When Ladies Meet (1941) User Reviews (36)

A Morality Tale

[judithh-1 · 8/10 · 11 January 2014]

"When Ladies Meet" is the story of a married couple, a lady author and a charming single journalist. Joan Crawford, the author, considers herself a "modern woman" freed from tiresome conventions and moral imperatives. Despite the movie's 1941 date, the author's relativistic attitude toward marriage and fidelity would be right at home in today's left-wing intellectual circles. Her gradual evolution towards a different attitude is the meat of the movie. Mirroring the situation in her book is the situation of the married couple, Greer Garson and Herbert Marshall. The fourth member of the group is Robert Taylor as a journalist whose surface gaiety hides a serious moral foundation.

The four actors make the movie much better than the script. Garson and Crawford strike sparks off each other in every scene they share. Herbert Marshall is suitably smooth and sleazy. But it's Robert Taylor in a role involving physical comedy whose work is the most impressive. As it turns out, he is the person most grounded in reality--and the hidden hand behind everything.

Everything has the expected MGM gloss--extravagant costumes, beautiful sets, excellent photography. Highly recommended.

Intelligent Drama and Screwball Comedy; Memorable

[silverscreen888 · 7/10 · 12 July 2005]

Rachel Crothers was one of the United States' best playwrights for decades. "He and She" and "When Ladies Meet" are her two best-known works. There was a good earlier version of this work; this remake has the benefit of stars of the caliber of Greer Garson as the wronged wife, Joan Crawford as the girl who wrongs her, Herbert Marshall as Garson's husband and Robert Taylor as the young man who loves Crawford. Robert Z. Leonard directed the film, with his usual skill in getting first-rate performances from his actors. The screenplay, adapted from the fine play by Anita Loos and S.K. Lauren, seldom seems as if it had been a stage work; and the scenes are opened out to include sailing and other outside scenes. The film boasts another lovely set by Cedric Gibbons, and some dense B/W style provided by the photography team. Music is by Bronislau Kaper, and in the talented cast along with the aforementioned quartet of well-cast actors the director gave us Spring Byington and several other good choices. But it is the plot in this highly-intelligent and understated contest between two women that drives every action; the theme of this important look at personal relations and the rules of commitment in partnerships is honesty--to oneself, and to one's partner. Garson thought she had a good marriage; Marshall may not have thought so, but he had no real reason to cheat, except to pretend to be Crawfor'd infallible mentor--a very unhealthy misassumption. Crawford thinks she is modern because she does not care why she is making herself momentarily happy; and Taylor loves Crawford for what she should be, not what she is. Byington, older and wiser, has taken on a 'husband' who is content to be her husband, and she has settled for his good points and agreed to put up with the rest on equal terms. The gimmick that works as a plot device here, cleverly, is that the two women in Marshall's life have never met; and when they do, Crawford still does not know who Garson is--or that she know her for what she is... In their parts, Garson is powerful, wonderfully intelligent and strong; Crawford does her best but apart from matching her charisma she cannot begin to match Garson's ethical screen presence. Robert Taylor plays his part as callow, charmingly young, and it is one of his best in energy, approach and timing. Marshall is professional in his part, but a bit old or staid to play a part that really required a Warren William or Walter Pigeon. .The lighting, the set decorations by Edwin B. Willis and the costumes are a great asset also. This is a very underrated.and intelligent look at "modern marriage", c. 1941. The upshot of the film is that Marshall realizes what he about to lose and is smart enough to try to earn Garson's love again, and that Crawford realizes what she was about to do for momentary pleasure by pretense, without even having earned it--with the possibility that Taylor may become to her what she had been fantasizing Marshall might be. This is always an interesting narrative, a very compelling mix of dramatic and character- revealing screwball satire elements. Highly recommended

No Ladies I Know Behave This Way....

