She better choose the money

in this economy, is it even a debate?

I get it. Chris Evans looks like Chris Evans. He has a kind, handsome face, big arms, is 6ft tall, scruff that doesn’t look messy, a Boston accent that doesn’t sound too rough, and yet, in Celine Song’s upcoming movie, The Materialists, I’m supposed to believe that there’s real debate to be had: Rich, loving, cute Pedro Pascal, or broke, undeniably hot Chris Evans.

I’m not here to tell you that you should always pick the money. As you know, I’m a helpless romantic. I love the classic tropes, I love the chase, I love the back-and-forth, I love the cheesiness of early 2000s romcoms and the relatability of arthouse films, but for once, just for once, I would like to see a romcom like The Materialists go in a different direction. A direction that, let’s say, has its leading woman pick the guy who has money and the two of them live happily ever after. The end.

Obviously the movie hasn’t come out yet. The plot can go in a thousand different directions that I would have never expected. She could choose herself. She could choose Chris. She could choose Pedro. Maybe Chris wins the lottery and now he’s rich and hot. Maybe Pedro loses all of his money because he has a gambling addiction. Maybe she realizes that money means nothing if she doesn’t love the person she can share it with, or maybe she realizes money does, in fact, contribute to one’s happiness, and that only people with money say otherwise. Whatever the outcome of the film is, I do believe that the dilemma is an interesting one, especially now.

A slowdown in hiring, sweeping, seemingly endless policy changes, the rise of AI, economic uncertainty (or rather, economic certainty that everything’s going to shit), and a disheartening spike in ghost jobs. The general feeling amongst younger generations is that when life extends an olive branch, you take it, and if that olive branch happens to be Pedro Pascal offering to buy you just about anything while also remaining charming and compassionate, you’d be insane not to take it. But what is the value of money if you already have it? Gleaming from the trailers, Dakota Johnson’s character doesn’t seem to be without money. She’s a matchmaker, and it looks as though she’s a successful one at that. It’s difficult to judge whether or not she’s rich, but it does look as though she is well off, and she certainly has far more money than Chris Evans. I should probably refer to them by their character names from now on. Dakota (Lucy), Pedro (Harry), and Chris (John).

For many young people, say, freshly graduated and unabashedly broke, picking Harry is the obvious choice. He offers comfort, safety, a guarantee that struggle meals will be a choice rather than a necessity from now on, but if Lucy already has comfort and safety, what else does Harry have that can draw her in? What does John have that makes her question who she wants to be with?

Well, again, according to the trailers, it seems as though what she has with John is history. The two of them dated, but their relationship, for reasons that remain unknown, ended. Despite that, it’s clear that she feels a level of normalcy with John that she may not have with Harry. I wrote about how To be loved is to be known, and John certainly knows Lucy. In the real world, however, would that be enough? I’m not so sure, and quite frankly, I’m sick of characters, specifically women, being written in media to choose the downcast, down on his luck guy simply because the third act of a film finally reveals the rich man’s evil or morally ambiguous ways, and that if the woman were to choose the man with money, she too is evil or morally ambiguous. It’s a boring, safe choice to make in a film, and one that I can’t help but see as disingenuous and dated.

Despite the very real possibility that Lucy will fall back to John, I don’t believe Celine Song would write something so contrived. The many layers and subtleties of Past Lives showed me that Song is more than capable of writing about complicated relationships in a way that makes one understand everyone’s perspective. The title of the movie alone leads me to believe that Song will have something to say about the “Diamond in the Rough” trope, and hopefully challenge the stereotypes of materialism by offering a character who can both provide material things while also being someone who values human connection. Not doing so would feel regressive, like a woman’s worth, a “good” woman in the eyes of whoever wrote/directed the characters, is determined by how much she is willing to accept or put up with. If she is willing to be there for a man who has nothing, then she must be good, right? If she’s unwilling to do so, if she chooses a man with money, then she’s just a “gold digger.” Like I said, I do love a trope, but something like that doesn’t feel indicative of the times we’re living in now, and if Lucy does go back to John, I’ll be disappointed to say the least.

Again, I have faith that Song will deliver something meaningful. Past Lives quickly became one of my favorite movies of all time, and that’s thanks to her taking another trope (the love triangle) and transforming it into something much more complex, much more human. The Materialists seems to lean into that love triangle much more than her previous film, but a bolder approach doesn’t necessarily mean its nuance is lost. I suppose we’ll see how the movie turns out. All that I ask is that Song’s growing popularity doesn’t fall victim to the demands of those who want a quick romcom fix rather than something meaningful, something that demands a word with the dated antics of pathetic and greedy men alike.