Carrie Brownstein on Cat Power. Plus, “Materialists,” “Too Much,” and the Modern Rom-Com.

Summary

The New Yorker Radio Hour – July 15, 2025

Hosted by David Remnick

---

Profile Segment: Carrie Brownstein on Cat Power and Richard Avedon's Portrait

Introduction to Cat Power's Portrait David Remnick opens the episode by reminiscing about a 2003 New Yorker profile of the musician Cat Power (Sean Marshall), complemented by a striking black-and-white portrait by famed photographer Richard Avedon. Remnick highlights how Avedon's photograph positions Cat Power among rock and roll legends.

Carrie Brownstein's Insights Timestamp: [01:06]

Carrie Brownstein, known for her work with the band Slater Kinney and co-creating the sketch show Portlandia, delves into her analysis of Avedon's portrait of Cat Power. She describes the image:

• Appearance: "She's holding up a Bob Dylan T-shirt, which is neither on nor off her body. She's not wearing underwear. There's a lot going on." ([01:24])

• Interpretation: Brownstein reflects on the non-conformist image Cat Power embodies, contrasting it with the typically polished presentations in the New Yorker. She emphasizes the anachronistic feel of the portrait, noting Cat Power's earnest desire to connect through music as a shared existential journey. ([02:24]–[05:20])

Hilton Als' Contribution Timestamp: [02:24]

Hilton Als, the staff writer who penned the original profile, adds depth to the discussion by commenting on Cat Power's emotional complexity: "She aches just like mama. She breaks just like a little girl." ([02:24])

Further Reflections by Brownstein Timestamp: [05:20]–[10:13]

Brownstein reminisces about Cat Power's performances from the You Are Free album era, highlighting the contrast between the fragility celebrated in her music and the chaotic energy of her live shows. She expresses admiration for Cat Power's continued musical contributions, attributing her resiliency to the spirit captured in Avedon's portrait.

Excerpt from Brownstein's Take on the Portrait Timestamp: [08:14]–[11:11]

Brownstein shares poignant observations from her written piece, contemplating the duality in the portrait:

• Double Meaning: "Is she arriving home or going out, dressing or undressing? ... The space is slippery, inaccessible. You're not sure you were even invited." ([10:21])

She concludes that the photograph encapsulates the essence of Cat Power, leaving viewers feeling transient and enigmatic.

---

Critics at Large: "Materialists," "Too Much," and the Modern Rom-Com

Introduction to the Roundtable David Remnick transitions to a discussion with critics Vincent Cunningham, Nomi Fry, Alexandra Schwartz, and hosted by Megan Stalter. They explore contemporary romantic comedies, focusing on Celine Song's Materialists and Lena Dunham's Netflix show Too Much. The conversation probes whether these works successfully update the rom-com genre for 2025.

Defining a Romantic Comedy Timestamp: [15:24]–[17:00]

The panel outlines essential elements of a rom-com:

• Balance between Fantasy and Reality: "It should be to an extent relatable... but it has to reach for the stars in some way." (Vincent Cunningham, [15:24])

• Hopefulness and Chemistry: Nomi Fry emphasizes the necessity of hope and authentic chemistry between characters, stating, "That's where the magic is." ([16:29])

Iconic Rom-Coms as Benchmarks Timestamp: [18:02]–[24:21]

The critics reflect on classic rom-coms like Working Girl ([18:02]) and You've Got Mail ([19:27]), discussing how these films blend career aspirations with love fulfillment. They highlight the aspirational and transformational aspects that make these movies resonate with audiences.

Contemporary Challenges in the Genre Timestamp: [27:05]–[30:12]

As mainstream tentpole films dominate, the rom-com niche shifts towards independent and experimental productions. Alexandra Schwartz questions whether the genre can innovate amidst changing societal norms and economic landscapes: "Is there anything new for the ROM com to do?" ([14:37]).

Deep Dive: Celine Song's Materialists Timestamp: [27:58]–[38:00]

Synopsis:

• Plot: Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a matchmaker who views marriages as business transactions. At a wedding she orchestrates, she meets Harry (Pedro Pascal), an ideal yet unattainable suitor, and reconnects with her ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans), leading to a love triangle.

• Critical Responses:

  • Vincent Cunningham: Finds the film's detached tone a deliberate commentary on transactional relationships but criticizes its monotony: "The soporific vibe... makes it hard to engage emotionally." ([32:35])

  • Nomi Fry: Enjoyed the film's cynical humor and realistic portrayal of relationship anxieties, appreciating the satire on materialism and the commodification of love: "The truthfulness... was refreshing." ([29:49])

  • Alexandra Schwartz: Praises the film's commitment to subverting traditional rom-com tropes but questions its alignment with the genre due to its thriller elements: "It seemed to be just a romantic thriller or horror movie." ([35:00])

Deep Dive: Lena Dunham's Too Much Timestamp: [38:00]–[47:15]

Synopsis:

• Plot: Jessica (Megan Stalter) moves to London after a breakup and quickly enters a new romance with Felix (played by a notable actor). The show explores the complexities of modern relationships amidst personal and professional turmoil.

• Critical Responses:

  • Nomi Fry: Appreciates the show's raw portrayal of relationship dynamics and its challenge to traditional rom-com narratives, though she is critical of the protagonist's demanding nature: "I was harrowed by Jess... Yet, the anti rom-com format was brilliant." ([41:26]–[46:55])

  • Alexandra Schwartz: Highlights Dunham's ability to depict the intense emotional cycles of relationships but expresses concern over the lack of mutual growth in the main characters: "The relationship was harrowing." ([44:22]–[45:00])

Comparative Analysis: Timestamp: [49:16]–[62:27]

The panel juxtaposes Materialists and Too Much, examining their representations of masculinity and economic pressures in relationships:

• Masculinity in Crisis:

  • Materialists portrays contrasting male characters grappling with traditional and vulnerable forms of masculinity.
  • Too Much presents Felix as a sensitive, caring individual, juxtaposed with Jess's ex who embodies toxic masculinity.

• Economic Realities:

  • Materialists is set against a stark economic backdrop, highlighting class disparities and existential insecurities.
  • Too Much touches on financial precarity but maintains a more hopeful tone regarding personal stability.

• Genre Evolution:

  • Both works challenge the rom-com framework by injecting elements of realism, cynicism, and self-discovery, questioning whether the genre can adapt to modern complexities.

Final Thoughts: Timestamp: [62:26]–[62:38]

Nomi Fry and Alexandra Schwartz conclude that while Materialists and Too Much push the boundaries of the rom-com genre, they expose underlying societal tensions and the evolving expectations of relationships. The critics remain cautiously optimistic about the rom-com's potential to reflect and influence contemporary gender dynamics and personal aspirations.