[Keedee · 6/10 · 23 October 2001]

...but perhaps I don't know a lot of true ladies. I'm more shocked that Joan Crawford got top billing in this delightful little farce. Greer Garson stole the show and Robert Taylor's role was dashing and quite likeable. Spring Byington played the perfect hostess for the weekend "Dish of the Dames". The truly unbelievable thing was the casting of Herbert Marshall as Rogers Woodruff. Hard to imagine one woman, let alone two having such rapturous feelings for that character. Perhaps there's the reality in this story. After all, these things are rarely understood. I found, in this case, "When Ladies Meet", to be quite entertaining and being a die-hard Greer Garson fan, I highly recommend it!!

A lot to enjoy

[misctidsandbits · 24 September 2011]

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?

Love Story of art imitating Life

[sonyareyna11 · 7/10 · 19 January 2014]

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."

Surprising Upgrade

[ecapital46 · 7/10 · 13 September 2014]

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.

The Greer Garson show

[doc_brown · 6/10 · 9 May 2004]

Simple story, but some of the acting is marvelous, especially Greer Garson, who literally steals the movie. It was almost embarrassing to watch Joan Crawford try to act next to her. The difference of talent between the two women is unmistakable---Garson is leagues ahead.

Robert Taylor was also excellent, playing the mischievous suitor, comically bent on winning Joan Crawford's Mary Howard. I had previously only seen him melodrama, so watching him play a comedic role was very refreshing.

The story is a bit slow, but it picks up when Crawford and Garson meet towards the end of the picture. The dialog there is smart and thought provoking, and the talent of Garson really shines through.

Not a great movie, but worth a rental to catch some good acting from two of the studio era's greatest stars.

dated comedy/drama from MGM

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 27 April 2006]

"When Ladies Meet" stars Joan Crawford, Greer Garson, Robert Taylor, Herbert Marshall, and Spring Byington. It's a talky film obviously based on a play that starts out somewhat typically: A woman falls for a married man, but her boyfriend still loves her. The film turns to something else altogether "when ladies meet," i.e., the other woman and the wife. Greer Garson is the wife, married to Herbert Marshall, who plays Crawford's publisher, Rogers Woodruff, Crawford is Mary, the author/other woman, Taylor is the boyfriend, Jimmy, and Spring Byington is Bridget, a friend, in whose country house the big confrontations take place.

Like Norma Shearer's vehicle, "Her Cardboard Lover," a year later, this film looks and plays like a '30s leftover. Everyone is very good, and if Robert Taylor's broader attempts at comedy are a little forced, his physical comedy is quite funny, the scene in the boat being one of the best. Unlike his 20th Century Fox counterpart, Tyrone Power, Taylor was uncomplicated and not very ambitious. Devastatingly handsome, he was content at MGM for over 20 years - his big complaint once he was out of there was that he didn't know how to make dinner reservations. MGM would force Crawford out with bombs such as "Under Suspicion" two years later, but here, she gets top billing and does a good job as a woman who still has her romantic illusions. While Crawford and Taylor have comic moments, Herbert Marshall's role has none - he's deadly serious and oh, so sincere as he breathes his love for Mary.

But the show belongs to Greer Garson,. She has the best and the most sympathetic role as a woman who, despite numerous affairs, has loved and clung to her man. This and the constant talking make the movie somewhat dated - what woman would put up with such a serial philanderer after all (or, rather, admit to it) - but her character is extremely likable, her words heartfelt, her pain palpable, and she's stunning to look at as well.

Definitely worth seeing for the wonderful stars but not up to the usual quality of films these actors did. MGM was obviously going through a transition and recycling old material when the '40s hit. I think the 1933 version of this was probably superior if only due to it being more of its time.

A great film tribute to two amazing actresses

[cesmith7 · 10/10 · 27 April 2006]

I find the previous reviewer's comment about Greer and Davis' fans insulting. Every actor has their own way of acting.

Garson did an outstanding job in this film. Here MGM's big female stars (the older of the famous stars) are set to play opposite each other. One fighting to get the man, while the other fights to keep him. It is an amazing transition film, foreshadowing Crawford's replacement by Garson in a smooth and flattering setting to both of their incredible skills.

You can't compare their acting styles to each other when they are so different. "When Ladies Meet" is a showcase for both of their styles and they compliment each other.

This is a classic. I only wish they would put it out on DVD.

What Women Don't Know About Women!

