We Wanted to Love Celine Song’s 'Materialists'

Today we dive into Celine Song’s Materialists, a glossy, thematically ambitious romcom that left us more intrigued than moved. Following the quiet power of Past Lives, Song pivots hard...playing with genre conventions to critique romance as transaction, intimacy as performance, and dating as capitalist spectacle. We talk about how the film tries to reclaim a dying genre while simultaneously dissecting it, why the trio of Pedro Pascal, Dakota Johnson, and Chris Evans doesn’t quite click, and how the script’s sharp ideas get lost in repetition. It’s a fascinating misfire that doesn't totally land. Free deep dive of Past Lives for FREE MEMBERS on Patreon below!

The Extra Credits YouTube Channel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Become a member of The Extra Credits+ on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠How to link Patreon to Spotify and Apple⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Letterboxd: ⁠The Extra Credits⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok: The Extra Credits⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reddit: r/TheExtraCredits⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram: ⁠@theextracredits⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter: ⁠@theextracredits⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Send requests, questions, and thoughts to our email: [e-mail]

Episode Transcript

(00:14):
Music. Hello, welcome to the extra
credits of Celine Song's Materialist.
I'm Trey. And I'm Kelsey.
So this is the new film from Song, the director and writer of
2023's Past Lives, which earns Song a best picture nomination
and screen writing nomination from the Oscars that year.

(00:34):
I'm looking at my list right nowfrom that year.
Wild year in movies. Oppenheimer, Barbie.
Obviously Killers of the Flower Moon, but also like Anatomy of a
Fall. Passages was my favorite.
Passages was really good. A lot of great movies that year.
Yeah, so a crazy impressive debut from Song and a really
amazing year in movies and materialist.

(00:57):
You know, there's been a lot of anticipation about what she
would do next. I don't think this is the movie
anyone was expecting, but I was really excited to hear that it
could be a ROM com ROM drum genre, which is sort of adjacent
to like what Past Lives was doing.
But this movie still feels like a pivot from song, which is
interesting. It's a pivot in tone, a pivot in

(01:17):
structure. And at times I did wonder, is
this the same filmmaker? Sometimes good, sometimes.
Bad 'cause it did feel like a large step away from past.
Yeah, and if you know it's song and you are familiar with Past
Lives pretty well, it's like oneof your favorite movies of the
last few years, then you can certainly sense the filmmaker
interest in genre, like as a sandbox.

(01:40):
Here you can see how in Past Lives, Slingsong used romance
and a love triangle to explore much deeper themes about
immigration, assimilation, identity.
Sort of tricky people to come tosee a movie about a romantic
crisis only to learn that it's an identity crisis for many
characters. And here with Materialists, I

(02:00):
think she's doing something similar in terms of subverting
the expectations of a romantic genre to interrogate, like
bigger ideas about intimacy and the transactional relationship
that we have to romance today and class and performance and
dating. And so I guess we'll start with
Past Lives just to kind of beginthis conversation.

(02:21):
And we're going to get into spoilers in a bit, but we'll
warn you when we do. We rewatched Past Lives before
Materialists, which I sort of feel like was a mistake looking
back at it. Yeah, we had low expectations,
and we'll get into why when we walked into Materialists.
But Past Lives was so good on rewatch that I did find myself
going maybe this wasn't a great idea.
Yeah, just because it's it's difficult, like a lot of, you

(02:42):
know, we cover a lot of first time film makers on the pod too.
And we usually watch a lot of like interviews and try to think
about what did we take away fromthe movie?
What were they trying to say in the movie?
Often times first time film makers are like far more
transparent in their first movie.
And it's also difficult because first movie, you know, is
something that film makers are often able to think about for a

(03:04):
long time, right. Like I think past lives are a
really good example of a personal story from in songs
life and also something that yousee in her partner's work as
well. And that like challengers, like
I love all the memes of who is haunting their marriage.
Who's the third person? And with the the challengers,
like 3 people, the yeah, the past lives three people like

(03:25):
that. Who is the side by side?
Who are you? Tell us.
Just DM us, you know, add extra credits.
Yeah, yeah, maybe like cover allthe content.
Who are you? But but yeah.
So anyway, I think that it's tough to to top often times like
a first movie. We see this like repeatedly
happened, especially with audiences of like even, you

(03:47):
know, like Jordan Peele, for example.
People were obviously loved to get out and then people didn't
really love us. We loved us.
We loved all Jordan Peele's movies.
But it was divisive. Yeah.
But yeah, and we see this with something like RE Astor with,
you know, hereditary Midsummer. I mean, it's pretty beloved, but
some split, but more so like with Beau is afraid, right,

(04:07):
which is actually something thathe had been like thinking about
for a very long time as well. And.
Soon with Addington. Yes, yeah.
So you know this this happens. And so like you said, is it fair
to compare past lives to materialists?
Yes and no, right. I I think that Celine's song is
such an interesting filmmaker that I will continue to be

(04:29):
seated for because of what she was able to do in past lives and
how, you know, when we're watching it, we we noted like
yes, there are moments that feelkind of like first time
filmmaker. She was a playwright before
this. There are some more stiff, you
know, pieces of dialogue that were, you know, felt like a a

(04:50):
first movie, but ultimately you kind of also forgive give them
in this genre and. They felt like hiccups in past
lives because it was so like expert in tone and and very
naturalistic and threading a needle for different ideas.
Really careful. Yeah.
So there there were like certainthings that you just are like,

(05:10):
OK, this is kind of like part ofa romance movie genre, part of
like a first time film. But ultimately, like you're
saying, past lives are just so powerful in terms of like the
visual storytelling, the playingwith the genre of a ROM drum and
really meditating on the idea oflike self identity and putting

(05:33):
in this this cover of a kind of will they won't they, you know,
tension that we normally get in romantic movies or romantic
comedies and and actually going far deeper into Nora's
character. Yes, and we were also pausing,
you know, throughout the movie because we were like, this is
obviously like a such a special movie and such a such a

(05:57):
successful movie and its themes and that it makes the audience
member really like reflect on their lives, not just their
romantic lives. And I think that Past Lives was
like really beloved, but not really talked about in the way
that we did on our episode, which we did.
You say at the top that we have that on Patreon right now.

(06:19):
Not yet. Yeah, real quick on our Patreon,
in the description of this episode, if you hit the link to
our Patreon and you sign up as afree member, you'll have access
to our deep dive of past lives, which we just gave access.
To Right. Yeah.
And we talked a lot about on that episode of how people were
talking about this is like a really beautiful romance and how
this was kind of a more modern picture of maybe monogamy where

(06:43):
Nora's husband is like allowing her to explore this this
unexplored, you know, part of her life and a past love of her
life. And we talked like about how
actually it it's more so at the core of this story and why it's
such a big breakout and why we're excited for Celine Song's
future movies in her career is because she was able to really

(07:07):
drill into this idea and an interesting way of exploring
like self identity. Yeah, exactly.
And I think the film not really being about this rekindled
romance between Hey Sung and Nora and the movie's going to
have legs like a Before Sunset, for example, because it's more
about a universal experience of struggling to confront different

(07:29):
past versions of yourself, whichis why we paused it and
discussed some ideas because we were just like, we were getting
nostalgic while watching the movie and we were reflecting on
different parts of our lives in different friendships or
relationships. And that's like an interesting
aspect of past lives that is nowunderrated.
I think about the movie. Yeah.
Yeah. Because I think so many people
talk about it as a love triangle, but really it's a

(07:49):
movie about Nora confronting herpast self and and how she
assimilated in the West and whatwas the cost of that.
And when Hey Sung and her, you know, split apart again at the
end of this movie, it's kind of like her saying goodbye to her
past self, but also accepting this new stage of her life and
accepting who she used to be. And it's less about a romance
with a a man and more about a romance with herself and trying

(08:09):
to fall in love with herself again when she tried to bury
herself in order to maybe fit in.
There was a lot of suggestive writing in that screenplay that
really trusted the audience to figure out what Nora was going
through her Hey son or her her partner was going through that.
I really appreciate it on rewatch.
But to your point about the screenplay feeling a little
rigid, there were moments like one or two conversations where

(08:31):
we also paused where we were thinking, especially when Nora
talked to her husband in bed together after she had first met
Hey Song after all these years. And where you see these people
in bed together that feel more like thematic devices than
actual real exchanges between human beings.
And that is where I felt like this, the screenplay of it all

(08:52):
that felt a little bit forced. And then when I saw the
marketing for materialists and Isaw the trailer and I heard
about the premise, I did get worried.
I went, oh, is that one or two notes that we that fell kind of
flat here in terms of these characters feeling a little bit
stiff or like they were pulled from a whiteboard.
And then on the scenes were expanded from these like smart
ideas or clever ideas that Song had.

