NEED TO KNOW
- Materialists poses the question of whether or not we should be going for love or for money and the choice Dakota Johnson’s character makes has people on internet divided
- The film also stars Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans
- Materialists is in theaters now
Movies have long wanted to convince us that we should be marrying for love. From The Notebook to Titanic, films have always suggested that women should follow their hearts and go for the sweet charmer with no money instead of the well-established gentleman who has financial stability. (Granted, Billy Zane’s character in Titanic was awful, but stay with me here.)
Well, Materialists has repurposed that trope once again, and the internet is seething.
The film follows Lucy (played by Dakota Johnson), a successful matchmaker who has managed to find love for everyone except for herself. Her skills are immediately tested when she finds herself in a love triangle with Harry (played by Pedro Pascal), a successful billionaire who errs on the side of superficiality but is offering her the world, vs. John (played by Chris Evans), her ex-boyfriend, who offers her lots of love and affection, but works from gig to gig while trying to get an acting career off the ground.
The film takes us through all the hijinks of a romcom as both men have their pros and cons and try to woo her. In the end, Lucy goes for John, the broke boy who loves her dearly, but can’t provide her with the lifestyle she always dreamed of.
And while the internet is upset over the fact that Pedro Pascal doesn’t get the girl, the truth of the matter is, Lucy was set up for failure from the jump.
As PEOPLE editor Bailey Richards pointed out. Regardless of whom she was going to end up with, Lucy was going to be settling.
“I don’t think she should have ended up with either of them,” Richards says, considering Bailey’s options. “Marry this hot, caring man who will pay for everything for you for the rest of your life — any materialistic whim you may have. He doesn’t love you, but he will pay anything. Or a hot, caring man who does love you, but makes no money … he will drop anything, at any given moment to do whatever for you.”
We can all agree that the only real winners are Lucy’s children (if she wants any), who will 100% win the genetic lottery regardless of which guy she chooses. However, when it comes to meeting the standards Lucy deeply desires, she’s bound to lose regardless.
So, instead of settling for the loverboy with no money, Richards believes Lucy should have actually axed both men.
Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
“After everything that she, as a matchmaker, as a woman, goes through in that movie, she just needs to break from romance altogether and do some introspection, the kind that requires you to be single and be alone,” says Richards.
Personally, the right choice for me is always Pedro Pascal. But I have to agree with my colleague here. Relationships are hard, even when you find everything you want in a person, so why give yourself more heartache by settling for someone who doesn’t meet your standards?
Read the full article here