---

Notable Quotes

• Carrie Brownstein on Non-Conformity:

  "You know, Kat Power is someone I do know personally and she has opened for my band, Slater Kinney... [She] feels like a non conformist, in the truest sense." ([02:43])

• Nomi Fry on Hopefulness in Rom-Coms:

  "That little hope, that little inner shimmy that you want to see someone undergoing, that you want to feel yourself." ([16:29])

• Alexandra Schwartz on Relationship Dynamics:

  "Slow down, our expectations have been defied and come out realizing that you now know what love is because it caught you by surprise." ([24:15])

• Vincent Cunningham on Materialists:

  "The soporific vibe... makes it hard to engage emotionally." ([32:35])

• Nomi Fry on Too Much:

  "It's harrowing. And I was." ([44:59])

---

Conclusion

The episode masterfully blends an in-depth artist profile with a critical examination of modern romantic comedies, offering listeners both nostalgic reflections and contemporary insights. Carrie Brownstein's analysis of Cat Power's iconic image sets the stage for a thoughtful exploration of authenticity and non-conformity in art, while the roundtable discussion pushes the boundaries of the rom-com genre, questioning its relevance and potential in today's socio-economic landscape.

For those intrigued by the intersections of culture, art, and evolving storytelling, this episode provides a rich tapestry of perspectives and critical thought.

Transcript

[Vincent Cunningham]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Nomi Fry]

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker.

[David Remnick]

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Over 20 years ago, in the summer of 2003, the musician Shawn Marshall, better known as Cat Power, was on tour with an album called you are Free. Staff writer Hilton Als went to see one of those shows and he wrote a wonderful profile of Cat Power in the New Yorker. Along with it was a full page portrait in black and white by the great photographer Richard Avedon. Avedon's photograph put her in the lineage of rock and roll icons going back to the old days.

[Carrie Brownstein]

So in the portrait, Kat Power, AKA Sean Marshall, she's holding a cigarette which has a long ash dangling off the end of it. She has a lot of bracelets on. She's wearing a pair of low rise jeans.

[David Remnick]

That's Carrie Brownstein, a member of the band Slater Kinney and a co creator of the sketch show Portlandia. And for the series we call Takes, Brownstein wrote in the New Yorker about that photograph that was taken right at the moment that Kat Power was going from indie darling to a wider musical phenomenon.

[Carrie Brownstein]

She has a smirk on her face, some smudged mascara or eyeliner, and she's holding up a Bob Dylan T shirt and the shirt's neither on nor off her body. And I just, I like the cheekiness of it. There's something very canny about her holding this up. You know, you're not sure whether the shirt is covering Cat Power or Cat Power is covering the shirt. And of course, Cat Power famously is a fan of Dylan. And her most recent album is Kat Power sings Dylan at the 1966 Royal Albert hall concert.

[Hilton Als]

Yes, she does. And she aches just like mama. She breaks just like a little girl.

[Carrie Brownstein]

I'm trying to imagine what a 2003 New Yorker audience would think of this photo. There's all these sort of juxtapositions, like, oh, it's Richard Avedon. Like, this is, you know, preeminent artist in his own right capturing a photo of someone who maybe doesn't give a shit about being in the New Yorker. Like, you're not sure that she cares about being in the New Yorker, which I Can't say is usually the vibe. And yeah, she's not wearing underwear. There's a lot going on. To be honest, there are just a myriad of signifiers in this photo. I think why I wanted to do this take on the Avedon portrait of Kat Power was that I was curious to revisit this time in music, this time in both in my own life as a fan and someone who was playing in a band at the same time as Kat Power. And you know, Kat Power is someone I do know personally and she has opened for my band, Slater Kinney. We have played with her actually many times. And Avenon talks about how he's like photographs, they're, you know, they don't reveal. This is paraphrasing. It's like they don't reveal truths, but they're accurate. And I just, when I watch Kat Power, like I feel like this is a non conformist, like in the truest sense, you know, like this is someone who is perhaps asynchronous with what's going on now. Or there's like something that feels anachronistic about it. And the difference between a non conformist and we are in a time of such conformity, like the difference between a non conformist and like someone who is reactionary or someone who is contrarian is. Is that. Well, first of all, it's like a less obvious choice, but also it's just who they are. And I think that also creates kind of a dissonance with the listener or the viewer. I think there's an earnestness, I think there is a strong desire to connect. And that is something that Slater Kinney, I think shares with Kat Power, that it's just trying to make sense of a world of phenomena of our own, you know, purpose. It's this sort of existential journey that we don't really want to do alone. And music is a conduit and a means to not do that by oneself.

[Hilton Als]

Last time I saw you, you were on stage, your hair was wild, your eyes were bright and you were in a rage. You, you were swinging your guitar around. Cause they wanted to hear that sound that you didn't want to play. I don't blame you.

[Carrie Brownstein]

That is, I don't blame you. Off Kat Power's 2003 album, you are Free. I think a lot of people at the time assumed, and Kat Power confirmed that she was singing at least partly about Kurt Cobain. But I really think in some ways that's beside the point. There's something about the song that's so Prayerful and redemptive. And when I hear her singing I don't blame you, and then she is basically also singing the. The backup vocals, too. It's like the second the backup vocals are singing to her, like she's singing to Kurt or to some, you know, troubled artists, and then the backup vocals are singing to herself as the artist who's suffering. I think for me, I just. I felt that your band or your music became part of someone's identity. And I think that is, like, the greatest privilege and also really, really frightening, I think, especially if, you know, like, I didn't yet feel like I had the ballast, I guess. You know, I sort of was barely, like, carrying myself along, you know, and I. I think I could sense that the Cat Power was, I think, also overwhelmed by the ways that audiences, you know, were claiming her music. It's like everything you wanted, and then you're afraid that it's maybe not enough. And I think that pressure is hard. And at the time, you don't really see it as pressure. You just sort of see it as, like, this really intense ride that you've put yourself on.

[Hilton Als]

Just because they knew your name doesn't mean they know from where you came. What a sad trick you thought that you had to play But I don't blame you.

[Carrie Brownstein]

So the Avedon portrait accompanied a Hilton Owls piece in which there was this line. Marshall was alternately shy and demanding, a solipsist.

[Michael Ziegan]

A solipsist, that is to say, a star. Her triumphs were as engaging as her disasters.

[Carrie Brownstein]

And when you read reviews of this era of Kat power in 2003, people were frustrated because they found comfort in her songs. But at her shows, they felt uncomfortable.