(09:14):
Is this going to be a whole issue of materialist which we
can get into now? I think because that ended up
being a major issue of. Materialist.
I agreed, yeah. And I think, you know,
particularly like in the that scene that you're talking about,
it felt like, do these characters even know each other?
Like just because people are married doesn't mean that they

(09:35):
have to deeply know each other, that they can't have like
secrets from each other or whatever, or feel that they
can't tell each other something.That's a whole different issue.
It just felt like they would have already had this
conversation or there were certain things that were
inserted like hit like the husband hearing her talk in her

(09:57):
sleep in a different language. And he says like, maybe that's
why I've been trying to like learn like that language.
And that was like a beautiful idea.
But it felt like he probably would have already told her,
Hey, you're talking in your sleep, you know, like you
wouldn't have just like held on to that idea.
So things felt like a little bitmore heightened in a dramatic

(10:17):
sense that it made me out on certain, I guess the depth of
two characters relationship as it was being presented to me.
And so that was like something that I think, yes, I was worried
about seeing the materialists trailer, just the conversations,
because it seemed to also followa more like the playbook of

(10:38):
romantic comedies or dramas. And so that may be a little
worried also with the the actorswho who were cast, which we can
we can talk more about now, I guess.
Yeah. So I'm going to say at the top
here, if you are interested in that past lives conversation, go
listen to that because it is a very positive conversation with
small criticisms here and there,but really just us being

(10:59):
impressed by this first time filmmaker.
And it's. We'll talk more about
materialism in comparing, just like the idea of the the film
language. Like, beautifully shot for past
lives, yeah. Yeah, well, that's what I was
gonna know. Like I think a lot of people
talk about Celine Song is like this great the next great
screenwriter. Like it feels like a Richard
Linklater esque writer just entered the fold, you know.

(11:21):
But actually, I think the visionof her that she has
cinematically is what I really connected with in past lives.
That got me excited for Materialist.
Which is similar to like a Before Sunset.
Exactly. Yeah.
Like it, yeah. So we'll talk a little bit more
about that as we get into materialist too.
Yeah. So I'll say at the top, go
listen to that if you want a positive conversation.
If you are interested in a more critical review of songs newest

(11:45):
film materialist, then this willbe the episode for you.
Stay for this conversation. I think you're going to
appreciate this discussion. We're going to try to see
different points of views here because I think this is going to
be a divisive movie. I think it's going to make some
money too. But if you want to listen to two
people talk about why they love to this movie that is more
celebratory than it is nuanced, I would say, or developed, then

(12:07):
this is not the pot for you. I think you'll get a little
angry, understandably. If you really love this movie
and you thought it was like a ton of fun and really smart, I
would say don't waste your time with this episode.
I just don't. I don't think it's in either of
our best interests as Potter's what movie podcast critics,
whatever we do here and then youas a listener, I think it's just
better if you go and find other episodes on materialist.

(12:30):
But again, listen to past lives if you.
Yeah. And also, I mean, I think we'll
talk about how a lot of the issues that we have with this
movie is 1 an issue with the genre in general.
Like, yeah, we'll talk about that.
But then also the the idea that this movie is actually like
playing with interesting ideas, right?

(12:51):
There are things that we like about it or appreciate about it
adding to the genre. But why we'll actually have like
more criticisms of the movie because it didn't really like
meet those expectations that it was putting forward, especially
at the very beginning of the movie.
So that's like more so where where that criticism will come
from. But also, like, we, if you're a
new listener, we're an independent podcast.

(13:12):
We are not like, funded by any company or whatever, right?
So like, this is just a conversation Like, yeah, about
the movie. Yeah, I only put that preface
out there because I know becausewe talked after this movie, even
though we try not to. Neither of us really enjoyed
this film like comically or likeromantically, or even though it

(13:34):
elevated standards intellectually and emotionally
in the genre. And I appreciate that about what
Song tried to do here. None of that was really executed
on for me, like the standards weren't executed on.
So I feel a little bit like, I would say a very conflicted
about the movie. So if you're ready for that
discussion, we're just going to jump in.
So spoiler warnings ahead. When we first heard about this

(13:57):
movie, I think we should start there.
The trailer, the marketing premise, we were both a bit
skeptical. So I feel already sort of Fair
leaning into my criticism with this film because my bar was so
low. Yeah, like really, I know we we
were talking before we like madea whole day of like it before we
went to our our screening and wewere like, are you excited for

(14:18):
this movie? And we're like, I am just
keeping my expectations low because of this trailer because
of what I at least kind of like picked up from like the
chemistry a little bit already just with the actors.
And then I think like so we were, we were going in like
really allowing for the. Yeah, I don't know.

(14:38):
I think allowing for Room to appreciate the movie, be
entertained by the movie, but not have this high bar.
That yeah, we weren't like, thisneeds to be serious.
The. Aggressive.
Wrong. Yeah, that's what I was trying
to say. Yeah, like I similar
relationship to what we had to link later again to bring him up
Hitman from a year or two ago. That was sexy, sleek,
entertaining, funny, smart enough, you know, and had

(15:01):
issues. But like, we liked it.
I didn't with this movie. So to back up its leads are
Dakota Johnson and Chris Evans with Pietro Pascal.
That's how I would describe thismovie.
And you can tell, you know, fromthe marketing right now and when
the trailer dropped, which is a very divisive trailer online,
that Chris Evans and Dakota Johnson, we're clearly going to

(15:21):
end up together and end of this film.
So it wasn't like there were stakes in this narrative at all.
I wasn't expecting that. I didn't expect some big
surprise at the end. So again, it wasn't that I was
like let down by a movie that I was hoping it would be.
I was just, I was just going andbeing like, I want to have some
laughs, have some moments, reflect on some things that are
like problematic inherently about the genre and like, that's

(15:43):
it and leave and maybe elevate the standards a little bit
because it's Sling. See little Pedro Pascal.
Yeah, yeah. A little bit of Pedro Pascal
would have been nice, which we barely get in this movie, and
we'll talk about that. And then as a trio, I think we
thought about the three of them just kind of not working in the
trailer. Like the chemistry fell off with
Dakota with Chris and then Dakota with Pedro, which was

(16:04):
odd. Yeah.
And then you learn from the trailer or just from watching
the movie. Obviously, the premise of the
film is about a luxury exclusiveNew York City matchmaker, played
by Dakota Johnson, who is navigating her own crisis of her
career crisis of of love, of wanting to be valued, a sort of

(16:26):
class consciousness question mark going on with her awakening
to materialism being all around her and like perpetuating
problematic things about dating in her now 30s.
And so you have that in the trailer.
And then the trailer was also like really tonally odd to me.

(16:47):
Like very it was it was like it was anything but unique.
It felt like an evolution of the2006 ROM com felt like an
evolution of like a Devil Wears product, which is like an iconic
movie. But it in terms of the way it
was shot, in terms of the way itwas cut, I was like, this feels
like somebody who was in love with like mid 2000s ROM coms
trying to elevate it a little bit in 2025.