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 31 January 2013]

The comparisons to Crawford's previous other women role in 1939's "The Women" will be many, but her character of Mary is as far from Crystal Allen as Green Garson's Claire is from Norma Shearer's overly noble Mary Haines. Novelist Crawford is in love with her publisher (Herbert Marshall) who is married to Garson, a witty woman who doesn't give any indication of why any man would cheat on her. Delightfully pleasant without being overly grand, Garson is an ideal wife, while Crawford incorrectly believes the wife she's never met (and knows nothing about) isn't exciting enough to care about. Thanks to Crawford's nosy admirer (Robert Taylor in a performance I found truly annoying), everybody ends up together at the country home of their dizzy friend, Spring Byington, where a friendly conversation between the two women brings everything out even though they have no idea of who the other one really is.

It is the long conversation between Crawford and Garson that stands out in this light-hearted romantic drama with definite comic overtones where wife and girlfriend (Crawford is certainly more important to Marshall than just a mistress) bond, discover the truth and come to some conclusions. The men too learn a thing or two about the women they love, loathe or cheat on, so everybody manages to grow up a little.

Rather dicey in the exploration of Byington's seemingly live-in relationship with a man she isn't married to. This is a rare example of how writers managed to get away with certain details that were overlooked by the very tough production code. Byington's dizzy Dora can be quite annoying at times, but ultimately you like her as well because she means well. Taylor, though, plays a truly meddlesome Lothario and the result, at least for me, was that I didn't want to see his character end up with anyone when everything comes out. It is Crawford and Garson who shine the most, their pairing obviously more congenial off-screen than Crawford's was with Shearer during the making of "The Women". The respect their characters have for each other during their introductory scenes shines through their admiration for each other personally.

A bit livelier than the original 1933 version, it focuses more on the light-heartedness here than the Ann Harding/Myrna Loy pairing did with that version's Noel Coward like drawing room comedy. That version featured a more memorable performance by the hostess character (Faye Bainter) who didn't play her like a dumbbell. The country setting of Byington's old barn turned into a country home is the visual highlight of the film, with a huge waterwheel churning water into the man-made pool, shrubbery surrounding the house and pond, and a quaint interior which is truly a delight to explore. This weekend in the country would be a delight just for that.

When Joan Crawford and Greer Garson meet

[marcslope · 5/10 · 27 December 2007]

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.

A comedy drama remake that's a notch above the original

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 5 December 2020]

"When Ladies Meet" is a 1941 remake of a 1933 film of the same title. Both are based on a 1932 Broadway play by Rachel Crothers. MGM must have liked it enough to remake it just eight years later, with an all new cast. And this is one of those few instances when the remake is a notch above the original. The story is a comedy drama - the rarest type of comedies.

The six main characters are the same. Most but not all the scenes are the same, and the bulk of the dialog in the same scenes is identical. My review of the 1931 film focused on the differences in the screenplays. Here I compare the characters and the actors in their roles. Anyone who hasn't seen the 1933 film should watch it also. The best roles vary between the two films, but this 1941 cast is better overall. By comparison, the plot is clearly more believable with three key performances in this film.

Mary Howard and Jimmy Lee have been friends for five years. She's a successful novelist and he's a newspaper journalist. Jimmy is madly in love with Mary, but she won't commit beyond friendship. Bridget Drake is a wealthy middle-aged widow socialite who is a friend of both. Mary changed publishers while Jimmy was away for a month on work, and she has fallen for her new publisher, Rogers Woodruf. He's a married man, but she thinks true, deep love trumps everything else. Rogers and Mary have been spending much time together evenings, to finish the last chapter of her new book.

Walter Manners is a bachelor architect whom Bridget had hired to completely redo her country home in Connecticut. He is an admirer, and probably in love with Bridget, but she keeps their relationship proper for the time being. Rounding out the main cast is Woodruf's wife, Clare.

The romance between Mary and Rogers is quite hard to believe in the 1933 film. Morgan's Woodruf appears at least 20 years older than Loy's Mary. Loy seems stiff in her role, and not as convincing, and Crawford's Mary seems closer in age to Marshall's Woodruf. Crawford also shows real naivete about loving a married man and what to expect. Morgan's role is clearly as a cad looking only for a relationship on the side. Marshall is more believable and shows his naivete at not thinking seriously about what divorce from Clare would mean.

