Materialists

Since its release, Materialists has stirred a fair amount of conversation, inviting diverse interpretations of its theme, tone and treatment. A recent article in Indiewire goes as far as to state that the film not only subverts the conventional romance genre but is also director Celine Song’s takedown of the transactional nature of Hollywood itself, a ‘business’ where commerce weighs heavy on art; one in which cinema has largely been reduced to an assembly-line product that needs to ‘check boxes’. Where films are no longer films, but generically referred to as content. It is an interesting way to read the film, like many of the other exegesis of Materialists that have sprung up over the last week. At its core, Materialists poses the age-old question of what makes two people come together in a marriage — love or security. Song uses an unexpected and clever sequence set in prehistoric times to frame her film’s central theme, that of romantic relationships being either transactional or emotional, or often both.

“Are we in the right film?" a girl in the row behind me asked her friend. You could see why she’d be confused. They’d turned up for a New York romance with Pedro Pascal and here was an unkempt man wearing animal hide handing a bouquet to a woman in front of a cave. He puts a ring fashioned out of single flower on her finger. The title drops and then we’re in New York, watching Lucy (Dakota Johnson) get ready for another day as an in-demand matchmaker.

कहते हैं कि जोड़ियां आसमान में बनती हैं, मगर जब जमीं पर जीवनभर का रिश्ता जोड़ने यानी शादी की बात आती है, तो ज्यादा अहम क्या होना चाहिए? दिलों का तार जुड़ना या रूप-रंग, पढ़ाई-कमाई, उम्र-कद जैसी कैलकुलेशन? इस जटिल सवाल का बड़े ही सरल तरीके से पड़ताल करती है, डकोटा जॉनसन, क्रिस इवांस, पेड्रो पास्कल की बेहतरीन अदाकारी से सजी फिल्म ‘मटीरियलिस्ट्स’। कहानी एक स्मार्ट और महत्वाकांक्षी मैच मेकर लूसी (डकोटा जॉनसन) की है। अपने काम में बेहद माहिर लूसी का मानना है कि शादी एक डील है, जहां लड़के-लड़की की चेकलिस्ट का मैच होना ज्यादा मायने रखता है। इस चेकलिस्ट मिलान में अपनी काबिलियत की बदौलत वह 9 जोड़ों की शादी करवा चुकी है। लूसी का अपने लाइफ पार्टनर के लिए एक ही मापदंड है कि वह बेहिसाब पैसे वाला हो। उसे हैरी (पेड्रो पास्कल) के रूप में 12 मिलियन डॉलर के अपार्टमेंट में रहने वाला पैदाइशी रईस, साथ में सज्जन, स्मार्ट और छह फिट से भी लंबा, यानी मैचमेकिंग की दुनिया में यूनिकॉर्न बंदा मिल जाता है। पर एक झोल है।

“Dating is not (a) serious (business),” John (Chris Evans) tells Lucy (Dakota Johnson) at one point in Celine Song’s sophomore directorial venture, Materialists. He could try telling this to those in their 20s and 30s who spend an inordinate amount of time on dating apps, matrimonial sites, and social media – consuming other people’s proposals, cocktail parties, pre-wedding shoots, gender-reveals. While most (especially those in proximity to the therapy discourse these days) are able to articulate their likes and dislikes, identifying socio-economic backgrounds and political leanings, one also risks being almost hyper self-aware (and self-indulgent) while searching for a partner. In the history of mankind, this is arguably the most cynicism we might have seen around concepts like love, marriage, fulfilment through a partner. The wild, wild west is nothing compared to modern dating – something Lucy knows better than most. Few people are willing to compromise on preferences, making their mental checklists that much more knotty.

CELINE SONG’S Materialists opens in a cave. In a past life, perhaps. A caveman offers a ring made of flowers to a cavewoman; she is moved by his proposal. All they need is love — and a tiny material consummation of it. It’s a sweet and wordless sequence. The film instantly switches to the high-tempo Manhattan life of 35-year-old matchmaker Lucy (Dakota Johnson). She is a master at “dating math”: ticking boxes, reducing surnames to alphabets, catering to clients’ dreams, perpetuating the dehumanisation of modern dating. The abrupt cut from the past to the present — or the present to the future — reveals both evolution and the erasure of it. Back then, it was a symbol. Now it’s a status symbol. It’s a swift but suggestive transition. Somewhere along the way, capitalism in the age of love slowly repositioned itself as love in the age of capitalism.