(17:07):
Yeah, and like that's not necessarily always something
that's in the film makers control, right.
Like that could be like a production decision, but but at
the same time, it seemed to be showing the clips in that way.
I think it's like what you're talking about, right?
Like it seemed to be showing thekind of party where she is.

(17:28):
She goes into that kind of like celebration.
You're not sure what it is in the trailer, but of her being
responsible for what, like 9 marriages or something at this
point? That felt very, like you said,
Jerry McGuire, right? Yeah, very Jerry McGuire.
Somebody having an existential crisis.
And also felt like a lot of the ROM coms of women like working

(17:49):
in like a newsroom or something.I think you have like 10 how to
lose a guy in 10 days right where Kate Hudson like goes into
this newsroom and has like her friends who were introduced.
To or broadcast news Because yousaid news just made me think.
About, yeah, but. I think.
Like, it felt it. It felt dated when I saw it in

(18:09):
the trailer. And then when I saw it in the
movie, it didn't actually like, do I thought maybe in the movie
it would subvert it a little bit.
How it was treating that settingand how it was treating how she
and her clients were going aboutthe dating scene and the
superficiality of like, what hasvalue in the dating market.

(18:31):
But it didn't like it was. So it felt really strange to
have to see this movie in like 2025.
Yeah. Well, maybe did in the dialogue,
but it didn't execute on those ideas.
Like it said a lot of things about being critical of those
things and then also leaning into those things and we're
going to get into all that. I think I should.
Yeah, sorry. Let I'll let you keep going on
the plot and then we'll we'll talk about those things.

(18:52):
So the film follows Lucy who again is Dakota Johnson playing
this character who is a high endNew York City matchmaker who is
very clever, gorgeous. Obviously it's Dakota Johnson
funny mysterious, has quippy 1 liners, has cool friends the the
woman from succession who is funny in her.
Too. Oh yeah, Kendall, one of Kendall

(19:13):
Roy's PR people. And also I realize that Carrie
Logan's like last girlfriend is the her client, her main client.
Celine, a fan of Succession? Yeah, Come on the show, we'll
talk about Logan, Roy and Lucy'sjob is to assess people's
romantic portfolios, I think is the best way to put it.
She looks at their income, theirattractiveness, their education,

(19:36):
their fitness, their vibes, genuinely just like vibes.
Like, what are they? And she is good at it.
That's what we're told. And she seems pretty good at it.
And as a result of being good atthis manipulative dating
practice in this job, she's alsosort of emotionally stunted
because of it feels very much inline with the apartment which
inspired Jerry Maguire to in terms of a character who is a

(19:59):
successful 30 something who has a crash out.
Except Lucy's crash out isn't really a crash out.
It's more of like AI just don't really like poor people.
Yeah, that was wild. That's.
Like my dad. Not that that doesn't exist or
not that that isn't, you know, something that people have in

(20:20):
there like their list. It's not like like it's, it's
presented as being transparent about the idea that people value
money as a as marriage as like abusiness or transactional, you
know, like foundational thing that that is sold as something
that is primarily based on love,but that was not explored

(20:45):
completely like. It was like, just materialism
bad. Yeah.
And. Even at the end she was like,
I'm cold, I like money. Like what dude?
Like this is. Where it's going to get?
Real. Yeah.
OK, so keep going on the plot because I'm, I'm like jumping
ahead. We see a lot at the end of the
first act of Lucy's Co workers like cheering for her, like
engagements. Kind of like Jerry closing his

(21:08):
sports agent deals where he's commodified, you know?
Yeah. People, human beings.
And she sort of commodified these people on their dating
practices and has justified it as if she's creating love out of
thin air. And as we get into the second
act, this job there, she has a realization, A awakening that
there is a cold math to the intimacy that she's

(21:28):
manufacturing. And she's helped normalize and
perpetuate dangerous things to her rich clients or dangerous
standards in the dating arena. And that starts impacting her
emotionally and psychologically.And she runs into an ex, John,
played by Chris Evans, who is a broke caterer who is also an
artist and an actor and. Specifically like in plays.

(21:52):
Yes, a theatre actor. I do want to say that the way
they introduced him with the coke and the beer was like a
great classic ROM com vibe. Great image.
Great image. Yes, I agree.
I think there's a lot of momentsthis movie felt like such a
whiteboard screenplay. And it's, and I know that sounds
really critical, but like so much like here's a really good
idea. Here's Pedro Pascal with his
fingertip going grazing a table,picking up a card with his name

(22:15):
on. It and then placing it next to
Dakota Johnson. Dakota Johnson.
Then you see a shot of him talk for 5 minutes and you feel like
no electricity. Yeah, almost no electricity.
Yeah, for for us at least. So strange.
And basically she talks to John for a bit.
She meets Harry, who is played by Pedro Pascal, who is this
financial suave Richard Gere Pretty Woman type of guy.

(22:36):
And Lucy starts to unravel as she starts to self hate a little
bit because of her allergy to broke people and then feeling
bad about that, essentially. And then also feeling like she's
not valued and she's not lettingherself be valued.
And again, it sounds like a class awakening on paper, but it
really is not developed in this movie.

(22:58):
There's not a background to any of these three characters.
It's not really deepened all that much.
So yeah, it's a screenplay that keeps repeating its thesis, as
you're saying, in in many different ways until the movie
ends. Yeah.
And, and I think like, well, to be fair to the screenplay, there
was like a background in terms of Dakota Johnson's character

(23:20):
telling us that her parents fought over $25.00, right, like
all the time. And she didn't want to be like
her parents. And so that is why she broke up
with Chris Evans character. And ultimately we can kind of
connect the dots in terms of whyshe doesn't, why maybe she wants
more means, I guess in the future, But to the point that

(23:42):
you just said, like that's not really explored in an
interesting way. The fact that she ends up with
someone poor doesn't mean that that's explored.
And the fact that she says it sodirectly doesn't mean that it's
meaningful. It it feels actually kind of
like I, I was actively and I I know that romantic comedies and

(24:04):
genres have cringy elements, butI was actively cringing through
a lot of this movie. And I think a lot of the kind of
like on the surface class interesting, you know, like
class ideas that were presented which were interesting at the
beginning. But then as they continue to be
so transparent and underdeveloped and just like

(24:28):
signalled over and over again, like very directly through the
dialogue, it developed into a cringeer and cringer environment
for me in the movie. Like I kept like looking at the
screen with my mouth kind of open.
Like I just couldn't believe some things were happening.
Or like I looked at you with like just like.

(24:48):
Clearly crunching. Yeah.
Physically, yeah. Like I think when we're told
specifically that Chris Evans character voted for Bernie and
that was never fully developed or just.
Like kind of this like virtue signaling class politics to
forgive a middle class audience to justify their place in the
world economically. So it was like very strange
because in the beginning of the film they're like, yeah,

(25:08):
marriage is an economic proposition.
I was like. I was like, OK, yeah, let's go.
And then it was like, materialism bad.
OK, yes, the movie is called materialist, so I figured you
were going to say that. And then it was like, also
dating practices have become like, inherently problematic and
romance has been commodified by capitalism.
And there are businesses that try to make money off of like,
the lack of intimacy in the world.

(25:30):
And we've all become very dangerous to one another.
I'm like, OK, yes, these are all.
These are all true. And then by the end of the
movie, she gets offered a raise and a promotion, sort of says
no, but sort of takes it. And her husband's like, I'm
going to quit being an artist tomake more money, to make you
happy. I'm like, what is this movie
saying to the audience? And what is it trying to get

(25:51):
across here? And then not only that.
Realistic conversations people have in real life, but again,
they're not, they don't feel deepened and.
I don't know. Human beings.
Going through this and not and like it's not to pretend that
like in capitalism that money doesn't like matter for
happiness, right, but like I I think yeah, like or to live a
stable life, right? Like, but those were not ideas

(26:14):
that were explored. And it doesn't need to be this
like intense, right exploration of that, but to it feels very
hollow to just signal those things and then not kind of go
into them. But I think also, you know, the
the idea of us being told at thevery beginning, like here are

(26:35):
all the ways in which the datingmarketplace is kind of
functioning, right? Like here are all the arbitrary
features that people value that makes someone valuable, that
makes you feel valuable, right? And then also bring in like
class and economic right status into that.