While Robert Montgomery is okay as Jimmy Lee, Robert Taylor gives the role much more zest and enthusiasm for Mary. It's easy to believe he loves her madly. He seems more keenly aware of Woodruf's character, and cares more deeply that Mary not be hurt.

Spring Byington gives a very good performance as Bridget Drake in this film, but Alice Brady's performance in the 1933 film was exceptional. It is the best of all the performances in both films. She is picture perfect and believable as the wealthy middle-aged widow and socialite who is very scatterbrained yet quick and clever at times. Brady transitioned well from silent to sound films. She won an Oscar for best supporting actress in 1938 but died of cancer the next year, at age 46. Byington will be remembered more by movie fans from the mid-20th century on. Her career spanned four decades through the 1960s, and she was especially known for her matronly roles as a giddy, forgetful mother and wife in many comedies and dramas.

The role of Clare Woodruf is handled deftly and beautifully by both actresses who were established stars at the time. Ann Harding is very good as the wife of Rogers Woodruf, and the mother of his children. Harding's star had already risen as a dramatic actress. Note that in the 1933 film, the Woodruf's have children. In this 1941 film, they do not have children, but Greer Garson's Clare says she had hoped Rogers would settle down and that they might yet have a family. Garson has a slight edge in her role because she seems more pensive and animated in her discussions with Crawford's Mary.

Both of these films are very good. To enjoy them both, and compare them for quality and performances, one should watch the 1933 film first and then this one. This is mostly adult fare only because young audiences would probably find it too slow and even boring.

There are some deep lines with poignant discussions between Mary and Clare - all of the obviously serious aspects of a love triangle. The comedy is handled in witty comments and crispy rejoinders. Here are some samples. For much more interesting dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb movie Web page.

Bridget Drake, "Of course, there's no denying it - the only real unhappiness in life is losing a man. "

Jimmy Lee, "Someday, you're gonna go sailing off in a pink balloon and bump smack into Pike's Peak."

Bridget, "Mary's such a fool, but I love her for it. It makes me feel so close to her."

Jimmy, "Oh, baloney... He's nuts about you for the same reason I am, and it's not because your brainy."

Bridget, "If a woman must make a fool of herself, the least a man can do is let her be one in her own way."

Mary Howard, "Do you believe most men think somebody else wants them?" Clare Woodruf, "Of course. And somebody usually does."

Bridget, "You know, I think we're awfully cozy, we three. You see, most women who know anything treat me as though I didn't. But you and Mary don't."

Mary, "Oh, I adore Bridgie. She's the most intelligent fool I've ever known."

Clare, "But, surely you must have known that even a different woman resents being cast aside."

Walter Del Canto, "What in the world are you doing down here, Bridget?" Bridget, "Me? I'm a ship in the fog tooting a horn."

Declare It A Draw

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 27 December 2007]

When Ladies Meet was the second version of Rachel Crothers play that was on Broadway in the early Thirties. And of course by the title you can tell it's one of those 'women's' pictures. The type of women who lead lives very much different than most women in Depression Era America.

Taking over the roles in the first film version played by Ann Harding and Myrna Loy are Joan Crawford and Greer Garson. Crawford's a novelist who's being given the full courtship by her publisher Herbert Marshall. This is an old game for Marshall who keeps two timing his wife Greer Garson who's perennially taking him back.

But we've got a fourth in the mix here in the person of playboy Robert Taylor. Taylor's taking over for Robert Montgomery and while he doesn't quite have Montgomery's light touch for drawing room comedy, still puts over his part with aplomb.

Still this film is a battle for the women and I'd have to declare it a draw. Crawford too is a bit out of her league, she's going for a part that her rival Norma Shearer would have played let alone Ann Harding in the first version. But Garson is very well cast as the ever forgiving wife.

And Herbert Marshall? I can't think of a more dignified philanderer ever in screen history. He plays it as noble and as righteous as Horace Giddens in The Little Foxes where he was a wronged party.