[Michael Ziegan]

The set lasted approximately an hour and 10 minutes, during which time she talked to her friend's baby from the stage, asked no one in particular if the photographer, Mark Borthwick, was in the house, talked about her friends who had brought the baby, directed a fair amount of bemused antagonism toward a particularly ardent fan. Asked someone offstage how many minutes were left in the set. Played with her hair, took her large sunglasses on and off, indulged in rambling confessions, and complained about the length of one tune from her current album, you are Free, before singing an abbreviated version of it.

[Carrie Brownstein]

And it's like, you know, they wanted, like, the fragility but not the mess. And they wanted this brokenness without the shards. And it was like, what are we asking her to clean up? Like, why are we making her do chores? I think my point is, when I looked back on this photo, it just really reminded me how lucky we are that cat power still makes music. And Avedon has a way of reminding us to keep remembering, I guess, to keep going back to that place that feels sacred and special and uncynical.

[David Remnick]

The musician Carrie Brownstein of Slater Kinney. She wrote about Richard Avedon's portrait of cat power in our series called Takes.

[Carrie Brownstein]

Is she arriving home or going out, dressing or undressing? The Bob Dylan shirt is neither on nor off her body. She's not covering Dylan, he's covering her. Displaying, discarding. Stop. It's only a shirt. The unbuttoned jeans are going down coming up. The pubic hair is staying. Either way, take in her morning after smoky eye, that half smile. Try squeezing between cat power and Avadon's lens. The space is slippery, inaccessible. You're not sure you were even invited. In the end, you're the one who feels unknown, as temporary as the ash on Marshall's cigarette. Everything else is cat power.

[David Remnick]

You can find Carrie Brownstein's piece and a whole selection of essays about the New Yorker's [e-mail] takes. There's Zadie Smith writing about Grace Paley, Ina Garten on Julia Child, and much more. You can also subscribe to the magazine as [e-mail] this is the New Yorker Radio Hour. Every week, three of the New Yorker's critics sit down to talk about what's happening in the culture. For our podcast, Critics at Large this week may be no surprise. They wanted to talk about Lena Dunham's new Netflix show, Too Much. And there was a larger question in the room, too, whether the rom com still has anything to tell us in 2025. We wanted to share that episode with you. And staff writer Vincent Cunningham kicks things off.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Friends, we're gathered here today to discuss to celebrate the state of the rom com. That's right, the romantic comedy. They used to be a staple at the box office. And even though that's not really the case anymore, there has been a trend in the last, I don't know, five, ten years of trying to reimagine the rom com for today, whatever that means, and by whatever means possible. We're gonna dig into this a little bit more later in the episode, but let's give the listeners a little teaser. What do we think's going on with the rom com in 2025?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Well, the ROM com, as you said, Vincent, used to be like a mega commercial proposition, right? But I think with the advent of the tentpole IP type movie as kind of the only commercial proposition in town, the ROM com has weirdly become kind of, if not actually indie, then a place for potential experimentation.

[Nomi Fry]

You know, we're in yet another cycle of Is the ROM com dead? Long live the ROM com. I think we've been here before, a few times. We're back again in 2025. But if it's dead, people still keep wanting to make them, to watch them, to discuss them. But it's true that it doesn't have the kind of mainstream cultural purchase that it used to have. For sure.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

That's right. And to your point about the cyclical nature of the ROM com and its life and death, this is not the first time that we've talked about this and tried to explore the state of the ROM com. Way back on Valentine's Day, 2023. Can you believe it? Were we ever so young? The New Yorker published a roundtable discussion where we talked about movies like Bros, you people and Shotgun Wedding. Do you remember anything?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Starring Josh Duhamel and J. Lo.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

There you go.

[Nomi Fry]

It took me so long into rereading that to remember what Shotgun Wedding was. The abyss. That was the film. You people did come more readily back to me, but Shotgun Wedding was truly forgettable and that I forgot all about it.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, that's what. Sometimes that's what it's for as well.

[Nomi Fry]

I mean, we're here because there are these two new properties that we were curious to discuss. Celine Song's movie Materialists, which is being billed as the return of the rom com, and Lena Dunham's Netflix show Too Much. We have these two women who are saying, I love the genre. I want to reclaim the genre. And we are going to talk about if they have.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

So today we're going to be talking about our favorite rom coms from the screwball era through the 90s. And we're also going to be considering these new entries into the genre. And the question I want us to consider is, is there anything new for the ROM com to do? That's today on critics at large, our Will they, won't they with the ROM com? So, as we mentioned, we're gonna get into Materialists, we're gonna get into too much. But maybe it bears laying some groundwork. What are some must have elements, Alex and Nomi, of a romantic comedy? What are we looking for? Just to begin with, I think there.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Should be a pleasing balance between fantasy and reality. It should be to an extent relatable, the plot and the characters. But it has to Reach for the stars in some way. Like, it has to have some element of wish fulfillment. And that equilibrium is hard to get, but when it's achieved, it's perfect. I'm thinking about, like, Pretty Woman, for instance, which is, of course, completely fantastical, but has a kind of core of subjective relatability, like in its characters.

[Nomi Fry]

All right, I have a radical answer. Here's what needs to be in a romantic comedy.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Full penetration.

[Nomi Fry]

I actually, myself do prefer a little sheet Russell. Although, you know, I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid of it. No, I'm gonna say romance and comedy, and you're all gonna say, well, that's obvious. But you know what? Those qualities are often sorely lacking by romance, I mean just that little hopefulness.

[Hilton Als]

Oh, yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

That little hope, that little inner shimmy that you want to see someone undergoing, that you want to feel yourself. And for me, that does have everything to do with if you can. No, you're talking about relatability. There is a kind of fantasy and a romantic fantasy about who you could be, like playing yourself into the film. That is almost more important than the romantic partner. And then the comedy element, it does have to be funny, and that can actually be a harder note to strike. Comedy's hard.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Comedy's famously hard. Yeah, it's impossible. I just think, and this is just straight up rudiments of storytelling. The reason the speech has to happen is that there has to be a moment when all seems impossible. I judge it by, like, how good is the moment when whatever it is, somebody's been caught lying, somebody's done some sort of betrayal where it's over, and I want to see them climb that hill back into plausibility.

[Nomi Fry]

You love an obstacle.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

And it's weird because in other forms of storytelling, I kind of don't like that. I'm, like, not as invested in that kind of vertiginous plot. But in the rom com, for some reason, I do like it.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

What's on the Mount Rushmore, then? So, like, based on these criteria and many more, there are many more criteria that we could name. What then rises to the top?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Well, this is not the first time that I've sung this tune on this show. Let the river run.

[Nomi Fry]

There she goes. There she goes. She'll take any opportunity.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Any opportunity. Working Girl, my friends, Mike Nichols. Working Girl, starring Melanie Griffith and Harrison Ford, about a woman's search for love, but not just love in the kind of tradition of, like, 1980s feminism, love and professional fulfillment.

