By Dakota Johnson Katrina Trinko
Do all women want a 鈥渦nicorn鈥?
In a pivotal scene in new movie 鈥淭he Materialists,鈥 the matchmaker heroine tells a handsome man he鈥檚 exactly the kind of man her clients are looking for. He鈥檚 wealthy, he鈥檚 tall, and he doesn鈥檛 have a drug problem. He is, she concludes, a 鈥渦nicorn鈥濃攁 virtually impossible find and yet the type of man her female clients long for.
But should they?
Sure, no Disney prince or other iteration of Prince Charming has swooped up to get the girl in a beater car. 鈥淧ride and Prejudice鈥 heroine Elizabeth Bennet is considerably more open to the advances of Mr. Darcy after she sees his opulent estate.
Nor are these preferences merely the stuff of fiction. Roughly two-thirds of newly married women made less than their husbands in 2023, according to an Institute for Family Studies analysis. Allegedly, a majority of women on the dating app Bumble chose to filter for men six feet or taller, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2022, citing an unnamed Bumble employee. (Bumble denied the statistic.)
But will getting a man (or woman) who fits our exact checklist make us happier?
鈥淭he Materialists,鈥 released June 7, is both oddly realistic and irritatingly naive about love and marriage. (Rampant spoilers follow.) Matchmaker Lucy (played by Dakota Johnson) has to keep a neutral face as a series of clients unload insane wish lists to her, of how they want a man or woman with a bevy of specific traits鈥攁nd these clients seem to have little awareness of their own gifts or lack thereof. When at one point an exasperated Lucy tells a client she can鈥檛 just manufacture a man according to desires, but has to find a real person, I almost clapped.
But Lucy herself, even as she judges her clients, has preferences of her own. The movie positions Lucy as struggling between two men: the aforementioned 鈥渦nicorn鈥 Harry (played by Pedro Pascal, whose screen presence is thankfully free of his inane wokeness) and her ex-boyfriend, a broke, struggling actor named John (played by Chris Evans).
Lucy, we learn, hated how she and John could never have a fancy dinner or a good splurge and has since decided she is going to marry someone wealthy. When Harry notices her, he determinedly pursues her, treating her to fancy dinner after fancy dinner. She is candid with him about her interest in money. He seems oblivious when she, between passionate embraces, is checking out his penthouse apartment.
Yet Lucy has trouble shaking her own doubts about Harry鈥檚 interest in her. Why, she wonders, would he like her? They are not equals; with his traits, he could get a woman younger than her, for instance, she tells him. Used to being a matchmaker, she can鈥檛 shake off the sense of making every relationship a math problem, a critical look at whether A equals B. When Harry earnestly tells her about her qualities that do interest him, qualities like her outlook, she is seemingly dubious, unable to grasp the idea of qualities that cannot be measured.
While most Americans can鈥檛 afford鈥攐r don鈥檛 want鈥攎atchmakers, it鈥檚 not only matchmaking clients who are used to filtering by trait. Dating apps, which allow users to filter matches by height, education, race and other qualities, are used by over half of never married Americans, according to Pew Research Center. With the abundance of options on dating apps, it鈥檚 easy to think you can be particular and still find a match. You may not be able to create a person, but you can, especially if you are open to a variety of locations, possibly find a needle in a haystack.
But what if that needle in a haystack isn鈥檛 what you want鈥攐r need?
That鈥檚 a theme 鈥淭he Materialists鈥 explores. Lucy ends it with Harry when she discovers he has obtained a diamond ring. Soon, she is reunited with John鈥擩ohn who cannot afford fancy dinners and who lives in a dingy apartment with roommates, including one who leaves a used condom in their hallway.
Yet it is John who Lucy was able to confide to after a horrible day at work, not Harry. It is John who pledges to Lucy that he will always love her. (Although as a viewer, it鈥檚 not really clear what he sees in Lucy beyond her looks or why he鈥檚 pined for this girl who both hates herself for caring about money but remains adamant she needs fancy dinners.) And it is John who coaxes a smile out of Lucy when he brings her a street cart meal for a dinner date in the park, as he places a flower on her ring finger.
Welcome to the maddening part of 鈥淭he Materialists.鈥
Lucy鈥檚 discovery that the perfect configuration of traits does not necessarily make the perfect man for her is an intriguing and interesting exploration in our picky-dating era.
But her decision to suddenly forgo any interest in a somewhat affluent life seems random. Nor does she have any serious conversation with John about values and money. Is he happy chasing his dreams and being broke? She says that she can take care of herself, but left unspoken is what would happen if they had children. Would John be expected to step up then? What if she was injured or became unable to work? Fancy dinners and penthouse apartments are one thing, but is she willing to forgo a middle-class lifestyle for love?
Because as much as we may want to think marriage survives on love alone, financial compatibility matters. Around a quarter of couples said money was 鈥渢heir greatest relationship challenge,鈥 according to a 2024 survey by Fidelity Investments. A fifth of divorcees said money had a 鈥渂ig鈥 role in their divorce, while six out of 10 said it had 鈥渟omewhat鈥 of a role, according to a 2017 Experian survey.
Yes, marriage is鈥攐r should be鈥攆or richer or for poorer. But how a couple approaches financial setbacks and windfalls鈥攊s informed by a set of values and visions that can either bring a couple closer together or further apart. John and Lucy have different incomes, but they also have different values.
鈥淭he Materialists鈥 could have been an adult movie鈥攁nd by adult, I don鈥檛 mean some gratuitously sexual romp, but instead a mature, Jane Austen-esque look at the complicated questions about marital compatibility. We are more than a sum of our traits, but our traits are also not irrelevant.
It can be true both that a long checklist is no way to find love and that some people may have romantic chemistry, but lack financial compatibility.
At one point in the movie, Lucy snaps at John, accusing him of reducing her matchmaking job to 鈥済irl s鈥.鈥 Too often popular culture does dismiss art about love and marriage.
Yet the choice of a spouse is one of the most important decisions, if not the most important, most people will ever make. It鈥檚 a topic worth taking seriously鈥攁nd it鈥檚 a shame this movie does so until the last few minutes, when it delivers a stereotypical, unwarranted, cheap Hollywood ending.