind of part was what made his reputation.

Frank Morgan was far better than Herbert Marshall because he played the role as the two timing rat he was. You watch Marshall's performance and you'd think he was the wronged party. As for Morgan, no one loved him more than I in the role of the inept bumbler he usually played, but parts like in When Ladies Meet and also in Hallelujah, I'm a Bum do show him to good advantage in other kinds of roles.

It's hard to choose between Garson and Harding though. Both of them have the best part in the film and both make equally good use of it. Each are the best in their respective casts.

Eliminated from the second version is a great deadpan performance by Sterling Holloway as the allergy prone golf caddy who destroys Montgomery's game as he's playing with Harding.

The original play ran on Broadway for 191 performances in the 1932-1933 season and starred Walter Abel, Frieda Inescourt, Herbert Rawlinson and Selena Royle. Ironically all of these folks had substantial film careers, but could never be classified as any kind of box office.

When Ladies Meet is witty and bright and a great example of the sophisticated type comedy that's just not being done any more.

What a thought provoking and stimulating movie. One begins to sense what was lost due restriction of the Hays Commission. The svelte Ann Harding steels the show. She literally makes you fall in love with her character. Frank Morgan's role was very different from those that he later played. The sincere caring that the two female characters had for one another shows a sophistication that is as entrancing as it is admirable.

Hey, I like both versions of this film. Not into parsing them either. The assembled talent, story, parts, clothes, set. This is the kind of movie I like to watch multiple times. First, watch the movie through. Then, maybe follow separate characters through. There's a lot going on. Then, watch the clothes. Then, check out the house, furniture, etc. There was so much style put into these. All of these elements are what made these 30's and 40's films so special. I don't understand why all the comparisons and nitpicking. This film has a lot to enjoy. It's entertainment, folks. If you don't find something so, leave it alone. Simple enough.

I love old movies for many reasons, that they are time capsules of the era they come from being the primary one. This is a classic based on the source, the cast & the studio. That the same studio remade it post-code is remarkable, I just wish Myrna was given the wife role this time, opposite her old friend Joan. Unfortunately, when Myrna left MGM for Fox to film The Rains Came, Greer assumed many of her roles, beginning with Goodbye, Mr. Chips (Myrna, in her un-diva way, cites Greer's generosity to her decades later while touring,apparently oblivious to the fact she enabled Garson's star turn. No wonder Loy was friends with Crawford for fifty years!). There is no such thing as a bad Myrna movie, this one also scores points for trivia like the terrace beneath the Brooklyn Bridge, when's the last time you saw that?! Any old movie can be criticized for many things,but eyebrows? No wonder today's hits come from comic books...