(26:56):
But then to have it like veer towards the end, right?
So like it's told like to the audience, hey, we're going to
kind of explore these a little bit.
And by the end, it's almost saying that, you know, because
she chose someone that wasn't rich.
Like she was saying that was heron her item list the whole time

(27:17):
and she chose someone who loved her.
But it's almost like framed as this like naturalistic like that
monogamy and heterosexual like relationships are this like
natural thing that have been happening since the beginning of
time. And she is like almost extending

(27:37):
that legacy of like what is literally seen as like a pure
quote UN quote love with Chris Evans character that felt so
weird to end a movie. That said, it had a lot of ideas
on its mind about the. Constructs.
Yeah. And then it leans into them,
yeah. It was really weird.
Satirizing. Really weird like.
Satirizing how we've all justified living in this society

(27:59):
that feels dystopian and like, absent of like, real human
feelings and then leans all the way into that instead of
satirizing it. And so, yeah, it was really
strange, especially because it opens up with a prologue of like
hunter gatherers to get that point across, which I was like.
Yeah, I'm using the, I'm using the the language of, of the
movie of saying caveman, not Dakota, Johnson's dialogue says.

(28:21):
Yeah, OK, so to keep on going with the plot, we learn more
about Harry, played by Pedro Pascoe, who is a rich bachelor
type and has a penthouse. It's like $12 million and it
looks really. Good.
It looks great. I mean, there's a great moment
where she's about to have sex with Harry, and then she's like,
kind of falling in love with thehouse.
Yeah. She's like working around.

(28:42):
Yeah, that's funny. And he is what her business
calls a Unicorn, Someone who's tall, which we'll come back to
charming and aware of their masculinity or observational
about how society's sort of corrupt and just want somebody
to live with them. That's smart.
You know, that's kind of what hesays to her.
I just need somebody who's. Yeah, he's like, I want to
please me. And check who's smarter than me.

(29:03):
Yeah, who's observational. And she is.
And they fall into something that feels less like a romance
and more like a business merger,which is the point of the end of
their relationship. And the film wants us to believe
that. Lucy is torn between two ideas
of love. And you know, therefore so is
the audience, which is like thisaspirational comfort with a rich

(29:25):
Harry who is sort of confident in himself but need somebody who
will keep him in check. To then the shared history past
and potentially future with John, who never really makes it
clear why he likes Lucy. And we never really learned why
John is in his living situation that he's in outside of just
being an artist because he is ina pretty tough situation.

(29:47):
But like, basically he loves Lucy because he sees her with
like Gray hair and he sees kids and like, so there's a comfort
there, I think in terms of an investment emotionally.
But neither relationship feels grounded or those dynamics never
feel totally deserved in in terms of like the criticism of

(30:08):
how relationships have become economic transactions, totally
which is the hairy relationship and the kind of the welcoming of
something more mythic and romantic about.
John they keep using words towards Chris Evans character of
like you can't help it. It'll be easy when you love
someone like those kind of things, like something about.
Fate leaning back. Into the.
Conversations from past lives, which that movie was using in

(30:31):
Young in a different way. So I was kind of surprised that
she leaned into the the more fate aspects here, if that makes
sense. So not to mention the chemistry
sort of off. I would say all the actors are
giving a lot of effort, which I appreciate, but the dialogue is
pretty clunky. I think the shooting of their
conversations oscillates betweennaturalistic to then like these

(30:52):
more dramatic pivots or camera moves that don't always work.
There's like over the shoulder stuff.
There's up close stuff. There's medium shots to to long
shots to where you can't totallysee Pedro Pascal's face.
And you're wondering why the lighting is sometimes like so
clinical and ballroom moments where I'm like, why do they look
like they're at a dentist? And then also there are moments
in restaurants where you can't really see Pedro's face.

(31:14):
I'm like, this is really the cardinal sin of this movie.
Not that it doesn't look, you know.
Yeah, it looks it looks like it's in film language
conversation of those like 2000sera ROM coms.
But like we don't need that. You know, there are some things
like like we talked about past lives was beautifully shot.

(31:35):
There are moments that it felt like even the shots were like in
conversation with the thematic, right elements of the film, like
whom we're seeing Hesung and Nora, like zoomed out walking
through the city. We're like, it feels like, oh,
they're just like two people on this, like massive planet,
right, who like could never makeit work.

(31:57):
And like you just are also reflecting on the idea of like
how small we all are, like, right, Like those are like
within the shot. It's beautiful.
Or yeah, we're like lingering ona conversation or them just like
looking at each other. I mean the last shot of past
lives, obviously, like this is, you know, people talk about Nora
like walking back sobbing, But the shot where Heysong turns

(32:19):
around to Nora and says hey, andwe like cut back to when he said
bye to her when they were younger, My heart like drops.
Like it's such like that film strong, like film language is so
successful in past lives and then here it felt like ran kind
of random shots. It wasn't so.
Conventional it just. Felt kind of uneven.
Yeah, yeah. Not.

(32:41):
Not for every shot, but but yeah, it felt like weirdly
placed, yeah. Even when they do experimental
stuff like Dakota's about to getin a taxi car and then the
camera's placed on the door of the taxi car and then the door
closes with the camera and then the camera moves into Dakota
Johnson now sitting in the taxi.I'm like, OK, we're that that
shot felt so out of place compared to the rest of like the
traditional film making that also felt uneven throughout the

(33:02):
movie. Anyways, yeah, so now, so I
don't want to stick on the film making aspect of it.
What I was going to say was evenin good moments between like
Lucy and Harry, where they're atdinner together and they're
having a conversation about feeling valued, and it's the
best scene of the movie to me. Yeah, I agree.
Even that scene, I'm like, why are they not letting Pedro
Pascal? Like this is the cardinal sent

(33:24):
to me. Why are they not letting him be
Pedro? Like why?
Why are they putting him in a muted George Clooney without any
kind of like real charisma or able to outside of one or two
moments? Why are they forcing us to like,
watch such a dialed down versionof Pedro Pascal and Richard Gere
George Clooney? It made no sense to me.

(33:45):
I totally agree. I think it was weird to see in a
movie, which I, I understand that the Chris Evans character
was supposed to be a sort of more like alluring, like kind of
more blunt character who tells Lucy what he's feeling, accepts
how she's feeling, right? More open space, right?

(34:07):
And so like, therefore Pedro Pascal's like character was
supposed to be more reserved, kind of more like a, what I
think of like a Don Draper, right?
Like a Jon Hamm kind of suave, cool, calm, collected rich guy.
But like he can still be that and still have like the Pedro

(34:30):
Pascal like charm and like he did, obviously he has that like
he especially when they first meet, he's like doing his thing.
But it felt like for most of themovie it he was like playing
this like cold character. I know that's the character he
was asked to play, but it just is very strange to have someone
who is like, I mean, you just see it in his interviews, like

(34:52):
he is so magnetic and like you want to keep watching him.
You want to be in his presence. Like he's so charismatic to not
use that a little bit. Like he could still be the, you
know, wrong choice, I guess in this like this world for Lucy.
But it doesn't mean that he has to be this kind of like, 'cause

(35:13):
I wouldn't, I wouldn't say his character is like boring.
I we don't really know any of the characters though.
I. Guess yeah, I guess we don't
know any of them well enough to say they're boring.
But yeah, but I would say like, if you're going to cast like,
you know him in your movie, likeyou should at least have him for
the reasons he's so successful, I think in in your movie, or at
least take advantage of like really honing it on his like

(35:37):
face or I don't know. Well, he's just an incredible
blend of sexy and silly. Yeah, you know what I mean?
For him to be neither on this movie.
And I know some people are goingto say he's sexy, but that.
And he was silly in like the kitchen scene, but it wasn't
enough. But just.
Because he literally is sexy doesn't mean his character is
sexy. Does that make sense?
And like, that's kind of how this movie feels, just because
it's saying things. Yeah, yeah.
That's actually a really genre. Yeah.

