thoughts on materialists
would it be enough?
"We're so back," I thought to myself as I sat down to watch this on a Friday night, accompanied by chocolate raisins and mulled wine. For the last few years, the seemingly endless movie drought has had hopes of ending. Huge, original blockbusters have come in with full force. Raunchy, hilarious romcoms have had a resurgence. Unique, stunning indie films have had more light shone on them. It feels like there's never a lack of good movies to watch. Maybe I was too young or just not in-the-know before, but the last two years have had me so excited to sit in a kind of gross theatre for two hours with a 50/50 chance the people around me are going to be annoying. It has been worth it.
And I expected just the same when sitting down for Materialists.
Marketed as a punchy romcom with three actors everyone has a crush on, directed, written, and produced by the woman who had us all shedding tears in Past Lives, Materialists promised so much. Partnering with the New York Stock Exchange to allow men to find out their social and romantic value is one of the best marketing strategies I've seen in a while for a romcom. Suffice it to say, I was excited.
But what I ended up watching was nowhere near what I expected. And I had mixed feelings about it.
What Materialists focuses on is the age-old question of whether love can ever be enough. When we talk about compatibility, there's so much you can focus on. Are we compatible because we care about each other in the same way? Are we compatible because we have similar interests? Are we compatible because of our upbringing, background, financial status, looks, lifestyles, goals, values, desires? What if we're compatible in one way but not another? Can I accept the parts of you that won't change but sometimes irritate me? Can I expect you to do the same? What if we lie to ourselves and say we can accept them, but we actually can't? Do you accept that you cannot change them and hope the love pulls you through, or do you move on?
There will be people who check all your boxes, but there’s something that just isn’t a match, whether it’s the emotion that’s missing or some other thing that gives you an ick you can’t quite place. Meanwhile, there could be someone who doesn’t check your boxes, but you have chemistry with that makes you forget about it. There might be things about someone that make them not compatible with you, no matter how much you love them. They might check some boxes, but not all of them, and that’s a line only you can draw. But where is the line, and is it the same for everyone?
Lucy has a clear and finite line. She wants to be with someone wealthy because her parents fought about money, and she hated it. She wants security and to be taken care of. She wants more than her $80k a year salary can offer her. Which, by the way, shows how much we need a sort of financial advisor on movies and TV shows because she lives in a pretty nice, solo apartment in NYC. And that's her salary.
John, no matter how much they love each other, couldn’t give her that. No amount of similarities and compatibility could change that. They have an undeniable chemistry and love for one another, keeping them in a push-and-pull loop, but she can’t look past their disagreements about finances. She had one non-negotiable, and he didn’t have it.
Harry does, though. And they have fun. They get along, they enjoy each other's company, and they like being together. But she doesn't love him. And she knows she never will. So she leaves him in a solemn but comedic scene that talks about their surgical enhancements, likely intending to go back to her life as a bachelorette. Until John reminds her how much she loves him, how easy loving her is for him, and then he promises not to be so broke. He promises to be her certainty in life. In this scene, where they rekindle their connection, what Lucy sees is not the man she used to fight with over finances. She sees a man willing to put in the work to make a happy life for them. She knows she’s in a better position financially now and can take care of herself, so she accepts his offer of maybe not the best finances but a guaranteed certainty in love and life. As the voice from Sophie becomes narration, she says, “I just want someone who loves me. Someone who can’t help but love me back.” That is and always has been John for Lucy.
You make me brave enough to admit that I want to be happy. And I want to be happy with you.
Lucy initially only wants the material boxes, assuming that if the person is rich enough, the rest will all fall in line. But it doesn’t. She lies awake at night, aware of the void where her love should be. She repeatedly turns to John for help and companionship over Harry when she’s seeking comfort. John checks none of her material boxes, but she loves him, and she can’t deny it. After trying to avoid her feelings for him, she decides it’s impossible and she’d rather accept him for who he is than attempt to find someone who makes her feel half as much love as John does, but with a larger bank account. Maybe it’s because Lucy knows she will find a way to hold her own financially, or maybe it’s because, for now, love is all she needs, and John is the one who can provide her with that. Priorities change, people change, and sometimes it works to stick around while you wait for it to happen, and sometimes space is what you need to bring you back together.
Unfortunately, I have to be annoying and bring up Taylor Swift and her song peace. My most played song of all time, and a song that absolutely belongs on this soundtrack.
Sophie, Lucy’s client and friend, has boxes. She has a list. She might not be as picky as some of Lucy's other clients, but she still has hopes for her dreamboat to come along. Lucy finds the man who checks the boxes, and he becomes a face of nightmares for Sophie. He breaks her trust in love and in Lucy, and there's no real person to blame.
