This month, Celine Song’s “Materialists” arrived in theaters, fulfilling my wish for romance films to make their way back to the silver screen.
I saw this much anticipated film two weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Song’s cinematic direction was dynamic, the wardrobe was classic and the plot was well executed. It was a refreshing film in a season where most films are a bit too gritty and sometimes disturbing to watch.
However, I seem to be one of the few who actually liked “Materialists.” The film was met with a slew of unfavorable criticism.
In “Materialists,” Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is an ambitious matchmaker who finds herself in a love triangle with a wealthy bachelor Harry (Pedro Pascal) and a broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans). The film explores themes of love, finances, societal pressures when it comes to dating and, you guessed it, materialism.
Some viewers thought the trailer falsely advertised the film as a romantic comedy. I personally think “Materialists” is a romantic drama with hints of humor throughout. Anyone familiar with Song’s work knows the element of drama outweighs comedy. “Past Lives,” Song’s Academy Award-nominated film is an example of that.
Filmgoers have taken to social media to share their disappointment in Lucy’s choice between her two love interests, saying she chose the wrong guy.
Lucy chose John, the struggling actor over the wealthy financier Harry. Because Harry can afford fancy dinners and international trips, audiences are saying they aren’t falling for the “broke boy propaganda” at play.
However, other viewers have taken to the comment sections of these videos saying “the amount of people showing how materialistic they are is wild,” some adding “you guys missed the plot.”
Lucy and John aren’t choosing the relationship we got a glimpse of in a flashback. The relationship we saw with arguments about $25 parking from five years ago isn’t their present day reality. They’ve both grown.
Lucy isn’t slumming it with John and his two man-child roommates in a disgusting apartment this time around.
The pair are aware of the financial anxieties from their past and are ready to build a new life together. John understands that his own financial stability is necessary to rekindle their relationship. Not only does John tell Lucy he’ll take well-paid commercial gigs instead of never-ending stage auditions, Lucy was offered a huge promotion with an attractive salary.
Critics of the film have also called Lucy’s decision to turn down her promotion stupid. I don’t think that happened; spelling every little thing out isn’t necessary in movies. Some things are left for interpretation and that’s the beauty of film. We have to be intelligent audience members and learn to read between the lines.
Choosing John doesn’t mean Lucy’s life is over. She is choosing love and a better quality of life than she had with John at the time of their initial breakup years ago.
Just because Lucy and John are shown eating food from a street vendor in the park doesn’t mean they won’t ever go to upscale restaurants or swanky bars if they so choose.
Getting married at city hall isn’t an indicator that they won’t have amazing getaways. Lucy will most likely get her dream trip to Iceland after all with the man she’s actually in love with. If you know, you know.
I would be lying if I said the montage of lavish dates, romantic gestures and Harry’s persuasive monologue didn’t make me swoon. A handsome man offering you a lifetime of stability, security and penthouse views would make any woman say “sign me up.” But there were four letters missing from that proposal: l-o-v-e. Lucy and Harry admitted to not loving each other. It would have been merely a transactional relationship void of a deeper connection.
As I scrolled through countless “Materialists” reviews it became crystal clear to me that we are currently living in a society where people value status and wealth over everything else. People are fine with love being off the table. I find that concerning.
Despite the sea of commentary bashing the film, I found a few favorable reviews.
Creator Megan Cruz, known as @stoobs on TikTok, offered a review filled with great thoughts from start to finish.
“What I find so interesting about this film is that it engages with the difficulty of the socioeconomic choices of partnership in a way that feels very earnest,” Cruz said.
At the end of the day, “Materialists” is a film people will either love or hate. It seems to me that viewers are taking this film as an opportunity to analyze their own life decisions while using Lucy as a punching bag. It’s almost as if they’re projecting: “you silly girl, I chose a John and my life sucks now.”
I completely understand that no one wants to struggle through life, but many are showing their true colors on the internet and revealing themselves as greedy, heartless people.
You can have all the money in the world, but consider who’s holding your hand through difficult times, comforting you when you’re grieving a loved one and celebrating both big and small wins with you.
As I reflect on the film’s harsh reviews, I can’t help thinking about the lack of love and compassion that have been substituted with a heightened lust for materialism in so many relationships today.
Are you choosing a life with or without love?