[Carrie Brownstein]

I have a head for business and.

[Vincent Cunningham]

A bad for sin.

[Nomi Fry]

Is there anything wrong with that?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

No. No.

[Vincent Cunningham]

And it's a great example of a complete wish fulfillment movie where career does not negate love, but in fact, complements it in an incredibly satisfying way.

[Nomi Fry]

She can have it all.

[Vincent Cunningham]

She can have it all. Exactly.

[Nomi Fry]

And she can be it all. I mean, it's such a great movie and it is so fascinating because it has to do. I mean, I have a whole argument that I just can't wait to trot out at some point in this episode about the condition of women in the 20th century and how it directly tracks onto the rom com, another New York movie. New York is such a place in the rom com world because of this kind of, I think, striving woman who we, Naomi and I relate to. Surprise. You've Got Mail is a perfect film. It's a perfect film. And it's reception history. Eyes were rolled. And now everyone is regretting those roles because.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Because now we love Barnes and Noble.

[Nomi Fry]

Because first of all, Barnes and Noble, the enemy in that movie in the guise of Fox Books, right? The megastore that's gonna put out Barnes and Noble.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Now it's like a mom and pop shop.

[Nomi Fry]

Barnes and Noble is our last hope.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Like a little shoemaking atelier.

[Nomi Fry]

Exactly. But more to the point, so you got Meal is a perfect movie. It starts with the trope we were discussing in our Romantasy episode from a few months ago, Enemies to lovers. And it's a clash all the way until some, okay, fairly questionable stuff involving manipulation, but like, all for the Good goes down and they befriend one another and accept life. But here's why I love this movie. I love this movie because of Meg Ryan, who is utterly pitch perfect as she's exactly the right degree of frazzled.

[Hilton Als]

Why did you stop by again?

[Carrie Brownstein]

I forget.

[Nomi Fry]

She's utterly functional and loving and adorable and wears her heart on her sleeve, but she also is, like, totally who she is in the way that she was in those Nora Ephron movies. Also in When Harry Met Sally, another total great. And so you're rooting for her. You're rooting for the good side of him that could potentially come out. And this is, of course, the other fantasy in romantic comedy. The man is transformed by his love of a good woman.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Oh, yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

Like he is this, you know, little shriveled, souled vorce who just wants to make money and hang out on his houseboat in the Hudson River.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Right?

[Nomi Fry]

Who's transformed.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

I always go back and forth about my favorite rom com. It's often Love and Basketball. Omar Epps. Sanaa Lathan. Sanaa Lathan is also in another one of my favorite rom coms, which is. It's a hybrid comedy drama, ensemble piece, but romance is really at its core. It's called the Best man, and essentially it's about a group of friends. This for me, is classic, really. It's about a wedding. It's the lead up to the wedding of two of the friends. And it is learned because one of the friends, played by Taye Diggs, is a writer and he has written a novel. And it's found out by the character that's played by Morris Chestnut, who's getting married that way back in college. There was a betrayal. Mia slept with your best man. And what ensues is a drama of betrayal, including Taye Diggs potentially cheating on his girlfriend, played by Sanaa Lathan. Ooh, that should never have happened to you. For me, the Best man is the great text of a kind of black Gen X sensibility. They're kind of like they have. There's incense and people are playing the guitar. It's like sexy in a way that I want it to be. It came out in 1999 and it's directed by Mat Malcolm D. Lee, who has continued to create these movies. But for me, one of the good things about a rom com is that it can introduce you to a whole milieu and a whole kind of social stratum to which you can sort of aspire to live in.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah, I mean, that makes me think of another point, Vincent. The idea of kind of aspirationality. And when the rom com catches you in your own life, like, when are you watching this? Like in my early teen years, you know, like watching these classic rom coms when I was myself on the verge of entering into the romance plot, right. Or like the sex plot, I guess. And having these movies transmit to me what to look for. Like what are the values that I would myself want to adopt as like a person who is seeking her own love connection.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

That's right.

[Nomi Fry]

I love that you're saying that, because I do think that in some rom coms, in some of the great ones, that issue is itself dramatized. What kind of life do I want to live? And your expectations around it or the fantasies around it being actually defied in favor of something that is not at all what you thought would be your ideal? And that is so fun to watch because the ideal rom com is also a journey to self knowledge. It's not just about your perfect wish fulfillment. And you got exactly what you wanted. You have to learn something about yourself and have your expectations defied and come out realizing that you now know what love is because it caught you by surprise. That's where the magic is. And when there's chemistry between the leaves.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Chemistry.

[Nomi Fry]

Chemistry. So that you believe it.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yes.

[Nomi Fry]

That's where the magic is.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yes. Yes. And I wanna return once again to full penetration. Not because I actually think there should be full penetration in the rom com.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Let's clarify.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Let's clarify. It was a joke. But the belief in the possibility of sex, because actual sex, you know, the rom com is historically not an explicit genre. There is a hint of. Of forthcoming sex. There should be. In, in the good ones, there is attraction, you know, chemistry. The promise, the potential of sex needs to be there.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's. Look, I'm. I'm deep in the Nora Ephron thing, obviously. I know that's rather typical and not gonna shock anyone, but When Harry Met Sally, of course directed by Rob Reiner, but written by Nora Ephron. So sex ruins everything briefly before everything is made right again. And that is also such a great part of that movie because that's also realistic where, like, the wish fulfillment finally happens. And I just, I will never forget that. Kind of like disgusting.

[Vincent Cunningham]

I know when she wakes up on.

[Nomi Fry]

Meg Ryan's face and he's like, oh my God, so happy. And he's just like, I cannot get out of here fast enough. Brilliant. Brilliant. You know, how are you gonna work your way back from that? Let's get to that third act and find out.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Let's find out. This summer, two projects are trying to take up the mantle of the modern rom com materialists. And too much. How do they succeed or not in updating the genre? That's in a minute on Critics at Large from the New Yorker.

[Megan Stalter]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported by Smalls Cat Food. Is your cat having digestive issues or simply in need of a diet upgrade? Smalls cat food is full of protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients you'd find in your fridge. And it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. A few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the US and teamed up with the Humane World for Animals. The team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product that you can try it risk free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve. For a limited time only because you are a New Yorker Radio Hour listener, you can get 60% off your first smalls order plus shipping when you head to smalls.com radiohour that's 60% off when you head to smalls.Com radiohour plus free shipping.

[Carrie Brownstein]

The US and China are locked in an artificial intelligence arms race. It's always been this idea that America.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Has built these big, beautiful large language.