(35:58):
His performance is sexy, The character is not.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So basically Lucy wants to feel
valued. She has a awakening in the last
act of the movie. There's a few subplots.
There's one big one with one of her clients, which I think we
can get to at the end or now, whatever you want to do.
And then Lucy chooses to be withJohn.

(36:18):
She sort of leaves her job, sortof doesn't, and they live their
life together. I think bad ending.
The whole like they're doing a wedding crashing thing.
Very strange. Yeah.
I was like, first of all, this is not a like it was a romantic
setting when they were kind of like watching from maybe where

(36:38):
like the the people. Who are respectful?
Yeah, that was like a respectful.
He works for that company. Yeah, which he 'cause he could
have been there anyway working that that's totally fun at a
far. OK, crashing someone else's like
wedding with your sneakers on, which is I mean, I don't care
about footwear. We're comfortable footwear, wear
whatever you want, but it just seemed like.

(36:59):
Well, they're going to. You said they were going to be
in their pictures. Yeah, I was like, they're right.
They're right next to the. Yeah, the two people getting
married. They're dancing right next to
them. I was like, you're literally in
their pictures. You're drinking their alcohol
that they paid for for their open bar.
Strange riding decision. Yeah, you're taking their cake.
Like it just felt so weird. And then they make him do a huge
monologue outside of the weddingabout how he sees how they're

(37:22):
going to be when they're older. And I don't know.
This is going to be a really divisive movie for critics and
audiences I think because it's so trophy and these characters
are archetypes and I am just confused.
I don't know if it was a studio decision.
I doubt it. But it is a $20 million
production and it looks like there's a lot of money in
marketing too. So maybe it is like a choice

(37:44):
from a 24 or other producers here.
That Celine song in the 1st 35 minutes, it feels like this is
going to be a satire. It feels kind of like it feels
like there's a raised eyebrow. Like the Jerry Maguire, right?
Yeah, A. Lot like elements that you were
saying. Well, there is a Cameron Crowe,
Jonathan Demme, Celine Siama kind of emotionality and politic

(38:04):
to a lot of what's seen. Siama is a lot of what Celine
Song is exploring in her movies when she does character studies
or when she explores some kind of theme.
But in this, the last hour and ahalf of this film, it gets so
conventional to a cringey degreeto what you're saying.
So like when we have Chris Evanscharacter monologue to Dakota

(38:27):
Johnson's character and then they end up kissing, I, I feel
really nothing. It feels hollow, it feels
artificial. It all feels really manufactured
and it doesn't, it doesn't feel novel.
It feels really derivative like and I I can't believe it fell
off that much. Yeah, yeah.
And I think also just with that scene like showing the the close

(38:47):
up of them kissing, but seeing the like huge like movie making
side kiss, it was like a weird choice.
If they're not going to like actually kiss, which they don't
have to, you know, professionally, like do whatever
you want, but like the but to close up on it and like see
basically like a unrealistic kiss felt strange.

(39:09):
That was supposed to be like their long lost, you know,
lovers who like should have beenbeen together, but like life got
in the way and like it. The passion was not in that
kiss. That was also flat.
Yeah, felt like one of the firstthings they shot or.
Something, yeah, it was very strange, but similar like that,
that whole scene. The reason it fell off too is
because felt off is because I think the characters, you know,

(39:34):
it was like we were told a list of who they are, right?
Like Dakota Johnson matchmaker sort of having crash out
questioning life once a rich, you know.
Wants a partner, financially stable partner who happens to be
very financially. Stable happens to be.
Hyper financially stable. And then like, you know, Pedro

(39:56):
Pascal's character, like the like, you know, rich guy nice.
Like obviously they list it in the Unicorn, you know, aspect of
him as like this product. But we don't really like I don't
feel like I know him. I don't feel like I know her.
And also I don't feel like I know Chris Evans character,
right. If if anything with him, it's
like even he's the most I think like here's the list of his

(40:19):
character traits. He lives in an apartment with
two other men. He is an actor.
He is poor like that. We're.
Going to do handheld camera in his apartment.
To show you how. Crazy his life is.
He's throwing. Wait, hang on a second.
This man is throwing people's iPhones in blenders.
Blenders. OK, that is.

(40:40):
Well, the condom thing was crazy.
So. He's going through a lot.
OK, but I know, but to throw someone else's phone, that is
like a huge purchase if we're anyway.
So, but then yeah, like the the kind of conversations back and
forth in their car felt. I, I, I think it's, it's also an
issue like with the casting, like we were talking about
earlier, where Chris Evans felt miscast for this.

(41:06):
And he because he he's a hyper like performing actor in a way
that works in like a Captain America role or it works in like
a comedy or could work in a genre.
In an elevated genre, yeah, Which is his.
One, but he felt more elevated than everyone else in terms of
like yelling his emotions. He was hyper emoting.
Yeah. And then Dakota Johnson, right?

(41:28):
Like her kind of talent as an actor is kind of like being this
mysterious, right? Like you were saying before,
kind of like opaque, right person where you can't really
figure her out. Yeah.
And anti vulnerability. Yes.
Yeah. And so that felt really weird

(41:49):
because that's a part of her character maybe where she's like
cut a part of herself off to then have a partner who's rich.
Like the character at the beginning the movie says like
it's if you marry rich, it's essentially like dying alone.
Same thing like that joke. And so I know that's a part of
her character, but it felt far too like, did you say this at

(42:10):
the beginning? Because I think we talked about
it a little bit when we left themovie, but a little bit too like
girl boss character. And I, I mean, this is going to
sound harsh, but it's how I feltin terms of the, it's a problem
with the whole genre of like romantic comedies, romantic
dramas of like women being like a projection of a woman instead

(42:31):
of like feeling like a developedcharacter.
And I think Dakota Johnson's performance coupled with the
writing felt like very dated in terms of like how that that
character was performed and portrayed.
So like, that was also a big like issue with with it.

(42:52):
And I'll talk about ROM comes ina second.
But then with Pedro's like character, it was like we said,
he was also like weirdly misusedwhen you have someone who is
like such a powerhouse like that, right?
So OK, so that's that's in termsof like the the performances,
but I think this is an issue with like the romantic comedy

(43:15):
genre in general. We talked about this with We
Live in Time. Was that last year now?
Crowley's film. Yeah, Andrew Garfield and
Florence Pew. And I was like, you know, the
the kind of idea of this modern woman, like making decisions for
herself and her career like a verse, her family, like that was
really forced and done in a way that actually felt unrealistic

(43:39):
in terms of the the communication and maturity that
Florence Pugh's character was portrayed as having.
It was like almost purposely having her make decisions
against the grain to show that she was actually like this
individual and had autonomy. To the point where you didn't
believe that character would make certain.
Choices to end up making, Yeah. Or at least just communicate
them. And so like, those things are

(44:01):
kind of like par for the course sometimes in this genre,
unfortunately, right? And they like often mishandle
women in in like just in these stories.
And they a lot of times like portrayed this idea of like
women either like settling or accepting like toxic traits from
men in heterosexual relationships.

