I’m looking for a man in finance – trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes.”
~ Man in Finance* – music by Billen Ted

 Sometimes a movie or TV show comes around that I must acknowledge and comment on.  Poor Things got my attention. And Barbie got everybody’s attention and two posts from me.

Now comes the Materialists by writer and director Celine Song — a follow-up to her Oscar-nominated Past Lives.

Materialists is an innovative, sophisticated exploration of modern romance and indispensable fodder for ruminating about the tensions and ambivalence in choosing a mate, roughly posed as a practical polarity: to marry for love or money? The story is modern, but the opening scene begins with a prehistoric “couple.” Song shows her cards early: courtship rituals and love are ancient; connection can be spiritual and nonmaterial.

Mating Preferences and Psychological Undertow

Song dips her toes into the waters of class and beauty privilege but not as deeply as the subject ultimately deserves. She does, however, take a daring plunge into the murky and muddy psychological undertow of male and female mating preferences.  In New York City (if not everywhere), some of these preferences are crystal clear. They elucidate economic and biological mandates — the components of assessed mate value in a fickle mate-selection marketplace.

Unvarnished Truth About Matchmaking and Mate Selection

Dakota Johnson as Lucy is a successful matchmaker in present-day New York City. That dating market is notoriously cruel and competitive. Lucy works with entitled upper-class folks.  The men want beautiful women; the women want successful men.  These are bedrock evolutionary directives. Lucy’s clients are picky, but Song’s script courageously (and correctly) displays the longer list of female requirements. The dialogue in this movie is some of the best writing ever.  Many uncomfortable truths (what I call “undiscussables”) are told about the exchange or “contract” between men and women in the mating marketplace.

Checking the Boxes in the “Contract”

Materialists tells the truth about the erotic-economic bargain and “checking the boxes” for the promise of this exchange.  Song shows the exhaustive list of boxes required by women, especially in the context of their self-referential beauty and expected economic entitlement.  It is about, as Lucy says, the “math” of relationships. This story is perennial in the canons of literature and history: marriage has often been an economic contract and business relationship between families of wealth.  (Currently illustrated with aplomb in the HBO show The Gilded Age.)

 Harry is a “Unicorn” and John Is Poor

Harry (Pedro Pascal) is a tall, wealthy, handsome financier– a “unicorn” in the lexicon of matchmaking. Lucy wants to find him a match.  Harry thinks Lucy IS his match. Lucy broke up with John (Chris Evans) because he was poor. Well, Harry isn’t poor. He puts on smooth full-court press for Lucy.

Courtship Math: Houses, Trips, and Food

Harry has a 11-million-dollar loft in Tribeca. Lucy loves the satin sheets.  John has a small, messy apartment with chaotic roommates. Harry offers Lucy a predictable early courtship gift – a trip to Iceland.  (This gives guys like Harry a longer “interview.”)  At the end of the movie, John gives Lucy a car trip upstate with the new money from his play.  John loves food trucks (who doesn’t) but Lucy loves the way Harry deftly and graciously picks up the bill at expensive restaurants. That confident “dance move” of providing turns her on.

Harry’s Speech at Dinner

Song’s message about love and money resonates with pivotal scenes and dialogue.

Harry’s speech at dinner with Lucy is a critical piece of messaging from Song.  Harry makes it clear; he could not care less about Lucy’s status in the job world or the money she makes; he does not need money from her.  Nor, is it solely because of her beauty that he is interested in Lucy. (Even though it was evident that her beauty was the only reason that Harry wanted to get to know her.  Lucy’s beauty absolutely opened that door).

 “Intangibles”

Harry recognizes Lucy’s wisdom, her insights, and her clarity about how the world works.  She is street smart like he is.  It is her “intangibles” that make her special, Harry asserts. Harry’s perceptions are on target and raise his stature as a sensitive and mature person.  He is not a vapid, boring rich guy. He delivers this communication to Lucy with confident power.   Song wants us to appreciate the nuance in attraction and mate selection. Listen up, she says: not all rich guys are superficial, and there are “intangibles” in this biochemical soup.

“You Make Me Feel Valuable”

Then the conversation at dinner gets even better.  “What do you like about me?” Harry asks. “You make me feel valuable,” Lucy replies — another key insight about relationships from Song. Women want to be seen and feel valued for who they are on the inside.

“You Are Not a Fish”

Lucy is cynical about her job. She detests her clients as “children” in one breath but cares about them the next.  When one of her female clients gives Lucy a long list of requirements she wants in a man, the client adds, “I am a real catch.”  This is a pregnant moment for Lucy and the movie audience. Will Lucy tell this woman the truth about her overblown mate value?  Lucy says, “No, you are not a catch, because you are not a fish.”

Fudging the Truth of “Hot or Not?”

The fish line (excuse the pun) is Lucy’s first and best lie in the movie. She retains her professional composure. She cannot tell this woman the truth about her diminished mate value and misplaced entitlement. This client is not a catch because she is overbearing; her beauty is average at best. I wanted Lucy to say that, but Song is aware of how tricky the truth is in matters of personal perception of mate value. Who among us wants to look into a mirror and grapple with the question: “Am I hot, or not?”