This version of When Ladies Meet is not a bad one and two of the stars are showing a bit of range in not playing parts they normally would be in.

When Ladies Meet... the Audience Yawns

[mikhail080 · 5/10 · 8 May 2010]

A stylish showcase for some of MGM's top stars of the classic era -- Joan Crawford, Robert Taylor and Greer Garson in the second adaptation of a successful Broadway romantic "dramedy." It was aired on TCM, recently as part of their salute to Robert Taylor, and it's a movie that this Joan Crawford fan had never seen! From the start, it's readily evident that MGM has given full reign to their excellent production designers throughout the movie, and it certainly looks as great as any production from that studio in the 1940s. The interiors are lavish and artfully decorated, and the few exterior sequences look fantastic and are expertly filmed in MGM's highest standards of production. And certainly an in-depth review of just the costume design could be possible!

Unfortunately though, the dramatic proceedings presented are much too refined and diluted to be of much interest today, since the drawing room dialog and the plot convolutions seem somewhat antiquated -- if not downright clichéd. Today movies like this can only be wholeheartedly recommended to hardcore "completists" of the stars or the Studio.

Workman-like director Robert Z. Leonard fails to add much punch to the story line of a "love rectangle" involving the three leads, plus Herbert Marshall -- who takes the role of the object of affection of both Crawford and Garson! Crawford is a lady novelist, whose newest book reflects her own personal life, in a plot device that becomes labored at times. Taylor is Crawford's former lover and now platonic best friend, and Marshall is her doting publisher. Garson plays Marshall's somewhat uninvolved, ultra-sophisticated and globe-trotting wife. And apparently both women prefer Herbert Marshall's extremely subtle charms over that of dashing Robert Taylor, which is a plot point that would leave audiences scratching their heads.

The great stars struggle here to inject some sparkle to the proceedings, but the end result is somewhat of a great big yawn. On a positive note, fans of outrageous Hollywood fashion would find much here to appreciate, with some extreme gowns by Adrian worn with panache by the female leads, especially Joan Crawford, whose hooded gown in the opening scene is especially memorable and decidedly impractical.

Greer Garson appears at the height of her luminous beauty, and even though she doesn't make her entrance till nearly halfway through the film, manages to equal Crawford's expert photogenic appeal. Spring Byington is also on hand to supply much of the comic element, doing one of her ditsy takes on an open-minded society lady, who may have taken a somewhat effeminate interior decorator (Rafael Storm, in an amusing role) as a lover.

Never before or since, have two beautiful woman clashed so politely and in such a refined manner. The viewer would have been better served if the writers (Anita Loos included) had turned up the heat, cranked up the volume, and let loose with a little real raw emotion!

**1/2 out of *****

Not what you think...

[JasparLamarCrabb · 6/10 · 16 August 2014]

At first glance one would think this meeting of Joan Crawford & Greer Garson would end up a camp classic. It doesn't, thanks largely to the presence of the classy (nearly regal) Garson and the absence of any real howlers in the script. Crawford is an author in love with her publisher (Herbert Marshall). Trouble making Robert Taylor creates a situation that allows Crawford to meet Marshall's wife and what could have been a Cukoresque bitch-fest is instead a fairly involving romantic comedy. Director Robert Z. Leonard keeps a tight reign on things, with Garson's even keeled performance rubbing off on the usually over-the-top Crawford. These ladies actually have real chemistry and their abetted by an unusually strong cast. In addition to Marshall and Taylor, there's the inimitable Spring Byington as Crawford's confidante, a flighty society doyenne who turns out to be a bit brighter than expected. Byington also appeared in the 1932 stage production.

With this cast, the film should have been a lot better.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 29 March 2010]

This film earns a 6 purely because of the good acting and the usual MGM polish. However, the plot itself really disappointed--it should have been a lot better.