[Nomi Fry]

Models that require all of this money based on their narrative. There's not actually been much behind them.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Will China's deep seek oh so cheap.

[Carrie Brownstein]

And transparent Pop America's AI Bubble?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Don't miss this week's on the Media from wnyc. Okay, now it's time to get contemporary. Let's turn to the 2025 hopeful entries into the rom com canon. Do they make it in? Let's see. Let's start with Celine Song's Materialists. Would anyone like to offer us a synopsis?

[Vincent Cunningham]

I can try. So in Materialist we have Lucy, played by Dakota Johnson. She is a matchmaker.

[Nomi Fry]

How many marriages are you responsible for now, Lucy?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Nine.

[Vincent Cunningham]

She knows exactly what makes a relationship potentially work and what makes her so good at her job is that she is completely unsentimental. She sees marriage as a business proposition. It's math, as she says when the movie opens, she is attending a wedding of one of her clients that she set up successfully. And two things happen in that wedding. First of all, she meets Harry, played by Pedro Pascal.

[Nomi Fry]

You are what we call a unicorn, an impossible fantasy.

[Vincent Cunningham]

He is incredibly wealthy, he's very handsome, he's tall, he's urbane, he's stylish, he appears at least kind, and he's single. At the same time, as she's kind of flirting with Harry, she runs into John, her old boyfriend, played by Chris Evans, who she broke up with because he was broke. And so the movie is basically about this triangle. It's about Lucy trying to determine whether she should go with Harry, which according to her principles, is the perfect match, or whether she should go back to John, who according to her principles, is.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

A complete dud that is 100% correct. Between the nailed it. The dashing, very eligible, viable Pedro Pascal and the dirtbag artist Chris Evans. Alex, did you like this movie?

[Nomi Fry]

Oh my God, I have so much to say about this movie.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Oh my God, I can't wait to.

[Nomi Fry]

Hear Alex's take, I have a feeling I'm going to be right in between Nomi and Vincent. I'm guessing. Don't tell me yet if I'm right. I'm guessing Vincent loved, Nomi, hated, and here I am, very confused in the middle.

[Carrie Brownstein]

Okay.

[Nomi Fry]

I'm seeing nods, so I think I'm onto something. Okay. I know my fellow critics, Nomi, don't feel slighted, don't feel slandered.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Not at all.

[Nomi Fry]

I'm just gonna say where I feel.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Don't feel, in fact, seen and recognized.

[Nomi Fry]

And that's love.

[Vincent Cunningham]

And that is love.

[Nomi Fry]

Good.

[Vincent Cunningham]

But it's also hate.

[Nomi Fry]

Well, it's my love for you.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yes. It's my hate for the materialist.

[Nomi Fry]

Got it.

[Vincent Cunningham]

No, no, no, no, no. It's not hate. I did not think it was a very good movie. I thought it was trying to do something interesting, and there was things about it that I liked, but I felt it was completely. And I understand. I think that this was intentional in some ways. The soporific vibe of this movie, the complete kind of evenness of it in terms of dialogue, in terms of tonality, in terms of the characters being indistinguishable from each other in anything except obviously, like, appearance was trying, I think, to make a point about this kind of world that amounts to math. Dakota Johnson characters especially. She is unruffled, but unruffled to the extent where I was like, is she. Has she taken, like, seven Xanax bars, like, before, you know, doing every scene that I was like, okay, I can see that this could be. Yes, again, a comment on, like, we're not talking about big emotion here. We're talking about calculation. Right? We're talking about business. And so this is the way relationships between people are. She, you know, famously, and this has been talked about in stuff written about this movie up front, tells Harry, the Pedro Pascal character, when she first meets him. She's like, I make $80,000 a year. I know you make much more. Basically, she comes to his beautiful Tribeca apartment the first time. She's like, how much is this place? He's like, it's $12 million. Right. The problem for me was that this. The same kind of soporific, like, Xanax vibe continued, like, from start to finish for me. But then that seemed to me to be at odds with the kind of, like, central conflict the movie was trying. The choice, which seemed the kind of the raison d' etre of this mov. Alex, what do you think?

[Nomi Fry]

Well, I had a splendid time seeing this movie by myself, the chair next to me absolutely empty, laughing out loud, enjoying myself, laughing out loud. I was laughing out loud because what I liked very much about it, especially in the first half of the movie and what I found refreshing was that it foregrounded these materialistic aspects of and it made them the total focus and part of the comedy of the movie. Right up top. Like we were talking about Jane Austen a few weeks ago. This is a world in which everybody knows how much the eligible mate has per year and the material conditions of what that marriage will look like are everything to determining whether there's compatibility. And though we like to think we've moved so far from this world and we like to flatter ourselves that we care about such different things, I don't think that's what really so much the case. And this is a very, like, harsh light shone on that. There's a really fun opening where it begins with a caveman couple and a scene of courtship that is both ridiculous and somewhat touching. And cuts to contemporary Manhattan where Dakota Johnson is click clacking around in her click clack heels. But you know what I like about it up front is you get these interviews between the Dakota Johnson character and her clients and you see that all of them, first of all have this desperation around them. And I found acknowledgement that worth and the acknowledgement of worth is what people are looking for in the dating market to be funny and to feel true. I didn't, you know, is it cynical? It's absolutely cynical. But part of the promise of the movie is that it's gonna break down that cynicism and get to the warmer crust underneath. So therefore you have the Chris Evans character. And what got me there was it is for Lucy this choice between the past and the future. Chris Evans character is living. He's 37. He lives like he's 27. And I found that funny too. Like his horrible apartment with his gross roommates. You know, there's a wince of recognition from me, like, if you're a woman, you've seen that apartment, possibly if you're a man, it's not good. It's not a good feeling. And I found the truthfulness of that and the fact that she wouldn't want to go back there refreshing. And I enjoyed it. And I also admit to being absolutely fascinated by the affectlessness of Dakota Johnson.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Like, it's fascinating.

[Nomi Fry]

It's fascinating in part because I think in Dakota Johnson you have a really capital A adult. She is living in her uncluttered apartment. She's Making money for herself. She looks really great. She's focused on her endgame. She's adulting all the way. And that kind of character, I think, has actually fallen out a bit of the rom com space and of someone.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Who actually has it together.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, someone who actually has it together. Then of course, the problem becomes that there's nothing underneath that you don't understand. You don't see what the Chris Evans character is seeing in her. And the movie doesn't try to make you see it either. It just relies on the idea that they had a past together. It relies on, you know, him declaring his feelings for her inexplicably. And while she treats him quite badly, the inexplicability.

[Vincent Cunningham]

That's what I'm trying to say.

