‘Materialists’ Hints at Hunger for Sincere Romance

Ross Douthat’s recent podcast interview with social scientist Alice Evans is fascinating for a lot of reasons. They discuss the fertility crisis, and Evans argues it’s downstream from a “coupling crisis,” which is a byproduct of smartphone retreats into “digital solitude.” Scrolling ourselves to death is no mere metaphor; our obsessive smartphone use is literally leading to global depopulation.

In the final minutes of the conversation, Evans suggests one idea for how to reverse the troubling trends: We need to rediscover rom-coms that celebrate romantic love. Douthat agreed, saying he’d be in favor of a government program to subsidize new film adaptations of Jane Austen novels. Hear, hear!

Celine Song’s new movie Materialists is more rom-dram than rom-com, and it’s certainly no Austen adaptation. But it may be the sort of thing Evans has in mind. Even as it captures the harrowing dynamics of modern dating, it sincerely celebrates romantic love.

It’s a movie that appears to be going one direction—following this century’s trend of cynical, deconstructed, transgressive romance movies—only to end up as a fairly old-school romance akin to something like Sleepless in Seattle.

While I didn’t love everything about it, I generally found Materialists refreshing in its seriousness and earnestness. Amid our current “coupling crisis,” when the natural desire for marriage is often outweighed by the logistical, cultural, and material arguments against it, we need more movies like this that celebrate the goodness of marriage.

‘Math’ of Matchmaking

Materialists is the second feature written and directed by Song, whose 2023 film Past Lives I also praised as refreshing for its wise, mature take on romance.

Like Past Lives, Materialists (rated R for language and some nonexplicit sexual scenes) centers on a love triangle—a woman is torn between two men. Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a professional matchmaker in NYC. She prides herself on having mastered the “math” of contemporary coupling, which in her view is all about the “value” each single has or doesn’t have in the dating pool (“Six inches of height can double a man’s value in the market”).

We need more movies like this that celebrate the goodness of marriage.

Unsurprisingly, as the movie progresses, Lucy’s theories are tested as she’s presented with suitors who represent extremely different value propositions. Harry (Pedro Pascal) is a dapper billionaire who wines and dines Lucy, paying the bill at every fancy restaurant without hesitation and offering her a future of penthouses, yachts, and no conflicts over money (something she witnessed in her parents’ marriage growing up). But then there’s John (Chris Evans), the ex-boyfriend Lucy still cares for deeply. John is a destitute actor who barely gets by as a catering waiter and lives in squalor with two roommates. Lucy broke up with him because she was tired of squabbling over $25 expenses (“It’s not because we’re not in love. It’s because we’re broke”). It’s a realistic plot point. Marriage success rates are demonstrably correlated with socioeconomic status. The poorer you are, the less likely you are to get married or stay married.

Lucy’s choice—complicated by the fact that both Harry and John are good guys who really do love her—sets up the film’s main drama. It’s not as simple as the “on paper” choice versus the “risky but romantic” option. Happy futures could be envisioned with either man. So Lucy—and the audience—is forced to think through the nature of love.

Dating Is Hard. Love Is Easy?

Lucy tells one of her clients that dating is hard but love is easy. She’s getting at the reality that modern dating is horribly broken, in large part due to digital apps and social media. The endless choices, algorithmic matchmaking, and “math” permutations of it all complicate what used to be simpler dynamics in coupling—confined to more limited pools of people you know through friends, family, or church.

These days, dating is daunting, even dangerous (something Materialists goes out of its way to acknowledge). This is one reason singles are doing it less and why Christian parents and pastors might need to do more encouraging and discipling of singles in this area.

Love is easier than dating in the sense that love is a choice that closes off other options and brings simplicity in the form of commitment to one person (the “forsaking all others” part of traditional wedding vows). But love is also hard because it requires fidelity, forbearance, selflessness, and sacrifice—values and vows that can carry a couple forward even when the “material” assets ebb and flow.

Love requires fidelity, forbearance, selflessness, and sacrifice—values and vows that can carry a couple forward even when the ‘material’ assets ebb and flow.

Lucy may have a rosy view of marital love as “easy” in comparison to dating. But as the movie ends (spoiler alert) she chooses the “for better or worse” commitment of seeing just what love in marriage will require. As I reminded a couple whose wedding I officiated a few weeks ago, the wedding altar may represent the end of one roller-coaster journey (dating). But it’s the beginning of a new, even more shaping journey with its own ups and downs.

The refreshing message that comes through in Materialists (and that Lucy assures her single clients of) is that marriage, however hard, is absolutely worth the arduous work of dating. And that’s probably a message today’s marriage-leery, anxious generation needs to hear.

More Austen-Style Romance

I’d welcome more movies like Materialists. They capture realistic dynamics of modern romance but with a welcome traditionalist bent. Still, the R-rated film includes unsavory language, frequent smoking, premarital sex (nonexplicit), and a noticeable desire to normalize same-sex coupling among minor or background characters. Even as it tilts toward traditionalism in some ways, the universe of Materialists is still shaped by the sexual revolution. It’s a more traditional celebration of marriage, but not necessarily a Christian one.

For that reason, I second Douthat’s wish for more Jane Austen romance adaptations: old-school celebrations of virtuous romance and the coming together of chivalrous men and feminine women. Note that the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice was recently rereleased for its 20th anniversary and did solid box-office numbers. And even though it was released at the pandemic’s onset, 2020’s Emma was also an indie hit. Audiences are hungry for these stories. Here’s hoping Netflix doesn’t mess up its forthcoming Pride and Prejudice adaptation.

I’d also love to see Christian filmmakers and producers lean into the vibe shift and make more quality, morally edifying rom-coms and rom-drams. Evans is right. The modern cultural imaginary needs more depictions of the good, true, and beautiful aspects of marriage and romance. Christians should celebrate when Hollywood takes steps in that direction.