With my wealthy stash of romance films depleted, I am bankrupt. My pleas for more must have done something right, because my prayers were answered. I’m aware that there is no shortage of activity in the romance genre, but I’ve grown weary of mere crumbs. Recent movies like “Anyone But You” are enjoyable for their carefree effect, but there’s only so much fluff I can take before I choke on it. A hearty, intricate romance depicts the human experience, and no film captures that quite as well as Celine Song’s (“Past Lives”) most recent film, “Materialists.”
“Materialists” features a star-studded love triangle: Dakota Johnson (“Fifty Shades of Grey”) as New York City matchmaker Lucy, Chris Evans (“Deadpool & Wolverine”) as her ex-boyfriend and struggling actor John and Pedro Pascal (“Kingsman: The Golden Circle”) as the finance heir Harry.
Along with the cast, Song’s screenwriting skills shine through her dialogue. Realistic, dry humor characterizes the script. At her job, clients consult Lucy about their romantic preferences, including things like weight, height, salary, etc. Lucy compares her occupation to working in a morgue due to her cold calculation of people. Some memorable client remarks include “nothing over 20 BMI” and getting set up with white people first. Lucy’s matchmaking consultations were hilarious interludes interspersed throughout the course of the film, serving as brief, lighthearted respites when the plot twists and turns.
With a hectic and intimate job, Lucy meets Harry at one of her clients’ weddings. Initially, she sees nothing remotely wrong with Harry: he’s rich, tall, handsome and, even better, a kind and normal person — one of the rarest qualities in wealthy men. Their witty banter reveals they both have traits the other wants, from ambition to realism. Lucy also runs into John, who works for the wedding’s catering company. I watched this unfold and thought, poor John doesn’t stand a chance, only to immediately question if I was the shitty materialist this film is commenting on.
John is jaded from economic hardship, which makes Harry more magnetic to be around. But alas, true love conquers all, because Lucy and Harry were never really in love in the first place. Cracks in my new favorite couple’s relationship became apparent. We begin to piece together that their conversations seem surface level, with questions about salary and their parents’ fighting styles read off like items on a grocery list. The scenes build this lackluster foundation, making the couple crumble as the film progresses.
After all the relationship issues start to surface, one of Lucy’s clients gets assaulted on a date, providing a dark undercurrent to a glitzy, optimistic mood. She is horrified and riddled with guilt because she set them up. This functions as an acknowledgement of the risks of dating and the dangers women face — Lucy is horrified and riddled with guilt because she set them up. We get a brief hiatus from the love triangle to grapple with a grave matter, a reprieve that seems to pull Lucy (and us by default) out of her less serious issues. While the tonal change is drastic, it was intended to be. This subplot wasn’t made to serve the romance; it was made to derail it.
Without this event, I can imagine this storyline playing out as a classic love triangle. Maybe a minor incident would propel Lucy to pursue John — a forgotten birthday, a passing comment from a stranger. Maybe they wouldn’t end up together at all. The tone shifts from comfortable to severe, slapping the audience in the face to give us a reality check of both the dangers and the practical happenings of romance. When news of the assault erupts, Lucy seeks comfort and confides in John instead of Harry, a huge breach of trust in the blossoming relationship between Lucy and Harry.
It seems the gravity of this situation corners Lucy into picking heart over head. Frivolous expenses seem meaningless in light of her clients’ horrific experience, and it’s telling that Lucy is in an ongoing relationship with Harry but does not feel comfortable going to him for support. If audiences didn’t see anything amiss before, they certainly do now. What’s the use of a materially rich partner if you are robbed of your emotional wealth? “Materialists” teaches women that emotional needs are priceless.
Though marketed as a romantic comedy, audiences point out that “Materialists” does not have as much comedy as promised. That’s clear since the most memorable lines aren’t the funny ones. For instance, John explains that when he looks at Lucy, he can’t help but see an aging face and children that look like her. The serious moments outweigh any humor, which decorates the film more than establishes it.
The tone shifts match the often unexpected highs and lows of romance; one moment, Lucy is soaring with glee, and the next, plunging towards indecision and misery. “Materialists” is a gritty film about navigating marriage, class and stupidly high New York City prices and should be seen as a thoughtful response to society’s attitude towards materialism, value and love.
Daily Arts Writer Tara Wasik can be reached at tarawas@umich.edu.