[Nomi Fry]

So it did all fall apart, in my opinion. And my question for you guys and for the audience of this movie and for Celine's song is, is there no middle ground? Whence the grown up? Where's the grownup man option? Who isn't this like, weird corporate, I'm gonna take you only to sushi restaurants person, or an absolute mess who I'm sorry, I can't respect?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah. Well, I think part of that is like the description of Dakota Johnson's character that you offered at the beginning, which is she's the middle ground. She is neither of those things. One of my favorite things about this film, and this is one of the reasons that you are totally right in profiling me, I loved it, was in fact the performances, because Nomi's right. When we think about the rom com, we do think about relatability. And with relatability comes naturalism in acting. And this movie's like, nope, these people don't act like people.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

And the dual meaning, it seems to me, of the title is like, yes, there's economic materialism, but there's also a kind of spiritual material. What if there's no great soul either? What if people aren't these bundle of wonderful qualities that are waiting to be awakened by love? Right. The self realization thing that you mentioned, Alex, what if that's not in play? Actually, it seemed to me to be a counterfactual exercise. What if we just are an accrual? Like, yes, we have histories, but we're not some great thing beneath the surface. And we. So the awkwardness of all the performances to me, seemed to be part of a kind of mission statement, which I admired the commitment to it all through the film. I don't really think that we're supposed to think that she And Chris Evans are really some great. All compa. Like, every single backstory shot is just of them. There's one where they get out of a car in the middle of what seems to be Times Square, and they're just yelling at each other because of, you know, it's their anniversary and there's this shitty date and nothing that he does is good enough. It's not like he's poor, but thoughtful. It's not like he's poor, but particularly funny. Yeah, he's kind of nice to her, but that's.

[Nomi Fry]

He's just poor.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, he's just poor.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Come on, you guys. He's a handsome guy and not even poor.

[Nomi Fry]

He's a hot man. He's a hot man.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

And so, by the way, is Pedro Pascal. And then there's a great big joke in the middle of the movie. I won't let it go. But he has done things to sort of enhance his viability, which calls into question even his sort of dashing exterior. But one thing I do want to highlight is that we won't spoil it, but. But there is, like, somewhere in the middle of this movie, we are reminded that beneath all dating is also the specter of violence. Right? And so this hope, this aspiration, is a great big risk that why are we taking it? It really does call the whole enterprise into question in a way that, again, I thought was brave, but also made me think maybe it's not a romantic comedy. It seemed to me to be just like a romantic thriller or horror movie that was marketed in this way because of it wants to subvert a thing. I don't know that this movie believes in love. That's what I like about it. This movie's like, no, we're all alone. I would like to talk about a story that does believe in love, a TV show called Too Much. It's written, produced, largely directed by now a seasoned entrant into this melee, which is Lena Dunham. And it is about a young woman named Jessica, played by. For me, and I'll get into my take, the brilliant Megan Stalter, who has left New York after a disastrous breakup and moved to London. And immediately, first through kind of a hookup at a bar, immediately finds herself in the throes of a new romance.

[Nomi Fry]

I will add another drop into the cup by saying that the personality mix is kind of what this is all about. The Megan Stalter character, Jessica Salmon, is the too much of the title. She is going to say whatever comes to her mind as soon as it comes to her Mind, she's the opposite in every way of who Dakota Johnson is in Materialists. She's going to be as much herself as possible. And that person is brassy loud out there, unafraid to look like a total mess, which she is at the start of the series. And her love object is this indie musician, Felix Rehman, who she meets at a pub. And he is much lower key. He's conventionally handsome, whereas. And this is something that the show, I think wonderfully does not emphasize, but it is part of the subtext. And the Jessica character is like this fat woman and he's just sort of like this conventionally handsome guy and he has had this dark relationship to drugs and alcohol. He's now sober and kind of trying to stay in the straight and narrow, but he is not part of grown up life. And she sort of is. She has a job, she's in London to be a producer on a Christmas ad. But he in many ways seems more grown up than she does, while on paper she's the one who's more grown up. And I think the series really works with that. Again, these questions of what is attraction, but also how does that translate into making a life together and how do these sort of youthful questions of sex and love and infatuation lead into something more stable? I think that's at the heart of this series too.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah. And one other thing that I think we should note is that this show was produced by Working Title, which is a production company that has worked on kind of the most famous British rom coms, you know, like Love actually and like Notting Hill and you know, that whole genre. And so. And the series itself plays with that. You know, Jessica as a kind of expat who's coming to London and has these dreams, these fantasies based on watching exactly these rom coms, is coming to this new city imagining that she might find her kind of British lover that answers certain kind of either Jane Austenian or kind of the contemporary version of that. Ideas that she has in her mind about what makes a romance and what ends up happening. And this is kind of part of the restructuring of the whole idea of the rom com in the series is his life happens in a different way than what she might fantasize about.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

It's interesting though. And first of all, I mean, I am a big fan of Lena Dunloom's work. The first season of Girls, I think is just.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Well, yeah, I mean, nothing like that will ever be repeated.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

It's just such a fastball. And I think she's Done it again. I think she's done it again. It really is a show about a kind of life cycle of the most intense parts of romantic couplings, breakups and beginnings. Two things that are equally if different in Valence, equally kind of unbearable. The texting, the waiting, the rollercoaster of emotions that happens in the early parts of a relationship that kind of make it impossible to. Jessica has come to work, to London, and she can barely even pay attention to work. There's a capsule episode where she stays up all night knowing that she's got important stuff to do, cannot do it, because they're talking, they're watching movies, they're having sex, can't focus on anything. And on the other hand, she's fixating on her breakup. Her ex, Zev, who's played by Michael Ziegan, is in a relationship with a kind of influencer who's played by Emily Ratajkowski. And she's watching all of their videos, keeping a diary on a secret Instagram, which is directed toward this influencer whose name is Wendy. And so this obsession, the horrible bits of love, I just thought it was great.

[Nomi Fry]

I love what you say, and yet I have a question for you, and that question is, did you like the relationship at the heart of this TV show? Did that work for you?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Do I like the relationship?

[Nomi Fry]

Did that give you rom com? Y. Ooh, Will they or won't they? Or how's this gonna go?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Well? Cause it's like they get to. It's almost not that. Because they're so together at the beginning. And part of it is that the, like, absolute mania of the beginning of a relationship when you're not even sure if it's the right thing to do and you're spending probably too much time together. So I liked. I believed the relationship for sure. Did I like it? No, I was harrowed by it.

[Vincent Cunningham]

You were harrowed by it.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

I think it's. Folks, folks, it's harrowing.

