Forever, Darling (1956)

Very disappointing...

Simply A Masterpiece

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Forever Darling was one of the attempts to make Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, arguably the hottest show business couple at the time this came out to make a jump to the big screen as a comedy team. It was mildly amusing, like a long episode of I Love Lucy.The passion's just kind of gone out of the marriage of Lucy and Desi, sadly as it was in real life. She's a socialite and he's a scientist and that was the part of the film that I had the most trouble swallowing.So after one boring evening once too often with Lucy's idiot cousin Natalie Schaefer and husband Ralph Dumke, Desi's ready to call it quits. But Lucy's guardian angel who appears in the form of her favorite movie star James Mason advises that she take more of an interest in Desi's work as a scientist. He's looking for the ultimate bug spray.Lucy's not an outdoor girl, but she goes on a camping trip with Desi and that last third of the film is just one I Love Lucy episode. The inflatable rubber raft truly gets the better of both of them.As for Mason he has an extended sequence when Lucy and Desi are watching a film that stars James Mason and Lucy in a blond wig. Mason satirizes himself rather nicely. For the rest of the film he looks somewhat uncomfortable.Fans of Lucille Ball and they sure are legion in the part of the country I reside in which is Western New York state should be pleased with Forever Darling. But three episodes of I Love Lucy will satisfy your craving better.

I think even die-hard Lucy fans, if pressed, would have to admit that there was something missing here in both the story line and the comedy elements. The Lucy/Ricky charisma of the TV show just wasn't there, and in retrospect, it's a bit sad to realize that the trouble in the Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz marriage was being recreated in the dialog between their characters in this film. You wouldn't have known it at the time of course because these things were kept hush-hush for the sake of the TV show; I didn't know it back then because I was just a kid watching and enjoying "I Love Lucy". Oh well, one grows up to have those illusions shattered.At least they look good together on screen, especially in the Technicolor format, even if they're fighting with each other most of the time. James Mason steps in as the ostensible guardian angel to try and help things along in the troubled marriage, but even he's absent once things get rolling during the camping trip. The 'Shadows of Africa' movie interlude had me going for a while, thinking it was a real movie credit for Mason until Ms. Ball showed up as the replacement Jungle Lady for the uncredited Marilyn Maxwell. That was probably the cleverest device the picture offered.Back to that camping trip, I couldn't help thinking that the film makers borrowed a page from the Western genre when Ricky, er, Lorenzo Vega serenaded Susan (that would be Lucy) by the campfire with the title song. That was the highlight of the picture for my money, better than the tent gimmick or Susan's sleeping bag hip-hop that might have been better served with a laugh track, but otherwise just ho-hum within the story itself. For TV and movie fans, the other nice diversions were the characters of Nancy Kulp as the Vega's easily irritated housemaid, and Natalie Schafer in a decade prior warm-up for the role of wealthy Mrs. Thurston Howell on 'Gilligan's Island'. All said and done though, you're better entertained watching any single episode of "I Love Lucy".

Nothing I add here will help this film, of course, unless you're a Lucy fan. For once, her energy doesn't work and she fails to do much of anything: romance, comedy or otherwise. As H.L. Menken once said 'it both shines and stinks like rotting mackerel'. Too bad. This is the last film Arnaz and Ball made together. Arnaz will never be seen again as an 'A' list star. Went right to the 'C' list. Not Ball, who not only survives but will go on to even greater heights and prosperity. Arnaz, the other way.Sort of shows just who had the talent in the family.'Forever, Darling' was supposed to be the first of many Desilu films. The studio, known only for TV selected this film as their first project. The poor box office and critical reception it received led Arnaz to scrap those plans and close Desilu Films as well as his production company (Zenra). Desilu would not make another film until the 1968 release of 'Yours, Mine and Ours'. Arnaz had nothing to do with that film, didn't pick the script or push its being made. He did ensure the Studio keep an option on it, which at least kept it around as a vehicle for Ball. Which is why he got it.While 'Forever, Dear' barely recouped the $1,250,000 production costs ($11,260,820.90 today) 'Yours, Mine and Ours' was made for $2,100,000 ($14,955,964.60) in 1968 and earned $36,000,000 ($256,387,964.60) at the box office and other rights. Ball, who was then the sole owner of Desilu Studios, made the film in partnership with Paramount Studios who had recently purchased her company and owned half of rights. When Ball went to the bank in 1969 her share from the movie was so big ($128,193,982.30)and unexpected that she had failed to cover her assets for income taxes and wound up taking a large hit. Ball always seemed to walk away from her projects financially better. This continued with her new production company (Lucille Ball Productions (LBP)) who owned and produced her final major run series 'Here's Lucy'. The series earned a lot of money and enjoyed a brief spurt of high ratings in seasons 2-4. However, it was her first series that fell out of the top 20 programs (5-6). When she figured she had enough episodes in the can LBP/Ball sold the rights to it as well.A quick note on the film and Arnaz. Arnaz was getting pretty cocky in 1956. He was at the top of the TV business and was staring in the top rated TV show and married to his co-star. He made Desilu considerable money but was under pressure to make more. To help free up his time he tried to distance himself from 'ILL'. It took up too much time and, not known then, forcing him to work with Ball, now something he hated. Arnaz wasn't jealous of her success but was seething with vile over the lack of recognition for what he did with Desilu. Ball propped him up, which made it worse. So, as a master stroke, Arnaz would bring in a clunker like this film and using his own skills make it work and show them all he had it. The failure of the film was the first major failure for Arnaz and marks the spot where his career, and life, started to spiral downward. The film represented the last bold extension of Arnaz hubris. He stuck it out and got it cut off. He was never the same. He remained as head of Desilu Studios until November 22, 1962 when he was ousted in a partnership coupe led by his wife and a team of bankers, lawyers, accountants and industry experts. He took a $3,100,000 ($24,947,973.33)buyout and then spent the next 10 years blowing all of it. He was broke by 1975 and forced to write his bio 'A Book' to earn money. He hung in there but basically out of the business. It was ironic, here he was, in the 1970's, a guy with a great resume in the biz but unable to find a job. His reputation was, outside of the Lucy franchise, not very good. Add his drinking and other very large issues and you've got a guy who's finished in Hollywood. Ball of course still loved him, and bailed him out of many problems caused by his drinking and his spending. Much of that area isn't widely known and has frustrated writers doing research. Ball didn't make it this far in show biz without learning how to keep her mouth shut. That said, you know, this film is an OK watch if for nothing else the 50's connection. I read a 1956 review that gave the film high marks for production values, in particular the great outdoor scenes at Yosemite which were so typical of the era and for what the critic thought was a standard view of 1950's America. Maybe he meant the Arnaz marriage, which had made them the Royal Couple of the era. This film marked the beginning of the end of their reign. And, just like the Arnaz' marriage, the 50's would be gone and as we drive away we can see them in our rear-view mirrors, forever left back in that era. Maybe that is what the title means after all.

Although "The Long, Long Trailer" is an average film, it seems like a classic next to this anemic followup by Lucy and Desi, their second feature film during the run of "I Love Lucy." Lucy has a guardian angel who only she can see and she claims he looks like James Mason, which seems reasonable as he is played by James Mason. Lucy and Desi try to make the most of it, but the magic of the TV show is missing, thanks to a lame script about insecticides. Mason looks bemused, probably wondering what the heck he's doing in this movie. The cast features Schafer ("Gilligan's Island") as a meddling cousin and Kulp ("Beverly Hillbillies") as an impertinent maid.