Imagine Me & You (2005)

Marisa Carroll

Heck's heartbreak, the most resonanting aspect of this film, is not necessarily a bad thing, but it sure does drain the piss out of Luce and Rachel's final, loving, lesbian embrace.

Imagine Me & You

Director: Ol Parker
Cast: Piper Perabo, Lena Headey, Matthew Goode, Darren Boyd, Celia Imrie, Anthony Head, Boo Jackson
MPAA rating: R
Studio: Fox Searchlight
First date: 2005
US DVD Release Date: 2006-06-27
UK DVD Release Date: Available as import

Imagine this: You're watching the conclusion of Sleepless in Seattle, and Sam (Tom Hanks) and Annie (Meg Ryan) are finally about to meet at the top of the Empire State Building. It's the moment the entire film has been leading up to, but you just can't seem to enjoy it. You keep thinking about Walter (Bill Pullman), you know, the other guy, the one Annie dumped in favor of Sam. This is the dynamic set in place by Imagine Me & You, a love story about two women in which the most engaging character is the straight guy who just got thrown over.

In Imagine Me & You, writer/director Ol Parker attempts to capture the instantaneous "click" (the movie's original title) of love at first sight between Luce (Lena Headey), a beautiful gay florist, and Rachel (Piper Perabo), a newlywed who has just married her longtime beau, Heck (Matthew Goode). On the DVD's audio commentary, Parker explains that he initially planned on having Rachel fall for a man, but that halfway through completing his script, he realized that he was writing a romance about a same-sex couple. He was not seeking to create a "politicized coming-out story"; rather he believed the lesbian angle put a dramatic new spin on an age-old love triangle. Can heretofore-straight Rachel summon up the courage to leave her marriage and pursue feelings of true love for another woman?

When Imagine Me & You was released in theaters, some critics complained that the film's depiction of lesbian romance was too chaste (Luce and Rachel share only two onscreen kisses). argued, "A gay love story has to deliver the longing, the hunger, and the goods," while Variety predicted that "gay and lesbian viewers will find the girl-on-girl action far too tame." Notably, many romantic comedies about straight characters are fairly chaste -- Ryan and Hanks didn't exactly burn up the screen in Sleepless in Seattle or You've Got Mail for that matter -- but these hetero-themed films aren't faulted for their absence of heat or skin. These criticisms of Imagine Me & You seem to be based on the assumption that homosexual characters and audiences care primarily about sex, not love, and that gay relationships -- especially those between women -- should be framed in a way to titillate viewers, rather than move them.

For Parker, Luce and Rachel's mutual attraction exists outside of sexual categories. "It's not about gender," he claims. "It's about the person within." The union of soul mates is an ideal usually reserved for straight couples in romance films; in the representation of a same-sex relationship, the almost-quaint idea seems progressive because it imagines homosexual love as something other than a "hunger" or a hormonal surge. The tricky part for any filmmaker is figuring out how to convey such an abstract notion of love in specific and convincing ways. Sadly, these are the goods that Parker really fails to deliver. Though his attempt is clearly heartfelt, he doesn't quite meet the challenge set up by his film’s premise.

The problem is two-fold. First, Parker does not develop the Luce and Rachel characters enough for them to register as distinctive people in their own right, much less as a couple that is destined to be together. Though we do see scenes of Luce in her flower shop, they primarily serve as comic vignettes to showcase wacky customers, like the 30-something guy who's looking for his "last-chance flower" (he picks a cactus) and the sobbing pregnant woman who literally latches onto Luce and won't let go. (And though I've seen the movie more than once, I still have no idea how Rachel makes a living -- she is shown at an office computer, doing . . . something.)

In his Director's Statement on the DVD, Parker says, "The paradox of love at first sight -- what differentiates it from lust or confusion -- is that it proves itself by continuing to exist". Unfortunately, he doesn't devote enough time to Luce and Rachel's burgeoning romance to prove itself in that way. Indeed, precious time is wasted on "whimsical" side characters (a desperate maid of honor, lecherous best man, precocious child, and bickering in-laws), who interrupt the momentum of the love story and make it difficult for the audience to feel swept away by Luce and Rachel's romance.

Perhaps more damaging is that the most sympathetic and finely drawn character in the film is Heck, the doomed third member of the romantic triangle. Speaking of Heck (whom he dubs "the Bill Pullman" character) on the audio commentary, Parker explains, "We have all left people who are fantastic -- they just weren't the right people for us." And Heck is fantastic, there is no doubt about that: played by the disarming Matthew Goode, he is charming, witty, neurotic, and kind. We are informed of his hopes (shaking off his shady financial job to become a globetrotting travel writer), his fears (public speaking, heights, and losing Rachel), and his flaws (he's a terrible cook, but that doesn't stop him from throwing dinner parties or concocting berry-and-cream trifles). Furthermore, he is noble to the point of saintliness: when he learns of Rachel's feelings for Luce, he steps aside despite his misery. In the film's most poignant scene, he explains to Rachel, "I want you to be happy, but more than anything, I wanted to be the cause of happiness in you. But if I'm not, then I can't stand in the way. What you're feeling, Rachel, is the unstoppable force, which means that I've got to move."

Eventually Heck's grief gets the best of him, and when he lets go and cries with the abandon of an 8-year-old girl, he does so in front of an actual 8-year-old girl: Rachel's younger sister (Boo Jackson), who offers to marry him in 10 years. (Say it with me: "Awww!") That Heck's heartbreak is the most resonant aspect of the film may make Imagine Me & You more effective as a male weepie than as a romantic comedy. It's not necessarily a bad thing -- in truth, it's actually quite refreshing -- but it sure does drain the piss out of Luce and Rachel's final embrace.

Imagine Me & You - Trailer


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.