'Materialists' is the Perfect Movie for July 4th: Director Celine Song Makes the Case

American movies generally embody the state of the country. Take a look at any random sampling of the release calendar and you’ll find a mirror to contemporary society. The summer of 2025 has already featured blockbuster embodiments of today’s technological extremes, with Tom Cruise battling an ominous A.I. villain in the latest Mission: Impossible and Brad Pitt zipping around in state-of-the-art machinery for F1. The latest Jurassic Park movie, Jurassic World Rebirth, finds Scarlett Johansson operating on behalf of a pharmaceutical company eager to harvest dinosaur blood for profit. 28 Years Later is a gripping meditation on the isolating forces of COVID and Brexit. And so on.

Materialists fits right into this trend. Writer-director Celine Song’s sophomore feature, which follows her acclaimed debut Past Lives, is a deconstruction of the traditional romcom formula designed to interrogate modern dating life. A snappy Dakota Johnson leads as Lucy, who works as a high-end matchmaker in New York City seemingly uninterested in love. Things get complicated when she encounters a lonely private equity playboy (Pedro Pascal) and gets caught in a love triangle with her broke ex-boyfriend (Chris Pratt). The A24-produced comedy is littered with observations about the nature of romance and the forces stacked against it in today’s dating culture.

Song, a talented playwright-turned-filmmaker, loves to pontificate on the broader themes of her work. As we spoke in the days leading up to July 4th, our conversation had a specific slant tied into what Materialists is trying to say about the country in the spotlight this week.

Materialists is about the commodification of dating culture. How would you say it relates to broader developments in America right now?

I'm a Canadian, and something that really struck me when I moved to the U.S. is that when we talk about class and poverty, there's a funny way in which poverty is considered the fault of the poor. I think that's because of the way we talk about the American dream. There is this sense that you have to take care of yourself. The American spirit has gotten so deep into our bones that it makes us blame each other for poverty. The truth is that poverty is not the fault of the poor. As a Canadian, it struck me as a real problem in the way we talk about wealth and income gaps. We're seeing the way that those things are appearing in the world that we live in, especially in places that have to do with our hearts.

Why do you think it's hard for people to discuss the impact of wealth on their lives?

The heart of this movie is specifically an American problem worth talking about on July 4th, and that is the thorough objectification and commodification of the self. There is a line in the film where someone says, "I'm not merchandise. I'm a person." In the modern world, we're being asked to treat ourselves as merchandise. In the dating world, there is a very real way that we become merchandise on our phones, through apps. This also applies to the ways we face our livelihood. Think about what it means to be in the job market. You have to turn yourself into attractive merchandise. Those are the things at the heart of making this movie. A piece of merchandise and another one cannot fall in love with each other.

True love is a difficult thing for people. When I say it, adults look at me like I'm Santa Claus. But true love is the only thing that is real. I don't know why true love is any less real than a Birkin bag or a Maserati. True love has endured throughout time. It's a thing that is so ancient. As a Canadian, as a bit of an outsider, I see the way that Americans think of themselves as merchandise that is built into the DNA of the country. This cowboy thing -- the independent man -- those are kinds of things actually set up so that we start blaming ourselves for our economic status. The truth is that if our economic system is not broken, I would agree with it. But every day we learn more about how broken it is.

The most famous members of your cast must have had some thoughts on this.

My actors were so beautifully attuned to this. Who understands "I'm not merchandise, I'm a person" than Chris, Dakota, and Pedro. Pedro gets treated like he's The Mandalorian and Chris gets treated like Captain America. He's a different person. Dakota was in 50 Shades of Grey. Talk about objectification! They wanted to do this movie not because it's a fun romcom. They get offered romcoms all the time. They wanted to make this particular movie with me because they wanted to talk about the way we brutalize ourselves and don't treat ourselves like real people. Only when we're people are we actually capable of love.

Romantic comedies have always been a vessel for exploring the state of the world. Consider the ones released in the 1930s. Ernst Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise, for example, was made at the height of the Great Depression and revolved around jewel thieves who exploit wealthier classes to survive.

They were so surprising because they were meant to be about the world we lived in. They were more frank than a movie set on Mars or whatever. It's been a part of all romantic comedies quietly or not. I think about this in terms of Broadcast News, which really would be a romcom if you were trying to categorize it, but that movie is about the erosion of journalism. The movie is called Materialists. I didn't do that because it was a fun title. It's called that because it's about the way that we turn our bodies and minds into objects. All objectification of human beings is going to result in dehumanization. It will always have a violent end. That's the center of the story.

There aren't as many romantic comedies released in theaters as there were a few years ago. What's your theory on that?

There has been this diminishing of the genre by calling them "chic flicks." I think about this in terms of what I'd consider the middle class of movies. Either you can make a movie for so much money that you have to make so much money back, or the movie is being made for festivals under $2 million where it's for some people and the goal is to go through the journey of accolades and all those other things. Generally speaking, there are so few movies that fit into whatever category mine is. It's a theatrical film, not for streaming. It's an R-rated romantic dramedy and not based on a book. It's an original story. It has these great actors in it and the genre has been historically dismissed as chic flick.

Why do you think that has happened?

A few reasons, one of which is misogyny. But there's another part of it. Romance is something that we're all embarrassed to be obsessed with. OK, fine, it's a chic flick. That's often said as if it's not a serious movie. I always think, well, that's sad in a couple of ways. You're saying chics are not serious people. Secondly, it's not the concern of serious people to think about love and dating. But serious people do it, too. They're very troubled by love and dating. Ask any serious person. And so it's a genre that is dismissed. People are scared of it.

Materialists is now playing at the Southampton Playhouse with a special pre-recorded introduction by Celine Song. Showtimes are available here.