[Nomi Fry]

And there you have it, folks. It's harrowing. And I was.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Which I didn't mind.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Okay, so what were you harrowed by? Because apropos what you were saying, Alex, about, like, the will there, won't they. They will from the very beginning is the thing which I thought was very interesting and an interesting choice because once again, you know, we talked about materialist, and it's kind of like weird relationship to, like, is this even a rom com here? In a different way? I think that's a question as well, because from the very beginning, it's like they move in together. Essentially, I mean, not move in together.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

You know, it's like some of us are like this.

[Nomi Fry]

They shock us.

[Vincent Cunningham]

No, no, no, I'm not saying it doesn't.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Serial relationship representation.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah. No, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just saying it's a particular choice to say we're going in, we're meeting at the bar and we're moving it, you know, like it's, it's just a different type of thing.

[Nomi Fry]

No, you're exactly right. They're meeting, they're fucking, they're spending all night talking. They're, you know, they're in each other's lives. But there's the bigger question of will these two very, very different people find compatibility and a kind of a stability together. And in one way, even beyond the way the show works, we know they will because this is a kind of a Romana Clay show. It's based on Lena Dunham's relationship with her now husband Louise Felber, who is her co creator in the show. And there are strong notes of her ex, Jack Antonoff in the ex who she leaves in New York, who is not a Jack Antonoff mega producer, but is this kind of failing music writer whose really self serious and goes from this kind of love bomber character into this much darker egomaniacal. Put her downer of Jess.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

He's a put her downer.

[Nomi Fry]

He's a real put her downer. So here's what I think about this show. I got very irritated by the Jess character. It's not a fact I'm proud of necessarily, but it's just what it is. She was too much for me for a while.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

Like I just felt like her expectations for the relationship were things that would serve her in every single particular. Finding someone who would kind of just be able to like accommodate her in every single way without having to move an inch in a direction towards accommodating the needs of this guy. And I've seen five episodes. I think there are 10 total.

[Vincent Cunningham]

There's 10, yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

So maybe that will change. But there's a lot of putting up with Jess and kind of the chillness of Felix. And to me I sort of started to feel like, you know, Lena Dunham specializes in these over the top female characters. That's what made girls such a lightning rod of discussion, I think in a lot of ways. And I really admire her for that. And yet I felt this kind of self justifying note in some of this where. And I don't know if this changes later in the series. But it just felt like a lot of taking a mile and giving no inches on the part of the character Jess. And where she really came alive to me was in this flashback episode about her first relationship. And I like that the show accommodates the space for that. This kind of anti rom com, basically, in this long episode where you have this super meet cute. They meet at a bar and he, like, her pizza's been taken and her friends have left and he just swoops in like a Prince Charming and he love bombs the hell out of her. She's the best. She's so great. And over time you just see, like a noose tightening and he starts withholding affection. He starts criticizing her body and her fashion choices. He just becomes cruel and cold and manipulative. And that talk about harrowing. Utterly harrowing. So that brings a lot of sympathy to the character. And I love what Lena Dunham did with that anti rom com format. The falling out of love and the realizing that you've been betrayed by love. I thought that was brilliant. I will absolutely keep watching this show, but at the moment I'm wondering. And maybe this has to do with materialists also. These are two totally. These are just like poles of straight womanhood that are the extremes. One is this, like, adult robot, like I am adulting, and the other. Adult robot. Yeah. And the other is this, like, absolute mess. Yeah. But like a child, like, needs a caretaker, insists on her independence, but actually insists on being taken care of at all times. And I'm looking for or the one who accommodates both.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Mm. Romantic comedies have always reflected their era's gender dynamics. So what do these rom coms have to say about ours? That's in a minute on critics at large. Alex, earlier you mentioned that you had a theory to unspool about the rom com and the changing fate of women in their lives. I would love to hear this take uncorked.

[Nomi Fry]

You ready to unspool that thread?

[Vincent Cunningham]

Unspool, unfurl it.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Unfurl cork. All different kinds of metaphors. I'm offering.

[Nomi Fry]

I like it. I. Yeah. Well. So Nomi was talking earlier about this kind of, like, projection onto these figures in the rom com and the need to project on. And I do think that the rom com really gets its lifeblood from reflecting back women's circumstances in this realistic but also idealized way, as Naomi was saying. And because the economic, the political and the domestic fate of women has changed utterly over the last, you know, hundred years. Just so happening to coincide with the history of cinema itself. You know, we get this kind of track record of female fantasy of what life and love is. And I find that really interesting. So, like, you know, we have earlier rom coms. Like, I love the classic Tracy Hepburn rom coms. I don't know if that's big for you guys, but, like, those movies are sparkling and charming and hilarious and of course, chemistry up to the nines, you know, lifelong, semi secret relationship. Like, hello, there it is on screen. And like, so a classic example of that is the movie Adam's Rib, which was made in 1949, was directed by George Cuker and from screenplay written by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. And it's about married lawyers who oppose each other in court. And they oppose each other on the question of men and women's rights and relationships. And so you have this great view into a time when women had just, you know, been working during World War II, when the men were gone. Now they have been powered like never before, but they're on, as we know, the cusp of the regressive 1950s. And so you have Spencer Tracy as a prosecutor, Katharine Hepburn as a defense attorney. She is defending a woman who tried to kill her husband because he was having an affair. He is prosecuting that guy. And you get such comedic, like, friction, like no other of this couple going up against one another. But you also have real tension because this starts to eat into their own relationship and this kind of drives them apart before they come back together. So those are some really real issues getting worked out in the space of one very funny comic movie. And then, like, cutting ahead to the rom coms that Nomi and I love, like, in the 80s, everything has changed. Women. Suddenly it's not taboo to pursue a career. There is the beginning of the having it all discourse, the, like, ruinous having it all discourse where there is this idea that you can wear your shoulder pads and perhaps have get higher up on the corporate ladder or have a career as a journalist, as Sally does. And When Harry Met Sally, even though we don't know very much about her career as a journalist, divorce is an option. So the rom com has to give you a relationship that first of all doesn't feel like it's just settling because we now know divorce is an option. It has to, like, sell that fantasy of the empowered women back to women. And when it does, like, we eat it up with a spoon. We totally do. Guilty as charged.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah. Because what could be really more perfect? Yeah. Career fulfillment and love fulfillment.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah. And someone who recognizes, you know, your value in both areas Basically. And now I feel like we're in a little bit. I wonder if the crisis in rom coms has to do with a crisis in how adult women want to be or want to see themselves. Because again, these characters in Too Much and in Materialists are on total opposite poles to a point of extremity that I find instructive. And neither of them seems to me to be living a life that like, I like to think that the ideal romantic comedy heroine has a little bit of frazzle. Not too much like a little bit of relatable frazzle. And in Too Much, it's all frazzle. And in Materialists, it's absolutely zero frazzle. She is a straightened ponytail. Like that's what she is. So, you know, where are women wanting to see ourselves? And also where do men come into this equation?