The film begins with a writer (Joan Crawford) all giddy because she's fallen in love with a man (Herbert Marshall). The problem, however, is that he's married! And the man who inexplicably wants Crawford (Robert Taylor) decides the best way to break up this elicit romance is to introduce the "other woman" to the sweet and very, very long-suffering wife (Greer Garson). However, there are many, many problems with the plot:

1. Why would Marshall want Crawford? Garson is a lovely wife and generally played Mary Poppins-like wives that are "practically perfect in every way" in all her films.

2. Why would Taylor want a woman who is having an affair with a married man?

3. Why would Garson put up with Marshall when she knows about his many infidelities?

4. Why would the two women handle the affair so civilly and nicely? While not every wife would "get Jerry Springer" on the other woman, almost none would be as sickeningly sweet, forgiving and understanding. And, for that matter, the other woman by her very nature is selfish--why would she suddenly feel guilty?

5. Why would the audience want to see such a tame "altercation"? There were no fireworks....nothing!

Overall, an incredibly dull film with lovely acting (particularly by Garson) and a nice polish. So, it looks good but is pretty empty. And, now that I think about it, a lot like the similarly dull "The Grass is Greener".

Entertaining Dingbattery

[cdale-41392 · 7/10 · 5 April 2019]

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!

Lady romance

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 7 August 2018]

When hearing of 'When Ladies Meet', it is hard not to feel excited and have good expectations for it. There are many talented people involved here, and with a cast featuring Joan Crawford, Greer Garson, Robert Taylor, Herbert Marshall and Spring Byington and seeing them in the same film who can't resist. Also have a love for films of the classic/golden era of Hollywood.

Seeing 'When Ladies Meet', it is definitely an above average and very watchable film. It also could have been better and was a little disappointing considering how good on paper the cast were and how interesting the concept was. Haven't seen the earlier 'When Ladies Meet' for a while, but do remember it being a better film with a superior cast and a much sharper and meatier script. Here's to hoping that that remains the same re-watching it, generally re-watches tend to be pretty much the same opinions wise, there are instances where a film is better on re-watch or one where it is hard to figure out what made me like it in the first place but not an awful lot.

A lot of great things. 'When Ladies Meet' was clearly made with elegance and polish, it looks very handsome in the costumes and sets and the film's beautifully shot. It's scored in a way that doesn't intrude yet makes its presence known when needed. The second half is better than the first, with the pacing tighter, the interaction sparkling more and the script more thought-provoking and sharper. The direction feels more assured too.

Greer Garson steals the show in 'When Ladies Meet', her natural charm truly shines and she and Joan Crawford, also very good, work very well together towards the end. Robert Taylor looks relaxed and confident, which to me has not always been the case and Spring Byington is delightfully funny in ditzy mode.

Unfortunately, Herbert Marshall, in a boorish role with underwritten dialogue and in no way suitable for a love interest (as you don't understand what can be seen in him), looks like he didn't want to be there and takes it too seriously without the light touch that the others had.

Also found the first half a bit lacking, with too much of a staid and taking-a-little-too-long-to-get-going approach to the storytelling, which wasn't as fresh or as interesting. The script is much sharper later and can be too lightweight and coarse in the early stages and not saying an awful lot illuminating. The direction didn't feel as natural as it did later, competent certainly but could have done with more spark.

In conclusion, decent and above average but was expecting more. 6/10 Bethany Cox

It's All About The Written Word

[tolerford-1 · 9/10 · 22 August 2011]

Overlooking the poor acting in everyone but Byington, the silly wardrobe and the slow plot, the screen writing adapted from the novel hits the nail on the head, coming to its climactic precision in the conversation between Garson and Crawford near the end. The writing in that scene from 1941, though I don't read romance novels, I would bet outshines any similar effort in any romance novel since. It's intricate, well-woven, and so comprehensible it resonates.

The author of the novel, I learned here at IMDb, has many other works. That doesn't surprise me.

There were snatches where both Garson and Crawford were good, but they were just moments. Taylor and Marshall left a lot to be desired, but Byington was adorable as usual, as the flibbertigibbet. Even when she overdoes it, you know better is coming fast.

Truth and Consequence....

[rbrb · 7/10 · 17 March 2012]

Entertaining flick, taken from a stage play.

Writer is in love with her womanizer publisher who is already married.

