Film Review: Materialists
By: Benjamín Gavarre Silva
Basic Fact Sheet
- Written and Directed by: Celine Song
- Main Cast: Dakota Johnson (Lucy Mason), Chris Evans (John Finch), Pedro Pascal (Harry Castillo)
- Production Companies: A24, Killer Films (Christine Vachon, Pamela Koffler), 2AM, in co-production with Access Entertainment and Ley Line Entertainment.
- Distribution: A24 / Sony Pictures International / HBO Max.
Love in the Age of Hyper-Capitalism: Satire or Cliché?
Materialists occupies an uncomfortable generic border: it is not your typical lighthearted romantic comedy for weekend escapism, yet it fails to achieve the psychological depth that audiences expected from Celine Song. Loosely inspired by the director's own brief experience as a matchmaker in New York City, the film attempts to portray love not as a romantic ideal, but as a high-end financial transaction within a status-obsessed society.
1. The Triangle of Stereotypes
The film relies on three archetypes embodied by Hollywood stars who deliberately play at stretching their comfort zones:
- Lucy (Dakota Johnson): A frustrated actress turned successful, cynical matchmaker for the elite agency Adore. Lucy constantly vacillates between her facade of New York sophistication (marked from the very beginning by her expensive lipstick in front of the mirror) and a deep, latent depression triggered by instances of abuse and the moral boundaries crossed by her wealthy clients.
- John (Chris Evans): At the antipodes of his clean-cut superhero image, Evans plays a failed actor and catering waiter living the reverse of the "American Dream." Surrounded by grotesque, rude roommates in a New York apartment that is the literal epitome of unhygienic precariousness, John represents economic authenticity against the plastic neatness of the system.
- Harry Castillo (Pedro Pascal): The "Unicorn" suitor. A billionaire financier who meets the absurd "10/10" standard. Pascal approaches the character with a magnetic charisma that subverts the classic Latino stereotype in Hollywood, even though the script subjects him to the aesthetic obsessions of the elite, pushing the requirement of height to a satirical and disturbing extreme (to the point of suggesting bone-lengthening leg surgery to gain a few centimeters).
2. Deconstructing the Wedding Spectacle
One of the sharpest points in Song's proposal is the scathing critique of high-society American nuptial rituals. The wedding scene, featuring guests pathetically chorusing commercial music in the style of Neil Diamond, exposes the total disconnection between the social rite and the true meaning of commitment. In the universe Lucy manages, marriage is an asset-absorption contract where people demand partner requirements as if they were configuring a luxury car or a high-end hotel suite, inevitably crashing into the wall of their own mediocrity.
3. From Cavemen to the Investment Error
The film's narrative framework is, to say the least, disconcerting. The introduction and closing scenes featuring two actors dressed as cavemen in a cave—which in its crudeness verges on a racist stereotype of the "Latin American or peripheral" compared to the opulence of New York—attempts to establish an anthropological thesis: marriage is a primitive rite of possession.
This prologue connects directly to the denouement. After Harry's abrupt and predictable flight to Iceland (overwhelmed by the demands of a system he himself sustains), Lucy returns to John. The makeshift flower-ring and John's proposal inviting her to "make a huge investment mistake" with him seals the triumph of romantic love, but leaves a bittersweet aftertaste. Love wins, but the couple's material conditions are not going to magically change overnight.
Critical Reception and Performance
Despite the weight of its three leading names, Materialists has had a rather lukewarm reception from both audiences and specialized critics. Although the acting chemistry between Johnson, Evans, and Pascal was praised, the film was accused of suffering from serious pacing issues (justifying the viewer's urge to fast-forward through predictable scenes).
International critics described it as an "overwritten" piece, where excessively theatrical dialogues and the visual solemnity of the direction clashed with the lighter energy the plot demanded. In the end, the film hangs between two worlds: it is too cynical for fans of the traditional romantic comedy and too predictable for those seeking an auteur drama with true depth.
It is no wonder it has gone largely unnoticed by algorithms and HBO's top viewing charts; it is a work that, while wanting to criticize the superficiality of commodities, ended up becoming a rather conventional piece of Sunday consumerism.
Comentarios