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).

With a trio of hugely talented actors (Rogers, Holden and Douglas) and a script written by the Epstein Brothers (who wrote Casablanca) this viewer was expecting a delightful comedy. Alas, alas, alas, this is a clunker of monumental proportions with an AWFUL script (adapted from a play by J.M. Barrie -- who wrote Peter Pan) and painfully sluggish direction by Irving Rapper (who directed four of Better Davis' better movies). The script has the appearance of being thrown together beside a Hollywood swimming pool over a weekend with the minimum of thought or imagination. The characters' actions and motives are horribly unconvincing and do such a huge disservice to the three actors in the main roles. The ingenue role, played by Pat Crowley, who at the end of the movie is proudly proclaimed as a future Paramount star (ever heard of her, outside of television?) is endlessly irritating. Watching her act, this viewer couldn't help but think how much better the young Debbie Reynolds would have been in the role. Luckily for her, she was an MGM star and missed being saddled with this awful dreck. With undertones of All About Eve, a younger actress coveting a role played by an older actress, the story is leaden and dull in the extreme. Aside from consigning this one to the vaults and slamming the door shut FOREVER, one is left with such a feeling of sadness for so much dazzling talent so badly wasted.

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.

An aging Broadway star, Beatrice Page, receives an interesting proposal from an aspiring playwright, Stanley Krown. While loving the play Stanley has written with her in mind, the fact remains she is much older than what the role calls for. Unfortunately, she is put in a dilemma. Because of her position in the theater community, she cannot accept anything but a starring role.Harry Phillips, Beatrice former husband, has remained in friendly terms with the actress. He sees the possibilities with the play, and although he realizes the basic age problem, he goes ahead with the plans for bringing it to Broadway for the next season, something that he has no idea of the problems he will encounter. For one thing, the piece needs a lot of reworking. One problem with Stanley, he is a working man, who must work for a living, making it even harder to work on the revisions.When Beatrice falls in love for Stanley, Harry is beside himself. To make things worse, an aspiring actress, Sally Carver, who had auditioned for the younger woman part, keeps turning up uninvited, and she too has a strong opinion about Stanley's play, which she wants to see it gets the right production.This comedy was written by Julius and Phillip Epstein, the authors of that classic, "Casablanca". Irving Rapper, the director, gives the film a good pace. Some of the comments compare the situation with the much better "All About Eve", something that is far from being the case. The take on the theatrical world of Broadway of that era offers a nostalgic trip back to when the New York stage presented more serious work, now dominated by musicals and Disney fare.This was a Ginger Rogers' vehicle. Although not one of her best appearances, she makes us believe she was the star at a crucial point of her career, perhaps something Ms. Rogers was experiencing herself. Pat Crowley plays the perky young actress who gets on everyone's nerves. William Holden's Stanley was not exactly a great role for him; he is seen as the playwright being manipulated by the star and everyone else. The excellent Paul Douglas is seen as Harry, the patient man that loves his former wife in a peculiar way.The supporting cast shows some of the best character actors working in movies at that time. James Gleason and Jesse White do their reliable contribution. Kathryn Grant, who went to become Mrs. Bing Crosby, has a small part; also Marion Ross, who made a splash on television in "Happy Days", plays a hopeful actress.