This plot point felt jarring in my romcom daze, but I understand its importance to the plot, kind of. The scene where Lucy follows Sophie to try to speak to her is very indicative of how this plot point is used for Lucy’s advancement and not for the sake of having an earnest discussion about this. Throughout the scene, the camera focuses on Lucy and her reaction, not Sophie and her hurt. After Sophie asks why she set them up, Lucy says it’s because he checked the boxes. There’s a very long pause before Sophie goes, “Boxes?” The entire pause has the camera focused on Lucy and not Sophie. I do like that in this scene, Sophie calls out that she feels like merchandise being pawned off onto whoever Lucy decides. It’s reflective of modern dating and how apps really are just used for the benefit of the developers and their bank accounts, not for the romantic pursuits of their users. Sophie even calls her a pimp.
Having this topic in a movie marketed as a comedy feels really off to me. Although there are never jokes made in response to it, it was a very interesting tonal shift to go from "hot matchmaker gets wooed by ex-boyfriend and millionaire at the same time" to "oh, there are really bad people out there who will always take advantage of vulnerable people." I feel like the marketing of the movie downplayed how serious it was going to get, and this plot could've easily been anything else to shatter Lucy's illusion of love. It feels exploitative to use sexual assault that happens to one character to drive the emotional development of another character. I'm not arguing in any way that the assault should've happened to Lucy. But I think anything else could've happened to a client that could've shaken her. My personal vote is having one of her nine successful matches-turned-marriages get a divorce. It sort of feels like that scene in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days where Lana auctions off Michelle's breakup for a story. But much, much worse.
Sophie wants the material boxes checked, but also wants a strong connection. She tries, but she can’t get the emotional connection she seeks, so she never builds on these relationships, or the men she dates don’t. By the end of the movie, she gives up on the material boxes, and although we’ll never know, Lucy says they’re all cautiously optimistic about it.
Some people have expressed loudly that they disagree with the ending, going as far as calling it “broke man propaganda.” To those people, I ask if they’ve ever seen a romance movie before. Of course, it’s A24 and could’ve been subversive where she chooses the less satisfying but very wealthy life, or chooses herself. But let’s be real. It was always going to be John. I also want to argue against advocating for foregoing emotional connection in favour of financial reliance, because if they had gotten married, she’d have no safety net should she ever decide that she wants love in the future. In the age of the passenger princess and the societal desire for men to be providers, we seem to have forgotten that women can have credit cards and driver’s licenses now. They are less likely to make risky financial decisions than men. Yes, it can be hard to provide for yourself, but opting to forgo independence for the sake of vacations with a man you dislike but are stuck with doesn’t feel like a step in the right direction.
Dakota Johnson's little voice-over towards the end is very sweet. Love a full circle moment. I think the final scene will be burned into my soul forever. I could feel my body leaning forward trying to get every last detail so that it would stay in my brain longer. I loved the “early human” tie-in with the opening and closing scenes, plus its background features. My theatre laughed at it, but I thought it was very sweet, and showed that love is simply natural. Desire for genuine love has been the root of our motives for our entire existence.
The courthouse wedding credits scene is such a sweet and tender touch. Focusing on love in all forms, not just the typical ones you see in movies (like this one). And Dakota’s dress is stunning.
I love Song’s writing, although some points and ideas get repeated, especially by Lucy. The dialogue, music, and cinematography are so lovely and smooth, and it's funny in a way that’s not grossly exaggerated, like a lot of newer movies are. Sometimes the dialogue made me feel like I was in a TV show filmed in front of a live studio audience, where actors have to pause to let the audience have reactions. I felt like this was a weird directorial choice to make some of the more mundane thoughts seem more poignant.
What you get with Materialists is not the punchy, over-the-top romcom you might've expected, but what you actually get is a thoughtful slow burn on a question a lot of people struggle with. Through very luscious colouring, a lilty score and soundtrack, and thoughtful dialogue, you get a sweet, intimate look into a very generous love story. They were an easy couple to root for, and I can't wait to root for them again. I’m sure this is a movie I'll be rewatching again, probably many, many times. to because it was nice to watch. Make more movies that are just simply nice, please. It subverted my expectations, and initially, I was a bit upset, but as time grows, so does my love for it. Of course, you'll have people who choose the Harrys of the world and have perfectly happy marriages. But sometimes the answer is yes, love is enough.
Don’t go into this movie expecting lightheartedness the whole way through, but definitely go into this movie.
