Why the Salary for Dakota Johnson’s Character in ‘Materialists’ Is Such a Game-Changer
By making the number explicit, Celine Song’s new film reflects modern dating realities in a way rom-coms rarely have before.Almost everyone who sees “Materialists,” the writer-director Celine Song’s new spin on the old romantic comedy formula, seems to want to talk about one number: $80,000. That’s how much Lucy (Dakota Johnson) says she makes in her job as a matchmaker. She brings it up to goad Harry (Pedro Pascal) into revealing his own salary, but he will only say that he makes “more” — which, as a finance guy working in private equity and owner of a $12 million bachelor pad, he certainly does.The viewer conversations are over whether Lucy’s salary is realistic for her lifestyle: she wears relatively nice clothing, and lives alone in what appears to be a peaceful and brightly lit apartment, though we don’t see much of the interior. The film’s production designer revealed in an interview that her home is a teeny-tiny studio on the edge of the affluent Brooklyn Heights neighborhood, with a rent that Lucy probably shouldn’t be paying relative to her salary. Yet this matches her character’s single-minded aspiration: to be surrounded by wealth.We could debate whether the rest of her lifestyle, like her clothing, is realistic on her salary; I tend to think it could be, but in a Carrie Bradshaw, leveraged-to-the-hilt way. After all, we live in a world where direct-to-consumer brands sell decent silk slip dresses, and everyone’s thrifting or renting outfits — not to mention that anything looks good on Dakota Johnson.Knowing the character’s salary, viewers have debated her lifestyle choices.Atsushi Nishijima/A24But the fact we’re even debating that specific number is remarkable, and hints at what makes “Materialists” feel so very 2025. At my screening, the salary detail provoked a collective gasp that briefly sucked the air out of the room. It wasn’t even the amount, really: It was the fact that someone had said a number at all.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
