The new movie Materialists poses an age-old but always interesting question: Can love exist separate from money? In Celine Song’s highly anticipated follow-up to Past Lives, Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, an ambitious New York matchmaker helping her clients realize their dreams of finding true love with someone who conveniently makes more than $500,000 a year. In her pursuit of eligible bachelors, she meets “unicorn” Harry (Pedro Pascal), who provides a perfect contrast to her barely-employed ex John (Chris Evans). She spends the movie being pulled between a love that is convenient and a love that is decidedly less so.
The movie is what many people have been desperate to see back in theaters: a genuine romance. While the film’s marketing makes it seem a bit more “com” than “rom,” in actuality, Song gives a cynical but honest take on what love looks like in 2025, with surprising and heartfelt performances from her three leads. I alternated between giggling/kicking my feet while watching Johnson and Pescal flirt to crying at the hard-earned growth the characters achieve by the final credits. Song hopped on Zoom with Cosmopolitan to talk about getting the casting of Lucy, Harry, and John just right, why money has always been a part of dating, and how her two films are in conversation with each other.
You have three incredible leads here. How did you land on these actors? Did you write the parts specifically for them?
I don’t write for actors, so I just wrote a script and I create characters and then I worry about it after. I was casting this movie when I was on the Oscars campaign trail. I was in a good spot to just go and meet actors because they had seen Past Lives.
And in the case of all three of these actors, it really was a journey of meeting them during one of these lunches or coffee or dinner and then just falling in love with them as the characters. I wish that I could tell you exactly what it was, but it’s just like falling in love. You meet them and then you just fall in love with the idea of that person being Lucy, you know?
How did that show up in all three of these people?
Dakota and I were having lunch, and at some point in this conversation, I was like, Oh, I think she’s Lucy. And it’s not really about the literal way that she is Lucy; it’s about something in her spirit, in her talent, in her being. And that was true about Chris as well. I expected Chris to be like what I’ve seen in a magazine. And then I was talking to him, and I just loved him.
When it comes to Pedro, it was surprising how the inspiration hit, because I’ve known Pedro before. We were getting very close, and I wasn’t really thinking about it. And then one day, he and I were having this conversation about what love is like and the difficulty of love. Just a personal conversation. And in the middle of it, I remember feeling like, Oh my god, I think my friend is Harry.
It has to surprise me a little bit. As in, there is a kind of unexpected quality to it. That’s what I really feel is where love is, right?
Do you feel like the success of Past Lives gave you access to a kind of actor you wouldn’t have had before?
Well, I think that there are things that are easier because it’s the second film. My second film gets to be made by somebody who knows how to make a film. The truth is that the way I see my actors is exactly as that—as working actors. And that’s how they showed up to set every day. And they just worked their ass off. It was amazing to get to work with such colleagues.
I have hoped for Chris Evans in a role like this for a long time. What romance leading man qualities did you see in him?
I think it’s actually the way that he was so completely worthy of love. He’s very passionate about it. You know what it is? He was not afraid to be humiliated for love. I think that is a very important quality. Because love humiliates us. It is a humbling experience to be loved and to love. And I think that there is an amazing humbleness that Chris has. He’s not afraid to be embarrassing for love.
It’s fun to watch somebody who also plays Captain America be the romantic underdog. Did you have any conscious thought around that contradiction?
Every actor has an amazing history of work that they’re bringing with them. So I wouldn’t say that I didn’t think about those things. Of course, I did. The surprise of Chris as a person was what really what made me feel like he was John. I found meeting him very moving. And I think that’s what really drove me to cast him as John. There’s something very heartbreaking about his goodness.
I don’t ever want to walk into a conversation with an actor about doing a movie and not be able to say, “You’re going to do something you haven’t done before.” Because I want not only to be inspired by the work that I’m doing with the actors, but I want the actor to feel inspired, too.
I have a similar question about Pedro. There’s a reveal I won’t spoil here that made me think differently about his casting. He is also going against type, in a way.
The sensitivity that Pedro has, there’s a softness that is sometimes being disguised by this hard shell of being a man who is surviving a zombie apocalypse or whatever. Because of what this character is going to eventually go through, it had to be somebody who is completely, entirely lovable. We get to sort of undress him in this movie and see the part of them that is so raw and open.
This is the thing about all three actors. The first truth is that they’re actors, right? This movie is about self-objectification and self-commodification. It’s about turning people into numbers. It’s about the way that we are thinking about a love in a material way. Who do you think completely understands that? Actors. That’s their work. They have to be judged, and they have to be given value.
This is one of the only movies I’ve seen recently that is really honest about how money impacts the way we find a partner. We get that in period pieces, like Pride and Prejudice...
In the very first line! Did you know?
Yes! “A single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
Yes! Yo, that’s very Materialists.
Where did that theme come from for you?
I worked as a matchmaker for six months back in the 2010s, and something that I noticed is that this completely objectified, completely commodified way of talking about our future partner is the norm. Just because it’s not being depicted in cinema as much or in stories as much, it doesn’t mean that it’s not in our everyday life.
I think about this so much. So many love stories, you’re like, what does the person who’s in love do for a living? Well, they’re accidentally very rich. Isn’t it amazing that Darcy is, like, accidentally so rich and it’s a solution to all of Liz’s practical problems and he is also the love of her life? But when he points that out, she goes, “Fuck off.” People don’t remember that conversation. They always only remember the “ardently.” This has always been something that is part of love, dating, marriage, and, in 2025, still is.
Yeah. In this economy?
In this economy? Abso-fucking-lutely. To not contend with it and to not talk about it directly feels like we're missing a really amazing opportunity.
That feels like something we're missing in film broadly these days. Conversations about love that are about the messy stuff, too.
The romantic comedy as a genre or romance is often relegated to something that is for chicks, so therefore not of substance. Romance is something that affects us all. I'm so interested in this amazing opportunity that the romantic comedy presents, which is that everybody gets to show up for two hours to talk about love, dating, relationships, marriage.
And then within this fun thing, let's actually talk about something. I do think that it is completely worth talking about. It affects all of us. It's the one thing that makes us all feel like idiots. Love makes fools of all of us.
[There are spoilers below for the ending of Materialists. If you haven't seen the movie yet, this is your official warning!]
I know you maintain that Past Lives is not a love triangle movie. But there was something about watching Lucy pick John that felt like the other half of the Past Lives fantasy. She gets to return to her past in a way Greta Lee's character did not. Do you feel like the ending of these films are in conversation with each other?
Both movies have at the center of it this woman who is facing the question of, what life does she want to live? It's beyond men. Materialists is pretty openly a love triangle, but at the end of the day, it's about this woman who goes through a transformation that they then at the end of it get to make a choice. And that choice is going to affect her life. And the person who is in the beginning of the film has transformed so much by the end of the film, she's unrecognizable. The Lucy who's at the first wedding could never end up with the cater waiter ex boyfriend. It's very connected in that way.
I think about this ancient Greek thing that's like, character is destiny. Who you are is going to determine what kind of choice you're going to make. It's not that you make choices and then that becomes who you are. It's actually like who you are is going to mean that the choice you make is inevitable. Given what Lucy has gone through and given who John is and given what John is saying to her, what could she say except "deal"? That's the most romantic line in the whole film.
The film is so interested in the practical. The Pride and Prejudice. The debt. The finance. And then, of course, the way that it is going to be ripped apart, but also put together by this very, very ancient notion that love is all shocking. Love is really what is going to keep us going. That's the only deal you can make.