The writer's boy friend for his own motives sets the writer up to meet the publishers' wife with interesting consequences.

The picture starts slowly but gets a up a head of steam and:

I expected an explosive climax, but this is not that kind of film, nevertheless a clever story with an intelligent script.

In my opinion the 2 male leads ought to have switched roles.In any event an enjoyable and watchable movie deserving:

7/10

Interesting for completists

[HeathCliff-2 · 5/10 · 4 September 2010]

I had a bit of hard time sticking with this movie to the end. I don't normally force myself to watch movies that are lugubrious, but I was curious on several fronts. Firstly, this movie has been out of release, and only recently available through Warner Archives/ Classic Flix, so I'm one of those completists curious to see it. I find as time goes by, that the artifice of the MGM glossy films circa 1940 to 1945 done in this exact high-style - lavish sets and costumes, arch dialogue, drawing-room sensibilities - are hard to take - and I'm someone who is forgiving of, and loves, old movies! I'm fascinated by the MGM pix of this period because of how many are quite bad - and while "Metro" was riding the wave of its success, these films were the beginning of their undoing, as well. This was generally a really bad period for Joan Crawford, as we all know, saddled with mostly bad material, and hampered by her aspiration to be "a great lady of cinema" a la Norma Shearer. Her personal upward mobility from humble roots tainted her work, because she had a personal need to assume the drawing- room enunciation and lady-of-the-manor mannerisms, both of which are so phony in this film - and a blatant contradiction to her natural street-smart roots. I find Joan painfully bad in this movie - so needing to be who she's not. As I watched, I ached for her to shake off her personal psychodrama, as she would 4 years later when she was pushed to authenticity with Mildred Pierce - probably the first time on-camera that there was real grit and edge in her performance, that something was scraped away and you could feel her rawness. The catalyst, for the breakthrough, as we know, was that her artistic and professional career were in jeopardy. As for Greer Garson, her natural charisma, grace and screen presence are quite astonishing - she just draws your eye, and radiates. It's so easy to see why she became a star so quickly, and why audiences (and Louis B. Mayer) loved her. Not the best actress, but very natural in front of a camera, and luminous. I am in conflict with other writers here about Herbert Marshall, who I have always been attracted to for his otherworldly calm and inner sense of goodness. I can see the attraction, even though he isn't overtly dazzling, like Robert Taylor. I find Taylor, like Crawford, is a "movie star" more than actor, and you see him trying to rise to the occasion here in a persona and style of acting that is not in sync with who he is. As I watched, I speculated that this role might have been written for Clark Gable circa 1941 - mischievous, winking, self-aware, dashing, irrascible - but Taylor's performance was forced, a carbon copy of Gable or Robert Montgomery, or even Ray Milland (though he was actually better than I would have expected.) I also found Spring Byington a copy of Alice Brady and Billie Burke - not bad, but a bit forced, like Robert Taylor and Joan Crawford. In fact, I could imagine this script written for Gable, Claudette Colbert and other stars - but they cast who was available. As for the costumes, they weren't as over the top as some MGM films, but, as someone else commented, that ludicrous gardening outfit that Joan Crawford wears - an enormous picture hat, a padded-shoulder dress with gingham inserts that carries through to a matching gingham trim on the hat, and the same fabrics on the elbow- length gardening gloves - is fabulously preposterous, and an embodiment of the total disconnect from reality that infuses this movie. As for the plot, it's dated drawing-room fare with a single mise-en-scene that worked for me -- when the two "ladies" finally realize their respective identities. There was genuine tension and emotion, and a certain authenticity in tone and feelings. Other than that, MGM cake frosting.

The movie is worth the rental cost

[Rastamon41 · 9/10 · 25 October 2006]

I bought this movie starring Joan Crawford, Greer Garson and Robert Taylor and the earlier version starring Myrna Loy, Robert Montgomery and Ann Harding. I have to say they should have used Myrna Loy rather than Joan Crawford in the new version, because Greer Garson stole the movie. Joan Crawford spent most of the earlier part of the movie fumbling with her exotic gown, in an attempt to draw attention to the gown and the person wearing it, which of course is Joan Crawford.

