"The Materialists" Does the Math of Attraction Well, but its Deeper Message is that True Love Lies Elsewhere
The intangibles outweigh the tangibles in Celine Song's beautifully constructed sophomore follow up to 2023's "Past Lives"
“I don’t like you because you’re rich. I like you because you make me feel valuable.”- Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker dating Harry (Pedro Pascal), a rich, confident private equity guy.
Premise: Lucy, a bold, confident, attractive 30-something, works at Adore, a NYC matchmaking service that caters to rich men and women (think Raya, but not online) looking for lasting love, or at least a few tolerable dates. The privileged men and women both declare their superficial demands in a potential partner in ways that would make Camille Paglia blush. People are reduced to numbers and colors (height, weight, race, hair), as well as wealth. As Lucy tells Harry, her job is not unlike working at a morgue or being in insurance.
Case in Point: One woman, Sophie, a high-powered 39-year-old banker, relays to Lucy at the start of the film, after what she perceives was a good date with a suitor, who coincidentally tells Lucy only minutes before via phone that he won’t date Sophie because she’s fat and too old (she’s neither of those two things), that, “it was the most wonderful date I have ever been on, despite him making only $150K and being in his 50s.” Sophie is ecstatic one moment and later, devastated when Lucy delivers the news that it’s not a match. “I will die alone,” laments Sophie, more than once in this film, to which Lucy later layers on, “or get a rich husband,” to which, in a bada-bing moment, a co-worker incisively comments, “Same thing.”
Spoilers ahead.
If you take Celine Song’s film at face value, it plays like a confessional about how rich people date. Not quite Fleabag-style, but it has that same feeling, like Lucy’s in on the joke with us, rolling her eyes at the absurdity of the NYC dating scene. It’s sharp, hard to look away from, even as the men wax on about “fit,” “younger” women (“When I said older, I meant 27”), and the high-powered women rattle off their lists of non-negotiables: “must be a dog lover, Christian, Republican.”
For all the superficial wants, however trivial or material they may seem, Song’s film ultimately grounds itself in a classic, Persuasion-style love story. It’s hard to ignore the timing: Dakota Johnson, who stars here, also played Anne Eliot in the latest Netflix adaptation. In Austen’s version, Anne turns down the man she loves because he’s poor. Years later, he returns, now successful and respected, and though the love is still there, pride, regret, and old wounds threaten their second chance. Similarly, the real love story in Materialists is between Lucy and her ex, a struggling waiter-actor John (a gorgeous Chris Evans), whom Lucy loves. Still, she can’t ignore his lack of ambition or desire to improve his station; something unchanged despite the many years they’ve been apart.
“Marriage is a business deal. It always has been.” - Lucy, but also could be Anne Eliot in Persuasion
“Poor, shitty family, voted for Bernie. We soulmates?” - John to Lucy. As it turns out, yes.
The Math Tracks, Though
One of my few gripes with the film, and honestly, it's near the top of my favorites this year, if not my favorite, is that it’s a bit all over the place in what it wants to say and what it is.
On one hand, it’s a drama about Lucy, a single woman forged in the fires of divorced parents and a scrappy upbringing, who takes charge of her life and builds a killer “matchmaker” brand with her business skills. She’s practically a love whisperer, telling her clients, “I believe you will find love,” like she’s handing out destiny. (Side note: If Sophie is the “hopeless” client, we’re all toast. Sure, she’s a New York 5, but a 10 everywhere else.)
Lucy meets a man who checks every box, like, straight from the Adore matchmaking algorithm, but she catches the scent of BS beneath the gold plating. So she ditches the glittering maybe and heads back to the ex, the one she used to fight with about money. A lot. And now they’re getting married, like that’s not going to come up again.
I’m not someone who demands gritty realism in my romances. I’m perfectly happy buying into a well-built fantasy. If anything, my biggest complaint about Past Lives was that Nora chose to stay with Arthur, whom I deemed “the interloper” [See my review here] over Hae Sung, her first love. In Materialists, I finally get my catharsis... though it feels a little unearned. Still, like an avenger fighting on behalf of Team Hae Sung, I’m all too happy to jump ship for Team John/ Chris Evans and cheer for “true love” triumphing over soulless capitalist matchmaking.
Plus, there’s Lucy’s running theory, one she repeats like gospel, that people with similar upbringings are drawn to each other. She and John both came from nothing. They’re scrappy, the kind who “fight in the street,” as she puts it. Unlike Harry (Pedro Pascal), who comes from generational wealth and casually admits as much with the kind of shrug that only trust fund babies can perfect.
The other element that surfaces, clumsily but with weight, is a subplot involving the sexual assault of one of Lucy’s clients. It’s the gut punch that snaps Lucy out of her glossy, high-dollar matchmaking bubble and reminds her that dating isn’t all slick apps, curated profiles, champagne first dates, or metero-glammy Pedro Pascals. There’s risk, vulnerability, and real harm out there. It’s the moment the film tries to pivot from satire to sincerity, and while the execution is uneven, the intention lands. Love isn’t just a game of algorithms and vibes. It has consequences.
In Short: It’s been a while since I truly loved the experience of theater-going and ate up a film, like a voracious teenager, chomping at the bit like it was 1992 and I was seeing Oldman as Dracula. This film did it for me. I laughed out loud, my brain was buzzing with the sleek truisms of the dialogue, and my Libra-ness flocked to the beauty and aesthetics of a well-constructed romance that doubled as a cinematographic delight. When I grow up, I aspire to be Dakota Johnson. Maybe she’s a bit monotone, but damnit, she’s ethereal. We should all be able to sustain silences like she does. She’s bloody magnificent.
Beth Side Note: Something I share with Lucy’s character is an inherent distrust of rich dudes. I kinda appreciated that Harry calls her out on this. Amen, sister.
Constellation Connections across the Materialists Universe
My 2023 Review of Celine Song’s Debut Film, which was excellent, but I preferred Materialists. I didn’t think Past Lives could be outdone, but it has been for me.
I geeked out on
’s post about this film, screening it in NYC (the “What’s A24?” of it all), and was particularly impressed by the point about Lucy’s decadent clothes not fitting her $80K annual salary. However, I just assumed that was her base and she lived off commissions, especially given her swanky apartment building garden apartment. What can I say? My brain likes math, even if I hate it.
Speaking of film fashion, hear what
of has to say about Dakota Johnson’s wardrobe in the film. Personally, I was a huge fan of her “wedding crashers” attire. [Refinery29]This timely piece is a well-articulated exploration of being a single woman and her longing for a partner:
Pop Goes the Culture
This film reveals a procedure I had never heard of, whereby bones in the legs are broken to increase height by up to 6 inches. It’s called “limb lengthening surgery.” Apparently, it’s very risky, but it came up as a cosmetic procedure that Harry and his brother invest in and consider worthwhile. Dialing a friend on this one, but is this something people do?
No bops in the film, like in Past Lives, whose eerie cover of Rhianna’s Stay is provided below, because one can never have enough of this:
If you want to hear about my Dakota Johnson, Anne Eliot connection, listen to this interview. [Tip: Start at minute 26]:
Romance Fans: Let ‘er rip: What did you think about this film? Song’s fanbase is divided.
I also loved this movie. People who dislike it, I think wanted "How to lose a guy in 10 days", instead of "Working Girl". The things that didn't work for me, were not dissimilar from my "Past Lives" critique -- pacing, an ending that won't quite end. But those issues do not really takeaway from the best NYC film and best American film about romance in some time.
Omg, I remember going to see Gary Oldman’s Dracula on opening night with a dozen friends. That feels like one of my core teenager memories. Loved that you dropped that film in this post.