Duel de Femmes

We meet the very successful novelist Mary Howard (Joan Crawford) at a party for the launch of her new book. The party is hosted by her good friend, the much older, wealthy dingbat "Bridgie" Drake in her lovely apartment in New York City. Mary's long-time boyfriend is there too. Jimmy Lee (Robert Taylor) is a journalist and he proposes to Mary there at the party but she blows him off. It becomes clear that her romantic interests have shifted to her publisher, the much older, much less fun (and less attractive) Rogers Woodruf (Herbert Marshall).

There's just one problem ... he's married to Claire (Greer Garson).

Mary's follow-up project is a book called "Gods of Destiny." It's about a woman who falls in love with a married man; and Mary is struggling with the ending. She's desperately trying to make "The Other Woman" into some noble heroine, and she can't get it quite right. Bridgie invites her up to her country estate for the weekend to work on the ending and Mary gets her to invite Rogers as well.

Jimmy gets wind of this; and arranges a way to "drop in" on Bridgie with Claire that weekend after he's found a sneaky way to get Rogers out of the house for a bit.

So, what happens when the ladies meet?

Well, the moment Mary sees Claire across the room she spits her gum out, shakes her shoes off, and hands her earrings to Bridgie - "Hold my gold!" She snatches Claire by the hair and dogwalks her out to the patio where she holds a bottle of champagne by the neck and breaks it over Claire's head, but before she can do any damage to her face Claire pulls a switchblade out of her sock and .....

Wait a minute. No. That's not quite right. Hold on.

It's actually quite civilized. They talk about the situation and about the concept of Love and blah blah blah, and I'm sure you can guess how it all plays out.

Joan is alright here, and Greer is wonderful, but I found the dingbat Bridgie (Spring Byington) and her younger witless and gay gold-digging boyfriend the most entertaining.

Sure, I'd recommend it!

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 simultaneously. 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.

In both versions, the lady of the country house is something of a wonder - Spring Byington here. I like the Jimmy part a lot, and thought both actors did him well. He's the kind of guy who makes a wonderful friend, though he could get on your nerves at times. He's a young man who will settle down and make a good husband, reliable and good company along the way. Woodruff was an older man who hadn't settled down, self-centered, made a bad husband and rather a dullard actually.

I think the sorting out between the women worked for both of them. The wife shook off the dead weight or drew her line anyway; the "girl friend" woke up from her naive daydream. We hope the husband woke up as well. Looks like Jimmy has a chance to come out on top as well!

What's there to be so cynical about?

Joan Crawford plays Mary Howard, a novelist in love with her publisher who can't seem to finish her latest manuscript about a woman in love with a married man. In a case of art imitating life, Mary much like her literary heroine believes Rogers Woodruff will leave his wife and forge a future together with her. To make things complicated, Mary is relentlessly pursued by handsome Jimmy played by charming Robert Taylor. Although she likes Jimmy, Mary turns down his marriage proposals saying she prefers to remain friends. Instead, Mary arranges a getaway weekend at the home of ditsy friend Bridgi (wonderfully acted by Spring Byington) so she can see Rogers. The plot thickens when Jimmy accidentally runs into Woodruff's wife (played by Greer Garson) and invites her on an outing where they "get lost" and find themselves at Bridgi's cottage. The story is an interesting one as Jimmy fails to tell anyone about Claire's true identify. Claire Woodruff is also in the dark about the woman, Jimmy is trying to make jealous. Throw in a thunderstorm and Jimmy's plan that inevitably sends Woodruff away on a wild goose chase so that the two women can meet, makes this film worth seeing. Both Joan and Greer Garson turn in solid performances. The acting is a bit stylized, characteristic of the 1940s but both women are appealing in their roles. Spring Byington almost steals the show with her funny character portrayal of Bridgi. The dialogue is crisp and Bridgi provides comic relief and helps the story flow. Stranded at the cottage, Mary and Claire strike a friendship and genuinely like each other. It doesn't take Mary long to know that Claire is married and confesses Jimmy is only trying to make her jealous."When ladies meet" has powerful scenes and the viewer is in on the secret of their connection as it cleverly unfolds to the two women. The dialogue is honest and the reveal ultimately helps Mary's writer's block to help her finish her novel. I highly recommend "When Ladies Meet."

Very seldom is the remake of a film better than the original, but this film is pleasantly one of the few exceptions. First of all, it is unknown to this reviewer why this film was remade so soon. Generally, film remakes are done after a generation of time has passed (20 years), but this film was remade just 8 years after the original in 1933. In addition, the original film cast was led by a cadre of Hall of Fame performers in their own right - Myrna Loy, Alice Brady, Frank Morgan, Ann Harding, and Robert Montgomery. You'd figure with a cast this good, how is any remake going to improve on those performances? Logical question. Yet, remarkably the five leads in this remake, pound for pound, improve on each of the original performances.

Two MGM divas get to have at one another in a most civilized, clipped-consonant fashion in this remake of a livelier 1933 comedy-drama, adapted from a hit Rachel Crothers play. Joan Crawford is a best-selling authoress on the brink of an affair with her publisher, Herbert Marshall, who is married to Greer Garson; meantime, Robert Taylor pines, rather inexplicably, after Crawford. I'm sure Joan was an intelligent woman, but playing a New York smart-set intellectual (with a downtown apartment whose garden is the size of a city block), she's unable to project intelligence; you simply can't believe this clothes horse could come up with the smart one-liners Anita Loos puts into her mouth, or that she could pen anything more complex than "The Little Engine That Could." You sense that MGM is building up Greer as it tears down Joan; it's a much more sympathetic part, and though Greer doesn't enter the film till nearly the second half, she dominates it from there on. I find Greer's charms calculated and her acting style obvious, but she has the audience on her side and is more interesting to watch than the ever key-light-seeking Crawford. Why either should pine after the doughy, monotonous Marshall is never clear, and the fadeout is so plainly headed toward a conventional-morality-circa-1941 ending that the drama never runs very high. (For all that, it's resolved quickly and capriciously, and unconvincingly.) But Robert Taylor, at least, is relaxed and unaffected (especially compared to this diphthong-happy trio), and Spring Byington expertly indulges in a ditsy-rich-lady characterization you'd more likely expect from Billie Burke or Alice Brady (who, in fact, played the role in the 1933 version). The real star is the set designer -- I don't know about you, but I want that weekend house of Byington's, with its water wheel and clear lake and Better Homes and Gardens design.