Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

Charming, slight piece of entertainment sold by it top lined stars and almost scuttled by its featured player.Ginger Rogers and Paul Douglas are most happily matched as the formerly married couple who are still best friends, a great Broadway star and her producer. Their interchanges are expertly played by two pros who are easy in each others company and really seem like they would have been together for years. Her gentle ribbing of him over back alimony is sweet and believable and actually provides a bit of insight into her character. She doesn't really expect to ever get it but neither does she ever plan to write it off either nor does she let get in the way of their relationship.William Holden's part is secondary to the story although he is prominently featured due to his star status. He is his usual charismatic self making the minor part much better than it is. One ironic note is that in a story about Ginger Roger's character realizing she's too old for the ingénue role in Holden's play they cast an actor who is too old for his part. The playwright the way he is referenced should be in his early twenties, Holden extremely handsome and youthful though he may be is 35 if he's a day. He can't be held responsible for that since contract actors were routinely assigned parts at the studios whim.Where the picture runs into trouble is the performance of Pat Crowley in what clearly was planned as a star making part. That didn't happen most probably due to the fact that as directed a more annoying, grating, jejune enactment of a character couldn't be possible. As she constantly proclaims that she is a great talent and better than anyone could imagine you want to push her out of the frame. The actress who did go on to some degree of fame, most notably as the star of TV's Please Don't Eat the Daisies, has proved to be an enjoyable presence elsewhere so the direction must be at fault but she really is hammy and unpleasant here.Many fine character actors, James Gleason, Jesse White, George Reeves, Maidie Norman etc., add nice little touches throughout and hey look in one short scene its the future Mrs. C herself: Marion Ross just starting out.A good comedy played by experts just ignore the ham-bone on the side of the action.

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.

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.