(44:23):
And I, I think, you know, this is ultimately something that
I've had an issue with, like growing up, especially in the
2000s, like this was our generation of a huge ROM com ROM
com push, right? Of like rewatchable movies is
like people call it like kind ofthe best era, I think of ROM
coms and I in some ways I think that's true.
And in some ways I think, you know, looking back on them, you

(44:44):
can revisit them with a subversive lens or kind of like
look, enjoy them, but also critique them.
But to see something come out ina similar vein in 2005, I think
just immediately rubs me the wrong way because I do think
it's like a harmful thing for like, I just think about like

(45:04):
little girls watching romantic comedies or or dramas and
thinking like, oh, you know whatI mean?
Like having that that kind of like heteronormative settling
kind of for certain like aspectsor like communication styles or
like this one. Was more like settling for
capitalism. Yeah, I guess we'll just settle,

(45:25):
live a middle class life and like whoever we affect, I don't
know, we'll never meet them, butlike at least we have each other
and we'll grow all together. Yeah, so it.
Was more that than anything else.
And I think that's just like an issue I have across the genre,
but it's why I maybe I have likemore harsh criticism towards
this movie because it was presented that it was going to
actually like interrogate that in an interesting way.
And again, it doesn't have to bethis like high, high concept,

(45:50):
right? Like level of of that.
But to have it, yeah, fall off, like you said, so far into what
has come before that was, I think, something that should not
be repeated is so weird. It will just started off semi
subversive, which is what I was saying and then it became really
simplistic and that was just very surprising going into
everything you just said like sowell about this genre and the

(46:13):
inherent flaws of it and that are similar to like the action
genre, so masculinity for example and like anti heroes who
are not real characters. Or like underdeveloped?
Then map on like real people to those heroes, like a Han Solo
figure or whatever. More like underdeveloped like
political like dilemmas right ormoral dilemmas that are
presented in those kind of genres.
Yes, exactly. And you know, and we should say

(46:36):
like, I think we both still admire Celine Song for using the
ROM com framework to expose because I do think she's trying
to expose to an effective degreein moments, because some moments
are funny in a comical way to expose gendered and class
constructs baked into stories like this one that we're
watching that are marketed at woman.

(46:56):
Like I think she's intentionallydoing that.
There's a transparency in that. I think it's a worthy angle to
explore in a movie like this. It seems to be a trend in her
cohort of like under 45 directors like Greta Gerwig,
Jordan Peele, Chazelle, Aster Eggers.
They all seem to be making movies about a genre or story
that has been interrogated before that they want to then re

(47:17):
explore. Like Nope being about spectacle
but also being critical of spectacle.
Or Babylon being about Hollywoodbut being critical of Hollywood.
Or Barbie being about capitalismcontrolling our social
constructs but also. Doing yeah, and being.
A part of that, these film makers are kind of having like
this strange postmodern look at how they want to make movies and

(47:40):
like in an existential way that is like kind of sincere, sort of
satirical. And I respect the ambition here
from Sling Song. And these are relevant insights,
but the film delivers them to anaudience that already agrees, I
think, with what the movie is saying.
So like this is not a challenging film because who

(48:01):
it's speaking to is sort of flattening the issues at hand
because it's, it's not really shaking people in the audience
at all. And I think that was a little
bit disappointing because the 1st 30 minutes or so does feel
like that. Like when Dakota Johnson sitting
in interviews with her potentialclients and they're asking for
the superficial things like they're a Chipotle order and
they're ordering a person and she's criticizing them more and

(48:23):
more throughout the movie. And you feel her criticizing the
audience. Or there's a There's a scene
early in the film where Dakota Johnson's character is talking
to one of her clients who is near calling off her wedding on
her wedding day, and she's having a breakdown.
That's a really. Funny scene and her her
bridesmaids like walk her in, but the camera like follows them
and like a really funny self aware way of this genre where I

(48:44):
was like, oh, this is like arch.I feel like it's going to be a
little like satirical, maybe lean into some parody.
Like I don't know where it's going to go.
Sort of like Emma Seligman's bottoms.
Like, I didn't know what was going to happen here in terms
of, like, poking at, like, thesebridesmaids or like, the idea of
the way they've been shot in movies.
And we hear the the bride to be say, like, this isn't medieval
times. I'm a woman, but I'm a modern

(49:05):
woman. I don't need a plot of land.
My family's fine. And it's funny and relevant.
And those are real conversationsthat are authentic on paper.
Yeah, about how ancient marriageis as a concept and as an
audience member. I appreciated seeing that in
this genre and paying for a movie like this to see this.
When you get stupid like Glenn Powell, Cindy Sweeney, romance
movies that blow up on Netflix or whatever, this is like a good

(49:27):
elevation, a new expectation of what this genre can be.
But then we don't really see that meaningfully, that
conversation meaningfully impactour character.
Like she reuses the line of her client where the client's like,
I just want to feel valued aftershe after she talks about her
sister being jealous. And then Dakota Johnson reuses
that. Her character reuses that later
in the film about just wanting to be valued.

(49:49):
Right. And it's presented as like, I'm
just being honest now, actually,like, I just, you make me feel
valuable. And that's why I value this
relationship. And it's like, wait, but we're.
Yeah. It's just repeated multiple
times, but it doesn't actually develop into anything
interesting. Yeah, exactly.
I think the the reason, you know, and again, like it doesn't
need to shake the audience, but it is, it is presented that it

(50:13):
will, right. It is presented in a way that
like we're going to actually like go into these ideas at
least in an interesting way. We don't have to dive deep.
It's still like, you know, a I'mstill expecting kind of like
this low stakes movie, right? Like in terms of it being a
romance, which doesn't mean, youknow, not all romances have to

(50:33):
be low stakes, but. But I already like knew the
world I was kind of entering in with the 2000s romance language
film language. And so I wasn't like, oh, we
need to like go deep into this in terms of conversations.
But it didn't. Yeah, like it.
It actually went the opposite direction as we keep talking
about. But but I guess that that is
like to summarize like our issuewith it is because it was

(50:55):
presented to us that it was going to have like interesting
ideas. Right, agreed.
And I I think we can maybe end with some final thoughts here
because we haven't talked about a few things, but we don't need
to do like a deep, deep dive of this movie.
I think we've kind of done enough.
But there's there is one big subplot that we have not
discussed, which is supposed to be like a save the cat moment
for us to care about to go to Johnson's character in terms of

(51:17):
having like this emotional, likemoral wakening.
I guess not just class consciousness where there is a a
mid movie twist involving one ofLucy's clients that takes a
relevant but strange detour liketonally into important again and
relevant themes of assault during these dating practices.
So like, digital dating practices and then trauma that

(51:39):
follows an accountability that all felt, to me pretty, like,
emotionally manipulative becauseI was tearing up.
Like, during some of these moments, like, Dakota Johnson's
character runs to the bathroom and is going through her notepad
and which shot it's really affecting.
But I also felt like it was moremanipulative than it was
actually impacting the story andthe narrative up until that

(52:02):
point. And it felt like this assault
was being used as a tool for theaudience to care about Dakota
Johnson's moral journey more than the actual person involved.
Yeah, I think. It wasn't really a character
either. Yeah, like #1 we are at the
beginning of the movie. So I, when it first was
introduced, you know, I was like, OK, we're, we're going to

(52:22):
some more like serious topics, right?
In, in terms of dating. And it's not just, it's like
kind of like superficial romantic comedy or drama, right?
But as we got further into it, Iwas like, wow, this is actually
kind of like mishandled because it was not actually a part or I

(52:44):
guess it felt like a part of theplot, like written in like
you're saying, for a character to feel guilty, especially the
writing around it felt really strange.
Like the the character calling Dakota Johnson a pimp.
Like. Very odd.
Very weird and a lot of it felt very forced.

