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.

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 wonder if millennials have even heard of the double standard. It used to be a real thing and a well-know phrase. It underlies one of the threads of this film's plot. Simply put, it meant it was OK for a man to have sex before marriage but if a woman did she was "a fallen woman" "a tramp" and some worse names. This begs the question of with whom the males were supposed to romp, but that's in tomorrow's lesson.

The central character is Mary (Myrna Loy), a successful novelist, unmarried and in love with a married man. She has based the protagonist of her latest, almost-finished, novel on herself. In the end of the novel this character gets the man and all concerned, even the wife, approve because their love is something so wonderful. This makes for a clever plot device in the film, as Mary gets to discuss the work in progress with various people with various degrees of understanding how autobiographical it is. One of these conversations leads to the film's climax and is a genuinely unsettling scene.

The hero, Jimmie (Robert Montgomery), is a type common in 1930s films, The Idle Rich Playboy With a Heart of Gold. He lectures her sternly on the importance of the double standard, gallantly explaining "Gosh, I've persuaded so many women and hated them afterward." The noble virtuous sort. Naturally he has an ulterior motive, namely Mary, whom he wants for himself, but only if legitimized by the marriage ceremony, and of course undefiled.

Jimmie's efforts don't stop there. He manages to intrude or otherwise disturb Mary and her lover whenever they have a moment together. It took me a while to realize that he was doing so to prevent their affair from being "consummated" as they used to say, since in the year 2020 I at first assumed it had already been consummated.

So, like many early-30s films, it's not only well done but gives you some insight into what was going on in those days. And as in many such, the final twists and turns look predictable but turn out be not exactly what you expected.

Definitely not an "action" film and a bit of a talkfest at times. Sometimes the characters seem to be debating rather than conversing. Lightened a bit by Alice Brady as a ditsy middle-aged rich woman with a boy toy. Her character helps move the plot along in places by blabbing people's secrets, then pretending it was an accident. You know the type.

Though dated by modern standards, When Ladies Meet carried a popular message in the early part of the 20th century. It also carried a controversial argument, and both sides are explored in the film: can a wife and a mistress calmly and rationally solve their differences? If that seems interesting to you, rent this version-not the remake.

Myrna Loy stars as a young, modern authoress who has fallen in love with her publisher, Frank Morgan. He's married, but Myrna's never met his wife, and from her point of view, he's unhappy at home. She decides to prove her point to the world by writing her next novel based on her current situation with a twist ending of wishful thinking; in the end of her novel, the young woman confronts the man's wife and explains how much she loves him. The wife is gracious and realizes the sensible thing would be to give her husband a divorce, and all parties are happy. The trouble is, no one likes Myrna's unpublished manuscript. Frank claims it's unrealistic, as does Myrna's ardent and often rebuffed suitor, Robert Montgomery.

I won't tell you exactly what happens next, but I will say that Myrna gets a chance to test her theory with Frank's wife, Ann Harding. Before I saw this version, I tried watching the 1941 remake but couldn't get through it; now I know it was because the film was badly cast. In place of him who's so innocent she doesn't really know what she's doing is Joan Crawford. In place of the man so in love with her he refuses to look at another woman is Robert Taylor. In place of the married publisher who gets caught up in his emotions and isn't capable of rationality is Herbert Marshall. In place of the discarded wife who couldn't keep his interest at home is Greer Garson. How are any of these choices believable?

The 1933 original is very well cast and very believable. Myrna nails the attitude of a young person certain in her convictions without knowing what they are, and yet she's not so irritating you can't forgive her for her ignorance. Frank Morgan seems troubled, and it's totally believable he might not know exactly what he wants. Ann Harding is plain enough to make you understand why Frank has strayed, but she's strong enough to make you believe she'll put up a fight. This version is very good, so if you want to watch a representation of a bygone era check it out.

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.