vert001 The topic of aging actresses seemed to be in the Hollywood air of the early fifties, perhaps because the great generation of thirties' actresses had reached middle-age by then, an age poisonous to their career arcs whether justifiably so or not. There are many parallels between the real life of Ginger Rogers and the character that she plays (Beatrice Page) in FOREVER FEMALE, a real Hollywood rather than a fictional Broadway female. Ginger was then in her early forties, had often played younger than she was but was at the point where that wasn't plausible anymore, had just married a considerably younger man (Jacques Bergerac), would retreat to her ranch in Oregon to rest and recuperate from the pressures of stardom, and had no intention of retiring from the acting profession even if she realized that things would be different for her in the future. The similarities could hardly have escaped her attention when she studied the script.However, on a deeper emotional level she probably wasn't playing herself. As I recall it, Ginger played divas at least three times, in WEEKEND AT THE WALDORF, FOREVER FEMALE and BLACK WIDOW. They are variations based on a similar template, and she seems to have approached these characters from the outside, as if they were the products of her observations and mimicry abilities, which were considerable. The chorus girls and radio singers and shop girls of her earlier career she seemed to grasp from within; in any event, she seemed more suited to such roles. But like for Beatrice Page, those days were over for Ginger whether she wanted them to be or not. There's a sense of vague desperation to her performance here, and genuine emotional depth is only reached towards the end, a rather greater depth than the Epsteins provided in their writing, I think. The script and the production of the film are marred by a lot of odd contradictions. Rogers intentionally plays Beatrice somewhat over- the-top, as is mandatory for any proper diva, but the hammiest performance by far comes from Patricia Crowley, who practically shouts her way through every line. Between her idiotic 'Siamese' this and 'Siamese' that, and her repeated silly name changes, she is, indeed, about as irritating a character as I have ever come across. Trying to sell that character as a great young actress was as impossible as trying to sell Patricia Crowley as Paramount's hottest new star. FOREVER FEMALE probably never had the 'oomph' to be a major success, but the publicity campaign that it received concentrating on Crowley's prowess surely served as a final nail in its coffin.William Holden played the kind of naive doofus that he'd been saddled with for most of the 1940s, but after SUNSET BOULEVARD such roles seemed terribly inappropriate for him and I believe that he's miscast here. In fact, Holden was much closer in age to Ginger Rogers than he was to the much younger Patricia Crowley, so how is Ginger making a fool of herself in going after him while he winds up naturally paired to Pat? The casting works against the themes of the film. Paul Douglas, however, is rock solid as always.I'm really being too hard on FOREVER FEMALE, wishing for what it might have been rather than appreciating it for what it is. The writers of CASABLANCA, a trio of leads with enormous accomplishments, an interesting subject which is handled with some wit, FOREVER FEMALE is a decent movie. It's just that it should have been a whole lot more than decent.

Alana Fu There are two story lines in this film: A, the birth of a play; B, the love story between an actress(Bea) and a playwright(Stanley). I suppose B is the main line since the film is called Forever Female. But then Stanley struggle so much with the play, and Sally took up so many scenes(while the love line between Philip and Bea was relatively neglected), it seems A would be the main line? But then the story ended with Philip and Bea getting married again, so that means B is the main line?But it's not really important as which story to follow as how well the characters are developed thru the story. All the characters in this film are wonderfully colorful:Sally, a young actress with a lot of drive and passion, is one of the most annoying characters I've seen in movies. She has all the confidence/arrogance in the world god knows where she gets it. Then she changed to a complete different person in the course of 2 months? Less than that? And Stanley, a refreshing farmer turned playwright, a very strong character in the beginning of the film, fell in love with Sally for whatever reason, and didn't realized it until he saw her transformation, lost his character towards the end of the film. Both of the characters and their relationship seem impractical and irrational to me. (William Holden does fall for strange women doesn't he? Network 1976?)On the other hand, Bea the amazing actress with a heart of gold and her ever so supportive husband Philip, are very likable people. Bea literally made Sally a star, even tho nobody mentioned it or thank her for it. She's sensual, understanding, a character made of blood and flesh(like the scene at the airport). Philip is always her guardian angel. It's corny that they got back together in the end, nevertheless their relationship is admirable.In all, the film is packed with interesting refreshing details(strawberries, celery..) and some wonderful lines, the story is a bit disappointing, and definitely not enough Ginger Rogers (way too much Pat Crowley, whose acting could be improved largely too).

MartinHafer This is a very good film that manages to entertain even though one of the characters was atrociously written. The film begins with a cocky young playwright (William Holden) being discovered. Although he's managed to offend a famous Broadway star (Ginger Rogers), he's also impressed her with his talent and good looks. The problem is that she wants to star in his play--even though she is WAY too old for the part. Even though they re-write it for her to play a character 10 years older, she still is too old for the part. But he wants the play to be produced and he's also in love with her. What's he to do?! And, what's he to do about Sally Carver--a spunky young actress who would be perfect for the part? While Holden, Rogers and Paul Douglas all did great because they were real professionals and their parts were well written, I couldn't say the same for Pat Crowley (who played Sally). Although her character was supposed to be very eager and raw, she often came off as annoying and obnoxious. Her constant use of the word 'Siamese' and brash persona really turned me off--as I am sure it did for the audience. It's surprising, since the studio appeared to be grooming her for stardom--and the film's credits point out that she's a new discovery. But, if you can block out her character (at least until she evolves into a REALISTIC person later in the film), you will see a cool film--one that gives Rogers a chance to stretch herself and play a riskier role--an actress whose vanity is getting in the way of common sense. Well worth seeing.

lora64 This is reminiscent of the theatrics in "All About Eve" but with a sympathetic, light comedic twist to it. There is Ginger Rogers as Beatrice the mature, aging actress who is intent on impressing everyone with the idea that she is 29, no more, no less, and capable of taking on the new female role that's in the works. It doesn't go over too well with a young actress named Sally, played by Pat Crowley, who is willing to charge into every obstacle on her way to 'reaching the top' as an actress. She is very adept at changing her stage name to suit the occasion and meet the needs of the day.It is great seeing Paul Douglas in top form, here as Beatrice's "ex" yet still devoted to her and her career, but sometimes he does reach the limit of his patience with her. One wonders what other fine, maturer roles he may have had in his career but unfortunately his life was cut short through illness.William Holden as Stanley the playwright is, as ever, one handsome leading man. He gets entangled emotionally with the two actresses, not sure what to think or which way to turn.This is an age-old comment of the times that's still prevalent in society, of women's role in life being most appealing when young but having no place when they reach "a certain age." I think these days society is more accepting of the mature, older woman, thanks to woman's lib activity of past decades as well as some outstanding actresses who have influenced opinions and flourished in their senior years, such as Angela Lansbury, Maureen O'Hara, Lauren Bacall, Joan Collins and Kate Hepburn.