If you get past Joan Crawford non-acting, and Herbert Marshall stiffness, then the movie is rather funny. Greer Garson and Robert Taylor carry this movie, if is rather funny, but I can't understand why any woman would prefer Herbert Marshall over the suave and good looking Robert Taylor. You ladies reading this review, please explain that to me. Even though I like this movie, I think the acting in earlier version was better especially Myrna Loy's acting. She is a better actress than Joan Crawford, at least in these two similar movies.

This movie is a two woman in love with the same man Herbert Marshall (Rogers Woodruff), Greer Garson (Clare) is his wife, and Joan Crawford (Mary) is his lover. Why would these two beautiful women love this stiff man, I don't know, especially when they could both have Robert Taylor. Robert Taylor (Jimmy) is Joan Crawford's (Mary) old boyfriend, who realized that Herbert Marshall (Clare's husband, Rogers Woodruff) is not in love with Mary, he just wanted to sleep with her, he warns Mary, but she don't believe him, so he introduce Mary to Clare without telling Mary that Clare is Rogers Woodruf's wife, whom he Rogers Woodruff still loves. Once Mary finds out that Rogers Woodruff was lying to her, and only using her, she stated she is ashamed of her life and ashamed for sleeping with him, she also realized that the person who really loves her and really cares for her is Jimmy, you guess it. Jimmy finally gets her girlfriend back, who ends up being his wife, who will give him the six kids he wants, or maybe only two.

Bad beyond belief

[todlane04 · 1/10 · 1 January 2008]

Romance novelist Joan Crawford falls in love with married publisher Herbert Marshall. Crawford meets his wife, Greer Garson, at the home of loopy blabbermouth Spring Byington. Hard to say which is sillier, the acting, the plot, the dialog, the furniture or the clothes. Bad beyond belief. Hollywood at its phoniest. Reissued with the title "Strange Skirts," this has to be a drag queen's dream come true and a feminist's worst nightmare. A women's picture in the worst sense of the phrase. At one point, Greer Garson says "I've discovered it doesn't pay to be capable. Husbands don't approve." Herbert Marshall, supposedly a Don Juan, acts more like an undertaker. Points of interest: the producer's name is Dull, Joan Crawford and Greer Garson duet on a tune that's possibly the worst movie song ever, Robert Taylor and Herbert Marshall drive the exact same car, Spring Byington's rather effeminate male escort is her "decorator," and Joan Crawford's spacious Manhattan apartment is in the shadow of the Brooklyn Bridge but she blithely leaves her front door unlocked while she gardens and sprays DDT wearing white elbow length gloves that match her dress and hat. Unintentional laughs galore.

Though not Crawford's best 1941 film . . .

[pixrox1 · 9/10 · 18 January 2014]

. . . (that would be A WOMAN'S FACE), this movie has the novelty of being the only pairing between the old face of MGM--Crawford--and the Roaring Lion's new visage, the future Mrs. Miniver herself, Greer Garson. Crawford's tyrannical ways had worn out her welcome at Tara, and Garson was several years away from ruining her own Reign on the Mane by wedding "Mrs. Miniver's" son in Hollywood's version of reality. However, when Joan and Greer's characters finally get to have their wildly-anticipated heart-to-heart toward the end of WHEN LADIES MEET, there is no talk of wire hangers or virtual incest. Instead, they have a highly contrived conversation about a "hypothetical" love triangle that the viewers already know is Hyper-Actual. Herbert Marshall's performance as the man in their middle is so smarmy that it's hard to imagine the women in a theater audience NOT loudly hissing collectively whenever he's on-screen. On the other hand, Robert Taylor as a thinner, wise-cracking good guy with a mustache is so similar to William Powell or Don Ameche's usual performances, it's surprising that those three were not born triplets in real life.

Joan Crawford versus Greer Garson

[Pat-54 · 5/10 · 23 September 1998]

Joan Crawford is the star of this film, but Greer Garson steals every scene she's in. Crawford also realized that the Garson was being given all the plum parts at M-G-M, and one year after this film was made, Crawford left the studio that had been her home since 1925.