Forever Female (1953)

Good concept, poorly executed.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

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).

This 1954 film features Ginger Rogers and William Holden with a nice supporting role played by Paul Douglas as Ginger Roger's ex-husband. Ginger Rogers was in her early forties at the time of this film and played an actress not totally accepting of her age. The public still loved her but playing a 29 year old was beginning to strain credibility. William Holden played an unknown playwright with a play featuring the relationship of a 19 year old and her mother. The role was rewritten so that Ginger Rogers could play a 29 year old, once again. Won't go further into the story but I found it interesting that Ginger Rogers was brave enough to play a role like this where age was a focus. It was a surprise to see an older Ginger Rogers after only having seen her earlier movies. Overall this film was entertaining with a nice mix of comedy and drama. Well worth the time to watch.

Playwright William Holden finds he can't handle leading lady Ginger Rogers, whom he miscasts in his play, presenting her as a 29 year old when she should play the character's mother instead. Rogers is an aging actress who won't face the music about the age while promising actress Patricia Crowley is anxious to play the role Holden had originally conceived to be 19. Crowley, who sounds amazingly like Ginger, tries to win Ginger's love (and the part) while Rogers' producer ex-husband Paul Douglas fights his undying feelings for her (admitting that their marriage was horrid) while keeping her career going.The obvious comparisons to "All About Eve" (complete with Broadway archetypes such as press agent Jesse White) can't be avoided (much of the story is set in Sardi's), but this is more of a spoof of that great drama with obvious camp moments. Hollywood doesn't always do justice to its presentations of what life in the theatre is like, but this one manages to be acceptable. Like he did in 1950's "Sunset Boulevard", Holden plays a writer, but this character is as far from the role of Joe as you can get; In fact, his character works part-time in a grocery store! Rogers, still beautiful and charming (as her actress on screen is constantly referred to as), seems to enjoy spoofing her image, but is much less caustic than Bette Davis's Margo Channing in "All About Eve", and Crowley's starlet (who does refrigerator commercials) is no Eve Harrington. Crowley, later a star of sitcoms ("Please Don't Eat the Daisies") and soaps ("Generations", "Port Charles") is a promising ingénue (getting special billing as the film ends), but is far too young for Holden.Overall, the film is interesting, basically a well-written sitcom with some nice character performances by veteran James Gleason as Holden's Broadway pal and Maidie Norman ("Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?") as Rogers' maid.

This film was made in the shadow of ALL ABOUT EVE, and paints a more benign view of that film's central situation. Ginger Rogers plays a leading Broadway star, who retains a close relationship with her former husband (Paul Douglas), and works closely with playwright William Holden (possibly a softer build-up for his play director in Bing Crosby's/Grace Kelly's THE COUNTRY GIRL). Pat Crowley, a younger woman of some acting talent, is trying to break into the circles that cast and produce Broadway plays (she is doing mostly off-Broadway work). The relationship of these four characters are the basis of this comedy.There are differences between the situation here and the situation in EVE. There was more of an atmosphere of the theater and it's traditions in EVE (because Joseph Mankiewicz writes literate scripts, and was determined to show what goes on behind the stage curtains). But there Bette Davis has gotten trapped into a lonely greatness on stage, and she turns out to be willing to vacate her pedestal if she can have a human life with Gary Merrill. She just does not like the way Anne Baxter is trying to replace her in her parts - Baxter's underhanded methods are despicable. Crowley is not Baxter. She genuinely admires Rogers, and just wants entry (which she may get through Holden). It is just that Rogers is still clinging to her youth - Holden is her last chance for such a cling when they go out together. But even Rogers realizes that she is beyond the point of return. In fact, towards the end of the film the audience and Holden and Crowley discover that Rogers actually gives herself a long summer vacation where she can wear softer, easier clothing and eat as much as she wants to. In the end she accepts that the scepter is passed, but she still has her old husband/friend/and continuous argument partner Douglass to play with.