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Right. And is a little bit of frazzle, but everything's gonna be okay. Is that just the romantic expression of Clinton era political economy? Is that just the end of history? Because what's interesting about Materialist is the fact that you feel that certainly the Chris Evans character could fall off the end of the earth. And there is precarity such that there is kind of danger in it. You know, I don't want to do any kind of rote identity politics, but it does seem to me interesting that Celine Song has created a world of mostly white people and is not herself white and was not born in this country. And therefore some of the gimlet eyed stuff that we're watching in this movie is an outsider's look in to perhaps a white middle class that doesn't really exist anymore. Yeah, it's and is fraying and is falling apart. So all of a sudden class differences are not just aesthetic, they are existential.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

And I wonder if that's our changing political economy sort of asserting itself.

[Vincent Cunningham]

I think there's also a point to be made here that too much takes place in England while Materialist takes place in America, in New York. I think you're absolutely right. It's existential. The class thing. Or there's a sense that it could potentially be life and death. Save yourself and hitch your wagon to the star of Pedro Pascal who will never go hungry. You will never go hungry. Please, Daddy, save us. Save us with your like $12 million loft.

[Nomi Fry]

You know that's right.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Because that's the only chance we're grasping at, like, please, like the Bezos of the world. Like, those are.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Send me to space, Daddy.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah, send me to space, Daddy. That's the only way to Be safe. Right. Whereas I do think that in too much, there is a scene early on, I don't remember if it's the first or the second episode where Felix is on the dole. It's implied. He goes to talk to the welfare office and is talking to this guy who's like, have you tried to find a job like, in the last. You know, I'm not saying that's some idealized state, right? Of, like, welfare isn't. Isn't happening in England, like, seamlessly and frictionlessly. That's right, certainly. But there is a sense that he's not gonna go hungry. Like, he'll somehow go on with his life and kind of like, be an indie musician and live with a lot of roommates, but it's not gonna be a life and death situation. Right? Whereas I think you're completely right. In Materialists, there is a much harsher kind of starkly black or white life and death thing going on.

[Nomi Fry]

And I think it also has to do with masculinity. You know, surprise. How could it not? But in Materialists, you have these two very different visions of masculinity that are both in crisis. You have the Pedro Pascal character who, yes, looks like a very traditional husband material kind of guy. He has all the money, he's suave. He has. He buys the right flowers for the date, he goes to the right restaurant. He is a provider figure. And then you have the polar opposite. This kind of. I can't even provide for myself. I don't. You know, I broke my shoelace three days ago and I've had to walk around with a rubber band, you know, kind of, kind of vibe, kind of vibe, kind of vibe, kind of vibe from. From this other guy who feels himself to be in crisis over his masculinity, for obvious reasons he can't provide. But it comes out, and here is a little bit of a spoiler. It comes out that Pedro Pascal has. His character has. And here we almost laughed together, physical insecurities, okay? He's had physical insecurities about his own marketability, his own ability to attract. So on the one hand, I like that this movie is highlighting that fact of reality for men. You know, the fact that the culture is talking about this a little more. And then in. In too much, you have a character who basically is analogous to John. He's an indie musician. And the masculinity there comes through in this kind of softer, caring way. I think the fact that he is equipped to care for Jess, to make her tea, to listen to her to kind of have this gentle touch, I think, that's presented as this winning version of contemporary masculinity. It's opposed to Jess's ex boyfriend who feels frustrated and takes out his thwarted ambition on his girlfriend by denigrating her and bringing her down. So I think that both of these projects are basically trying to speak to the fact that everyone's ideals are in question. No one kind of knows. And like, to add to this, we're sitting around her talking as if it's, you know, as if we're ourselves, cave people about, like, men and women in heterosexual relationships. Like, okay, there are many alternatives to these things now. It's an. Of course. But it's also, I think, like, you know, what you see in what's fun in too much is you see that, like, all of her co workers are living these very different lives, like divorced or wanting to try being a lesbian or whatever. It is like wanting to kind of flirt with all of the possibilities that are open in 2025 as opposed to like going down the standard rom com road.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah, well, you say masculinity, it's so true. One of the refrains of materialists is this idea of the quote unquote, high value man, tall, rich, whatever. And that is a refrain that is taken directly from, at least in my experience, the manosphere.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Yeah.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

One of the refrains of this space, the men's rights activism space, is 80% of women want 10% of men. This idea of a kind of scarcity that nobody wants. And this goes to the point that you made about Dakota Johnson's wide chasm of choices. Nobody wants the 80k man who kind of gets by and rents an apartment. And no, no, no, you have to be this Superman who can provide and perhaps let you not work. All of a sudden, these ideas of the love match of 2 equals even the 2 income household. Nobody in a 90s rom com is like, therefore leaving their job because they got married. That's not the. At least the ethos. We're together. I'm the publisher, I'm a journalist. We do this together, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And now we both look at each other's work over our shoulder and be like, oh, good job at work, honey. All of a sudden there's this idea that, like, the love match is not only a haven from the outside world, but it seems that, like, patriarchal heterosexuality is as it is in our culture, reasserting itself.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah. This actually makes me feel very hopeful because about the rom com, because it does mean that the rom com has a kind of like a political radicalness to it simply by positing, you know, in that intermediate space that I keep being drawn to, that's between the fairy tale and the utter Hobbesian, you know, life is nasty, brutal and shortishness of it all. Between the looks maxing and the, you know. Oh, I just, you, you know, you took off your glasses and a beautiful flower was beneath the ogress.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yes.

[Nomi Fry]

Like, you know that, that in the space of reality where love and attraction and soul spark happen for all different kinds of reason that are both material and totally non material. That like that's the place to explore that. That's interesting. And I do think you're seeing two heterosexual women trying to make a case against that culture that you're talking about, Vincent. That kind of like, you know, the manosphere culture of where everything is about a number and there is this idea that everyone's in competition with one another and yeah. That it's just about resource hoarding. But we're all trying to figure out what we want from other people. And that is kind of what the rom com is about. So it's rich ground.

[Alexandra Schwartz]

Yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

Come back to it, filmmakers.

[David Remnick]

I'm David Remnick. Thanks for joining us this week. See you next time.

[Megan Stalter]

NYC now delivers the most up to date local news from WNYC and Gothamist every morning, midday and evening with three updates a day. Listeners get breaking news, top headlines and in depth coverage from across New York City by sponsoring programming like NYC Now. You'll reach our community of dedicated listeners with premium messaging in an uncluttered audio experience. Visit sponsorship wnyc.org to get in touch and find out more.