Fin: On 'Materialists,' it’s not “being weird” to talk and argue about a movie

It’s not that hard to stream sports, that Indiewire list, Philly’s write-in votes, and more in this week’s notes column.

Images: A24

Celine Song’s Materialists is a movie where it was obvious that the discourse would be unhinged. When a movie is about a contentious subject — high-end dating and the “sexual marketplace” today — and it has a couple of shocking twists, and it stars a couple of polarizing performers like Dakota Johnson and Pedro Pascal… contentious reactions will be had.

And you know what? That’s okay.

I’m for the most part pro-Materialists, as I wrote in my review, but I did have some reservations. I didn’t like it as much as Song’s previous film, Past Lives. It completely fumbles the sexual-assault subplot, using a minor character’s victimization as a plot device to further Johnson’s character’s plot (Brendan Hodges had a good point on this). I’m not sure the framing device involving the cavemen worked or was necessary.

But I found the movie charming and well-put-together, and I liked the way that it hit a nerve. One local theater here in Philadelphia even has a height chart, so all the men going to see movies can check and see whether or not they’re worthy of women’s love.

There’s been a lot of discourse alleging that “people are being weird” about the movie, or Song, the filmmaker. Or even applying some type of double standard to female directors, or “picking apart” Song’s work in the way they wouldn’t do with a male filmmaker in a similar position.

I don’t know, it just seems to me like with Materialists, people are talking about and arguing about a movie that they saw, which is both completely normal and a part of what film culture is. It’s a little more heated than usual, mostly because of the things the movie is about, but it’s far from the most toxic reaction I’ve seen to a movie this year (Snow White wins that particular distinction.)

Also, Song said in an interview that she loves the movie Zootopia, but I refuse to believe anyone is truly mad at her about that.

Is streaming spread too thin?

As movies and TV shows have migrated to streaming services, so have sports. And there was a highly-publicized op-ed in the New York Times this week, by ex-ESPN hand Joon Lee, arguing that “$4,785. That’s How Much It Costs to Be a Sports Fan Now.”

Yes, it can be a bit annoying, the way individual football and baseball games are on Peacock or Roku or whatever else.

But come on, very few people are paying the full $4,785 a year for every sports streaming service. That’s the price tag for every maximalist national package, which not many people pay for. And it implies that these people are paying for sports, and only sports. Sure, I watch soccer on Peacock, and the NFL and local Philly sports on Hulu Live TV, but I also use those services for many other things, too.