(53:04):
I I think also in terms of like Dakota Johnson leaving her job
with that like break or if she was told she can't talk to her
right, her client by her boss. And then we cut to Dakota
Johnson standing in this large trench coat with a baseball hat
very like. Wild jump.
Tony yeah yeah And of cringy like image of her, like playing

(53:29):
spy. It felt so like she could just
wear normal clothes, like she's in New York City, like she's not
a. Different movie though.
Yeah, it felt really strange andyeah, I, I think it was like, I,
I don't want to be, I guess like, I don't want to say, you
know, as harsh words as like irresponsible, like things like
that. Like, I still think that they

(53:49):
were like elements of like care in it in terms of Dakota Johnson
and her having like conversations of Dakota Johnson
telling her things like like, I believe you and and kind of
addressing the idea that he was showing up at her door, right?
And she couldn't like have a restraining order.
The cops couldn't come until he was actually be trying to break

(54:10):
in. So like looking at like some
systemic like issues within that, but not actually treated
as seriously as something like that maybe should be is kind of
the issue with that. I think this is what we've been
saying the whole podcast. Like, I think the intention of
this is like really admirable, like the idea of using gendered
violence and assault to be more authentic on real life and

(54:32):
dating apps today or like datingpractices, I guess.
Right, which is essentially kindof like what the matchmaker
premise was trying to do, right?It was just trying to like, cuz,
you know, showing an online profile and people like swiping
isn't as character dialogue driven as like a matchmaker.
So they're just like taking thataspect of modern dating and like

(54:53):
making it into like a more plot conversation.
But it was a force to subplot tocreate emotional depth for a
character that didn't really have an arc like that.
That was the issue. Like it was a for Lucy.
It wasn't for the person who is victimized in this situation or
is a survivor of assault. So like, instead of it feeling
like a natural element of the narrative, I think the

(55:13):
prehistoric sequences don't work.
I think the subplot with Lucy's client doesn't work.
And I think the poking fun at like the superficiality of
people in the dating practices only sort of work sometimes too.
Like there's questionable choices.
There's like a conservative woman, there's jokes about male
height. Like there's a lot of strange
decisions that are like overplayed or overstay their
welcome. And I'm confused about the

(55:34):
intention that feel mishandled as you said.
Yeah. And I I think that some of that
also felt politically confusing because of the repetition of it,
right. Like, for example, the there
were successful elements at the beginning, especially in the
conversations with the men listing all the things that they
wanted. Like the whole joke of the the

(55:57):
guy saying I want a woman who's more mature and then that being
like 27 instead of like 21, right?
Like that, that was. 29's cutting.
It yeah, like successful. And this idea that, you know,
women get tricky once they get into their 30s because they
like, actually hold you to standards or whatever like that.
That was all funny. And there were also like

(56:20):
interesting elements about the women who obviously had a lot of
money, right, to be able to pay for the service and having like
very particular, you know, criteria, but #1 like there were
certain parts of that that were continued, like the height thing
that we'll talk about in a second.
But the Dakota Johnson kind of like crash out of like, what is

(56:43):
my line of work actually doing or, you know, continuing And
then heard the dialogue felt really cringy of this.
Like people are people are people like that felt like, I
don't know, it's really cringy for me.
And, and, and I think like part of that too is because like, as

(57:04):
we continue to get into the story, like with the height, you
know, thing, for example, when Pedro Pascal, like the major
reveal of him getting the surgery that is talked about at
the beginning of the movie whereI you like break your legs, but
I turned to you. I was like, is that a real thing
where people break their legs and you can grow a certain
amount of inches taller? Pedro Pascal's character like

(57:25):
got that surgery right and was awas trying to cover up this scar
that he got and they have this conversation in the kitchen and
there's there's funny elements of him being like, it's really
hard for me to feel like the break up right now is not about
the legs thing, right, Like it'sall like like funny.
But as we continue to talk aboutheight so much, I I think it

(57:46):
becomes like a little bit mean spirited like it because not
that, you know, we can't talk about how like, I, I guess like
the movie probably should have explored more so this like
arbitrary like idea of heights and like maybe more so about
like, why are we valuing heightsso much, right?

(58:09):
Instead, it just like talks about like how he is like more
respected and society now. People treat him way better,
like he's noticed and valuable in the dating market and like
that's all true to like that's, you know.
This is at work too. Yeah, like that's all being, I
guess, like, honest about how people are valuing him, but the

(58:31):
actual, like, theme is not explored.
And then when he, like, lean, you know, kneels down to her to
be. I was like, this feels like kind
of strangely actually like doingthe opposite thing of what it's
trying to do of like saying like, why do we value this so
much? That's the question it's
supposed to be asking or positive at the beginning of the
movie, but actually it's like being judgmental, right of like

(58:54):
height verse trying to deconstruct like why that is
valuable. Yeah, exactly like male height
as a symbol in patriarchy, whichthey did a good job with at the
beginning of the film when they made a joke about like 5-9 men
saying they were 511. Right.
Yeah, that was affected like thefragility of the like
masculinity that's encoded in like a wrapped up in the idea of

(59:16):
how it like that was explored atthe beginning of the movie.
But as it continued to go on similar to what we, yeah, what
we've been talking about, it just felt like a strange thing
where it was like the movie was trying to go against the idea of
like, superficiality, but like, kind of fell into it.
Yeah, so I think this movie juststruggled ultimately, like not
knowing whether to go to meta orfull satire or character study.

(59:40):
And it tries to do all those things, just kind of ends up not
feeling ever quite right. I guess we can end today's
episode. I was going to give extra
credits to the performances justbecause of the effort.
I do think even though we've been critical of the writing of
the characters and some of the performances and maybe the
chemistry, I think all the actors give effort here, which
is like, I think saying something relative to their

(01:00:01):
career performances, specifically Chris Evans to
Dakota Johnson. I think Pedro Pascal is the best
actor of the three. I think you probably agree.
With that, definitely. But he gets the least to do.
Chris Evans is actually, like we've said, hyper emoting.
But he is trying to play againsthim being arguably the most
conventionally like, heteronormative, attractive man
in the world. And he's Captain America.

(01:00:22):
And you have to believe he's 37 with three roommates, which,
like, no judgement here, but it's hard to look at this guy on
the screen and be like, yeah, you are accepted in, like, every
circle of America. So, like a powerful circle at
least. So I don't know if I really feel
bad for you. Also, like, what is your what?
What is your problem that DakotaJohnson doesn't like outside of
you being poor? Is it just that you get angry in
traffic? Like, he doesn't really have a

(01:00:44):
lot of character depth. There isn't a lot to admire
about him as an artist because he doesn't really talk about his
art and there's not a lot to to be critical of, of being like,
what's what are you sympathetic to about what he's going?
Through yeah, or like the the conversation they have at the
bar where she is trying to confide in him after the play,

(01:01:05):
it seems like she can't maybe. And with Pedro's character, with
Chris's character, it's like she's trying to tell him
something and he he notices, right?
He's like, he notices something's off.
Is it work? And, and and he asks a little
bit more about it and we get this.
He asks questions. Yeah, he gets this or we get

(01:01:25):
this idea that they've had this conversation sort of before
where he's like, you put too much pressure on yourself and,
you know, you're not like curingcancer, you know, something to
that effect. So just like, you know, chill
out a little bit and it and and then her response feels totally
strange where she is like, Oh yeah, it's just a girl shit.

