A Love Song For Bobby Long (2004) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

You must be aware of the American Southern Gothic tradition which encompasses such important writers as Carson McCullers, Flannery O'Connor, Truman Capote, and Tennessee Williams. The stories generally involve characters who are either romantic eccentrics or once-great people gone to seed

... through excessive alcohol drinkin', 'n' givin' up on theyselves on account o' some terrible failure in life or love. They live in crumblin' plantation houses, and their lonely lives now consist of droppin' their g's, rehashin' their memories, 'n' meetin' together with other castaways, exchangin' some speechifyin' which is empty, but mighty purty and right flowery. To add atmosphere, there's usually a passel of folks who have bought Colonel Sanders's old white suits from Goodwill and wear them at all times while moseyin' through the genteel decay of the old parts of Charleston, Savannah, or N'awlins. Most of 'em, even the richest and most educated characters, have white trash cousins who are secretly married to their other white trash cousins, or even to their own daddies. You can also count on the fact that the families are hidin' some other secrets far more macabre than incest. God knows what. It might be that there are insane people chained up in the attic, or that somebody killed one of his children, or it might be that ol' granny is still sleepin' with granpa's corpse.

You name it. If Charles Dickens were to be transplanted to the middle of the 20th century, he'd feel right at home in the American South. This grotesque mythic structure is part of the literary ethos in the South, sparking its worst excesses, but also its grandest successes. Even the incomparable William Faulkner was not untouched by the norms and conventions of Southern Gothic, although his greatest works soared far above the genre. Southern Gothic. A Love Song For Bobby Long is such a story, New Orleans division.

Oh, before I begin discussing the movie, there's another thing you furriners may not know about American Southerners. Let's discuss the name "Bobby". Up north it is more common to find a Bob or Rob. You can find a Bobby or two up north as well, but they are usually little kids, and just about 100% of them are really named "Robert". In the South, it is common for "Bobby" to be the name of an adult (in the case of this movie, even a once-distinguished English professor), and the name on his (or her!) birth certificate may even be "Bobby." It ain't always a nickname, down here, podner. Iff'n you meet a Larry down here, his birth certificate may be stained with chicken grease and BBQ sauce, but if you can still make it out through the smudges, it'll probably say "Larry", not "Lawrence." If you meet a "Billy Bob" down here (a strong likelihood), don't expect his real name to be "William Robert."

That shit's too hard to spell.

No, just kidding. We can spell down here, but William Robert Thornton is too inaccessible, too pompous, too New England.

For some reason, we exempt "Charles" and "David" from the "stuffy Northerner" rule. Southerners often have "Charles" or "David" on their birth certificate, and they are rarely called "Charlie", "Dave", "Davy", or "Chuck."

The one syllable attached middle name is more of a Texas thang. We're different in Texas. Our state was part of the Confederacy, but is not at all genteel. We raise our voices to whoop out loud, and our aristocrats are not nearly so polite as the refined people in the Deep South. We think of ourselves as rough-hewn Westerners, not genteel Southerners, or maybe just as Texans, since this massive state used to be a country, and is still as large as the largest countries in Europe. You'll find a Jimmy Don, Donny Earl, Billy Ray, Betty Jo, or Billy Bob around every corner in the Lone Star State, but we aren't like the decaying plantation aristocrats, who seem to prefer the implicit reverse snobbery inherent in having the simplest and humblest possible name, like Jimmy or Huey or Bobby. The mannerly Southerners also seem to feature uniquely Southern creations like Arlen and Beau(regard). Beauregard is kind of a universally Southern name, isn't it? Just as you know Alistair is not an American, you can be sure Beauregard is not a Northerner.

Enough side-tracks.

Bottom line: it probably should say "Bobby Long" on his driver's license, not "Robert Long," but a legal document is addressed to the movie character as "Mr. Robert Long."

The story begins as a young girl named Pursline is sitting in a white trash trailer park in Florida, eating peanut butter dipped in M&M's. She finds out that her estranged, alcoholic mother has died, and heads off to New Orleans for the funeral. She doesn't make it in time for the service, but finds out that her mom has left her something as a legacy - one third of a disgustingly filthy, unheated, run-down shack near the French Quarter. It seems that momma's two roommates each own a third as well. One of them is Bobby Long, once a brilliant literature professor, now a hopeless middle-aged drunk. The other is Lawson Pines, once Bobby's teaching assistant, then his confidante, now his fellow alkie.


The story is simply about the three of them learning to live together and maybe helping one another to a better place in life. On the way, they all get drunk and say cruelly honest things to one another, and then they get all guilty and serious and dramatically reveal all their secrets to one another, including the horrible event that caused Bobby to go from boy genius to hopeless derelict. Since Pursline is hazy on the identity of her father, I suppose you can probably figure out the biggest secret of all about five minutes into the film.


The narration and dialogue are heavy with the weight of stylized Southern-fried prose. It begins, "Tahm was never a friend to Bobba Long ..." The film ups the preciousness ante with a constant exchange of literary references between Bobby and Lawson, as they try to stump one another in an ongoing game of quotes from their favorite authors. The film also moves slowly, takes a long time to get into, and ends rather melodramatically ...

and yet ...

... yet I did eventually get drawn into its world.

Somewhere in the middle I got hooked in, started to like the characters, and even liked the way they turned their artificial phrases. My eventual involvement was a real triumph for the actors, because they were working with some eccentric material which was difficult to make credible. This script could easily have degenerated into something like a high school performance of Streetcar Named Desire, but John Travolta, Gabriel Macht and Scarlett Johansson all brought some charisma to their parts, and managed to do a remarkably good job at breathing life into the affected dialogue. Although I know that old smelly alcoholics and 9th grade drop-outs don't really talk like this, all three of these performers functioned well enough to convince me that they do, and all of them were smart enough to underplay the most florid and melodramatic writing.

They were supported by some good N'Awlins music, and fine cinematography by Elliott Davis, who shot the fringes of New Orleans  - the seedy run-down neighborhoods, the fading mansions, the cemeteries, the neighborhood bars, the backyards and empty lots - with precisely the romantic decadence required. I'd say it was damned fine second generation Southern Gothic.

Is it a film for everyone? No. Nobody liked it as much as I did. Will it be a blockbuster? No. It seems like it was made in about 1962, and it's too much like a filmed play rather than a purely cinematic project. But it did turn out to be a pleasant and easy watch for me, I found that the time passed quickly, and when it was over I did not regret having invested that time. If you don't mind an all-too-Southern and all-too-literary piece of very old-fashioned movie making, you might give it a shot.



  • several deleted and extended scenes
  • full-length commentary with director and cinematographer
  • behind the scenes featurette

Book Info

  • The film is based on Ronald Capps's "Off Magazine Street", which is linked to the left.


Scarlett Johansson shows her gigantic right breast from the side, although she keeps a hand over her nipple.

The Critics Vote ...

  • Super-panel consensus out of four stars: three stars. James Berardinelli 3/4, Roger Ebert 3/4.

  • Scarlett Johansson was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance.

The People Vote ...

  • movies.yahoo.com. Average Yahoo voter grade: C+. (Estimated average critics' grade is also C+.) You can also find trailers and clips at this site.

  • Box Office Mojo. It never expanded beyond 24 theaters in the United States. (It made 66 screens in Italy.)
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C. I liked it. It is a film which makes very little use of the possibilities of cinema except for some excellent photography by the D.P., but is still a pleasant enough rendering of what is essentially a talky, 60s-style, three character play.

Return to the Movie House home page