“Love Must Be Present”

Lucy is cynical and romantic about relationships and marriage. This duality can’t be helped; in Materialists, that’s the point.

Lucy tells Harry, in a matter-of-fact tone (no hesitancy or bullshit), that she is not in love with him and asserts that he does not love her (which he does not refute).  Harry is not sure he knows how to love. Lucy says, “Love must be present.”  This is another pivotal piece of dialogue about the tradeoff dilemma we are trying to resolve.  Lucy is, at that moment, a romantic.

The Privilege and Problem of Height Bias

Most of Lucy’s female clients want a man who is at least six feet tall.  The percentage of men in the U.S. who are six feet or taller is 14.5%.  Here, Song is really in alignment with the hard facts of female preference for a mate. Harry gives Lucy a profound lesson on height privilege for men and what it is like for a man to be short.  He freely discloses about his leg lengthening surgeries (apparently, a real thing). Harry knows he would not have had the confidence to approach Lucy at 5’6”.  He would not have made as much money or been treated with as much respect if he were short.  Lucy softens and probably cares most about Harry in that moment.  They feel closer.  When they part, she tells him he is “perfect.”  But is she being truthful?  Or just compassionate?

Love or Money?

Materialists confronts the enduring question: “Should one marry for love or money?” Song deftly and correctly illustrates that both preferences are inside of a woman, or at least inside of Lucy, even when she at times denies it.  But in the “war on the ground” of mate selection, a man’s status, resources, and stature will usually win the “first battle” of courtship.  Initially, character is often secondary.   Feelings of sexual chemistry and love are frequently fused together and even rationalized after the fact. Yet, the tradeoff dilemmas of love versus money and money versus character simmer underneath for many women, always nagging.

“I Want Someone Who Cannot Help But Love Me”

When Lucy and John go to save Sophie (a client who suffered date assault) near the end of the movie, Sophie gives the transformational final statement of the movie.  She says, “I want someone who cannot help but love me.”   (That line resonated with me.) This is a lightbulb moment for Lucy. A few minutes later, John essentially tells Lucy that he does love her exactly that way. No matter what, he cannot help but love her.

John Will Strive Harder to Be Good Enough

John says he will strive harder to be good enough for her. He emphasizes his ambition for his career and the desire for increased financial stability. Lucy leans into her romantic side and the chemistry she feels for him.

The Tradeoff Question is Left Unresolved – That is Real

Ultimately, Lucy seemingly chooses love over cynicism and her need for a secure, upper-class lifestyle. But she never really disavows the need for financial security. Will her love for John sustain her?

Polarity to Manage, Not Resolve

Song wants us to know that the central tradeoff preference for women —intimacy, risk, and passion vs. financial security —is a polarity to manage, not resolve; she keeps it real. (Is this trade-off often necessary?  Topic for another day.)

Meaning In Non-Material Things

Materialists clearly embraces the struggle to seek meaning in non-material things.  As John and Lucy embark on their next chapter, John presents Lucy with a flower ring, just like the caveman did in the opening scene.

The Postscript: “A Good Match”

The movie ends with the message that love can win the day … for now. But as a final follow-up to the Sophie plot line, we learn that she finds a match.  Is it someone who cannot help but love her?  Perhaps, but Lucy does the math: Sophie’s new beau is a dentist who clears $ 200,000 a year after taxes.  “A good match,” Lucy says.

*Looking for a man in finance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzgVapnc3U

---

Addendum – AI-Chat GPT Offers Insights

Prompt:

“Give an analysis of the movie Materialists in addressing the conflict between financial security and love in choosing a mate.  Does Celine Song give us answers and direction?”

Chat GPT had a lot to say, but most importantly:

“Song’s brilliance lies in reframing the love vs. money dilemma not as a question of “right or wrong,” but of what one is willing to trade off:”

• Choosing love may mean choosing risk, instability, and dependence on emotional reciprocity.

• Choosing money may mean sacrificing mystery, passion, or the freedom of not being beholden.

Celine Song’s Materialists is less a guidepost and more a meditation on the paradoxes of modern love. She does not give answers, but she sharpens the question. Her signature touch is a blend of moral ambiguity and emotional realism.

Song dignifies the dilemma of modern love, offering a rare empathy to those navigating love in the shadow of economics. Rather than condemning or romanticizing, she portrays the modern mate market with clear eyes and a full heart.

Chat GPT offered a bar chart of tradeoffs comparing the perceived benefit of love vs. money across the following six dimensions:

1. emotional fulfillment  – love wins by a large margin

2. sexual chemistry – love wins by a significant margin

3. stability and security – money wins by the second-largest margin on the chart

4. autonomy and growth – love wins by a small margin

5. social status – money wins by a large margin

6. future risk, a negative – love brings greater risk by the largest margin on the chart