(01:01:47):
Right. Like I'm leaving by it was bad
writing and it was bad writing to there.
It should. There should have been different
dialogue to show us that this isa continued fight that they're
having. Like they're missing each.
Other yeah, yeah or yeah, that one.
But also like the idea that maybe he doesn't value her work.
But also like there's a strange thing that he it felt like he

(01:02:10):
might have been getting at a conversation they've had before
where she actually is like very stressed about the stakes of her
job because she does have very like high paying clients and
seems to be like in a very almost like it, it doesn't seem
like she has a stable contract almost right.
She's moving herself, right. It's like on Commission almost
right Like so that was a really strange, you know, scene to show

(01:02:35):
their relationship. I was like, I don't know if you
want to go back to. This really just, like,
understanding. Yeah, it was.
It was weird. And then Dakota Johnson's
performance. I think we've already said some
good things about how she tries to go past this deadpan irony
pill persona that I appreciate about her character.
And she's some good emotional moments, like the bathroom scene
I talked about. Even though that felt
manipulative, I was still tearing up considering the

(01:02:55):
subject matter. Now, her performance, Dakota
Johnson's whole bit is that she never comfortably leans into one
emotion. She's always emotionally
hedging. So I think she was just miscast
in general. I think she's the biggest
miscast of the movie. I think Chris Evans, like tried
his best to play into that grounded performance.
He still feels miscast. Pedro could probably do any of

(01:03:17):
these three roles, honestly. So like that's he's just great
and he's very versatile in that way.
But Dakota Johnson playing this person who is constantly like
anti vulnerability, even though the character needs to be
vulnerable in moments toward theend, it doesn't really end up
working because you don't reallybelieve in that when she starts
getting vulnerable. Like it doesn't feel authentic

(01:03:38):
as much as it feels still forced.
I I felt the effort though, likeshe was really trying and she's
been trying lately in some really interesting dramatic
roles like the Cooper Wraith movie from a few years ago.
So like, I'm happy with where her career is going, which.
I thought she was great in that movie.
Weird character writing in that movie, but good.
Yeah, yeah, I think you were watching interviews, right?

(01:03:59):
Of Dakota Johnson and holy shit,yeah.
Do you want to share your? I had a while, I woke up really
early this morning, like 6:00 AMfor no reason because it's
summertime now for me because I'm a teacher.
And I was watching an interview with Dakota Johnson and Pedro
Pascal and they had so much chemistry, So much chemistry.
She was asking these personalitytest questions for this

(01:04:19):
interview with Vogue or whateverit was.
And she was like big spoon or little spoon.
He was like, yeah. And I was like, oh, man, this is
great stuff. And I was like, man, I really
got to tell Kelsey a ROM com with Pedro Pascal and Dakota
Johnson would be so good. They have so much good
chemistry. But it was so early.
I just forgotten, like the wholepress.
It was about materialist, obviously.

(01:04:40):
And I think that tells you everything you need to know
about my relationship to this movie is that I felt no
chemistry between these characters and so.
But like, it was sad. Sad because.
Weird. And the actors have so, so much
electricity in real life. It's like, just let them play
themselves like Dakota. Just play Dakota, go to a Pedro
play. You guys can just be best
friends partying and like meeting other people.
I don't care. I want to see that Hulu
streaming movie more than this. Honestly, like that made me sad

(01:05:01):
like a Palm Springs movie or something like that.
And yeah, we've already talked about Pedro.
It's just it's it's sad that they were like, we want you to
smoulder like you're George Clooney or you're Richard Gere
from Pretty Woman and like that's it.
Like Clooney from out of sight, but like without all the the
comic. Really.
Yeah. It's like George Clooney does
that because he can't do what Pedro does like.

(01:05:21):
Yeah, exactly. That's a really good.
Point yeah so it's like subtracting from yeah so OK good
extra credit I I think mine is that scene at the beginning with
the the bride. I just think it was a like a
really good scene that I doesn'tfit in the movie when you look

(01:05:43):
at it in whole. But I think it's like a really
funny, you know, addition and something that the movie could
have like raised to or kept going with.
And then also I really liked thescene where Dakota Johnson and
Pedro are like just across from each other at their kind of like

(01:06:04):
final date where they decide to see each other more seriously.
I like the dialogue there in terms of like Dakota Johnson
saying like, you don't want to date me, You're a Unicorn.
Here's like what I bring to the table.
And I kind of like the flip there where Pedro Pascal's
character was like, you don't like think that I know it.

(01:06:26):
Like I I want also or like that I see you as valuable.
And, and here's why. Like I just thought that was
like the a moment where we kind of broke through and I actually
saw some character. I agree.
And so like I I really like thatscene and then I wish we like
kind of got back to those two heights.
So a weird extra credit where I'm just giving it to two random

(01:06:47):
scenes. But I felt like those are
actually like, you know, Celine Song is like a good writer and
can capture something that is interesting like about this
romance genre. It's just that the movie, as we
talked about, didn't get there for me.
So we're done as the extra credits of Sling songs
Materialist. That was a good extra credits.

(01:07:07):
I agree. Those are the two best scenes of
the movie. My last question so we can end
today is do you think they're going to be major defenders of
this movie? Like is this going to be like a
ROM com classic? Like is this going to be a 13
going on 30 kind of movie for a lot of people?
Or Devil Warriors Prada, which Iguess is more of a career movie,
but so is this one like, is thisgoing to be a divisive movie or

(01:07:29):
is this going to be a widely celebrated movie?
I really don't know because because it's saying all the
right. Things and also it has Dakota
Johnson in it who I I think likeit just feels very glossy and
she feels very glossy everyone. Loves Pedro, but they're going
to be disappointed. They're going to be disappointed
that she doesn't end with Pedro.Yeah, but I don't know if

(01:07:50):
they'll be disappointed because like of how that character is
ultimately written. Like he, I think they might be
like, you know, it's OK that shedidn't end up with him.
Yeah, if you're like the Pierce Brosnan generation, you're going
to like what he's up to. But if you're of the Pedro
Pascal from The Last of Us, likegeneration, I don't know if

(01:08:11):
you're going to be into this. Yeah, you know.
Yeah, it just feels like she ends up with it.
It's weird because it's like she's supposed to be going
against her superficial idea of like, I want someone who's
stable. But again, we talked about like
hyper stable, but then she's just like ending up with Captain
America. So it's just hard to separate.
Captain America, Madam Webb and Mr. Fantastic walk into a bar,

(01:08:35):
make a bad decision. What do you think their
relationship is to each other? I think it's going to be a
divisive movie. I think because this movie is
like objectively more interesting to talk about than
it is to watch it for me. Yeah, I feel that.
I. Guess I'm saying objectively,
but for me subjectively. But I think it does have, like
we talked about today, like justa lot of the same issues as this
genre that I was kind of disappointed just to not see

(01:08:58):
broken. Yeah.
Well, you know, like, I think this is just going to be
something that, you know, we're reconciling right now live on
this podcast, but audience members are going to too, which
is that there are conflicting truths about this movie.
It's critical of capitalism. It's critical of social
constructs, It's critical of consumer culture, but it's also
exploring the transactional parts of our reality and

(01:09:18):
capitalism, how it's reshaped intimacy into something
superficial or hollow. But it also then leans into that
and then becomes about like promoting monogamy, right?
For a strange reason that's still unclear to me, right?
And. This idea of like pure love or
like natural love that then endsup in monogamous heterosexual.
Organizations like I'm I'm cool with the anti marketplace of

(01:09:40):
romance commentary of this movie.
Very confused about the the latter part of this movie and
it's commentary. So yeah, I think it's going to
be a strangely divisive movie. That was the extra credits of
Sling Songs Materialist. Don't forget to sign up to our
Patreon in the description of this episode to hear a deep dive
into past lives on a really goodepisode.
And we also have Wes Anderson's Astro City on there.

(01:10:02):
We have Ryan Coogler's Creed on there, and we have, I'm
forgetting Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible, the first Mission
Impossible. So those 4 episodes are free for
free members in our collections tab on Patreon.
All you have to do is hit collections once you sign up and
hit free members and you'll see those 4 episodes.
You can check us out on there. Our next episode is what?
Well, we have 28 Years Later andthen we will also on the main

(01:10:28):
feed have Revenge of the Sith with our friend James and we'll
be talking about my whole rewatch of Star Wars that we're
also doing on Patreon. Star Wars Summer.
Star Wars Summer. Alright, I'll see you there, OK.
Bye.