What Women Want

Do all women want a “unicorn”?

In a pivotal scene in new movie “The Materialists,” the matchmaker heroine tells a handsome man he’s exactly the kind of man her clients are looking for. He’s wealthy, he’s tall, and he doesn’t have a drug problem. He is, she concludes, a “unicorn”—a 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. “Pride and Prejudice” heroine Elizabeth Bennett 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?

“The Materialists,” 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—and 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’t 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 “unicorn” 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’s 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’t 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’t afford—or don’t want—matchmakers, it’s 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’s 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’t what you want—or need?

That’s a theme “The Materialists” explores. Lucy ends it with Harry when she discovers he has obtained a diamond ring. Soon, she is reunited with John—John 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’s not really clear what he sees in Lucy beyond her looks or why he’s 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 “The Materialists.”

Lucy’s 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 “their greatest relationship challenge,” according to a 2024 survey by Fidelity Investments. A fifth of divorcees said money had a “big” role in their divorce, while six out of 10 said it had “somewhat” of a role, according to a 2017 Experian survey.

Yes, marriage is—or should be—for richer or for poorer. But how a couple approaches financial setbacks and windfalls—is 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.

“The Materialists” could have been an adult movie—and by adult, I don’t 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 “girl s—.” 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’s a topic worth taking seriously—and it’s a shame this movie does so until the last few minutes, when it delivers a stereotypical, unwarranted, cheap Hollywood ending.

The post What Women Want appeared first on The Daily Signal.