Bobbie's Girl

The charm of "Bobbie's Girl" isn't so much in the story as in the telling. A sweetly sentimental slice-of-life feel good flick from Showtime, the film tells of a middle-aged lesbian couple operating a tavern on the coast of Ireland who unexpectedly find themselves with the yin-yang of a wee lad and the "Big C" in their midst. The film offers fine performances from a core cast of four who fully flesh-out their characters making for an easy emotional buy-in. Those who have become used to the usual exaggerated dramatic film fare may enjoy the soft-peddled delivery of this lilting, life-affirming drama while others may regard it as uneventful fluff.

Note - Those who might be turned-off by the same-sex relationship at the center of this film should know that the lesbianism is very understated and tastefully presented.

The quality that makes this movie such a joy to watch are the relationships between the primary characters. The relationship between Bailey and Bobbie "feels" real. Both Ward and Peters convey the familiarity of long established relationships. A tacit acceptance of the good qualities and foibles that all couples deal with in each other.

I had never seen Sangster in any films before this. I was deeply impressed with the abilities of an actor so young to convey complex feelings without words. Dread and hope expressed side by side. His attempts to bond with his aunt and Bailey are artfully portrayed, with just enough success and frustration to feel genuine.

As the uncle, Jonathan Silverman provides a balanced portrayal of self effacing humor and sensitivity. In the character of Uncle David Allen is able to see that other ways of living that are completely alien to his very proper British up bringing.

A warm and hopeful film. It's characters, their relationships, and the personal growth that occurs in each of them make it a genuine joy to watch.

Overall this was an excellent film, but there was one odd scene at the very beginning that made me wonder if the rest of the film was going to be just as bizarre. It wasn't, and kudos should be given to the entire cast, most especially Thomas Sangster, a superb young actor who plays 10-year-old Alan. But that one scene still remains in my mind as one of the most strangely played I've ever observed. When even the sharpest critics failed to mention it, I was truly befuddled.

So what is the scene I'm objecting to? It is the moment when Bailey, played by Bernadette Peters, approaches Alan at his school and bluntly reports to him the death of his parents in a tragic auto accident. (The headmaster had chosen not to tell the boy what had happened, instead waiting for a family member -- in this case, Bailey -- to break the news.) After this sudden announcement, Alan looks only mildly surprised, glances toward the headmaster, then back to Bailey, and never sheds a tear (nor ever afterward in the film, except at the end, and not about his parents). Bailey, meanwhile, goes into some kind of odd comic shtick where she attempts to add detail. "There was a terrible accident," she says, then with a squeaky comic voice and mugging expression segues into "Ooo, it sounds like a mystery where people stand around saying, 'There's been a terrible accident, ooo, ooo....'" Immediately afterward, the film merrily bounces along as she takes the boy from the school, with hardly another mention of the tragedy that has just happened.

I couldn't believe what I was seeing. In an otherwise sensitive film of the highest quality, why did the director allow that early scene to be played that way? Wouldn't Alan have cried at the news? Wouldn't Bailey have hugged him to console him and perhaps even wept with him? I found the scene tasteless, and I thought the follow-on treatment of the accident (nearly no mention afterward) to be a convenience of the scriptwriters to get the plot moving along quickly (two lesbian lovers find themselves "mothers" to an orphaned child with resulting complications, both serious and funny). Am I the only one to have been disturbed by this scene? Or is there something I'm missing?

First, I watched the film (last night) without realising that Roberta Langham was played by Rachel Ward; it's been years since I saw her in anything.

Anyway, I enjoyed this film immensely, ignoring - as other contributors have pointed out - the rather unlikely scenario of a largish Jewish community in a small RoI seaside town and the ability of a gay couple to live so openly there.

Thomas Sangster's performance was indeed years ahead of his age and had me sniffling occasionally. Yes, I agree with another contributor who suggested this film is best watched with someone you love.

A beautifully warm film, without resorting to schmaltz. See it.

I expected a Made-for-TV-type movie here, but got a much richer and far more touching story. A little boy is taken in by two women in Ireland when his parents die - and one of the women soon finds she has breast cancer. She isn't exactly naturally maternal to begin with, and having to deal with breast cancer makes her even less able to make the child feel loved.

The story doesn't attempt to make saints of anyone, and as such it feels very realistic. Thomas Sangster as the little boy puts in a marvelous performance that makes the film the most moving portrayal of a child since Britain's "Hollow Reed." It is a beautiful film about responsibility, life and death which anyone can relate to.