Interview: Celine Song on Creating a Victorian Romance in 2025 and Knowing Dakota Johnson was Her Working Girl in ‘Materialists’
In Mike Nichols’ sharp romantic comedy Working Girl, Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith) is the perfect blend of aspirational and relatable, a New York woman. When she swaps her sneakers for heels at the office, seduces Jack Trainer (an unbelievably hot Harrison Ford), and comes up with an idea that was entirely off the radar of her superiors, it’s impossible not to root for her. In my review of Celine Song’s refreshing romantic dramedy and surprise hit of the summer, Materialists, I noted that I thought of Working Girl throughout, especially in its blend of fantasy and realism, and how money and performance around romantic interests can intersect. There is, of course, an even stronger parallel, though, as Griffith passes the New York City heroine torch to her daughter, Dakota Johnson.
For writer-director Song, Johnson represents the ultimate, 21st-century New York City working girl, which is why she was the perfect fit for the film’s protagonist, Lucy. In Materialists, Lucy works as a matchmaker at a boutique firm where she hosts meetings with wealthy clients who are all seeking the perfect partner. To her clients, Lucy is a dating soothsayer, but to her coworkers, she’s the “eternal bachelorette,” someone who can find love for others, but who may have closed that door for herself. That all changes, though, when Lucy’s past and future collide at her client Charlotte’s wedding. At the singles table, Lucy meets the dashing and very rich Harry (Pedro Pascal), who seems to be comically perfect, a “unicorn” in the world of matchmaking. Soon, though, Lucy is surprised when one of the cater waiters at the party turns out to be her ex-boyfriend, John (Chris Evans). As the two reconnect, Song makes it clear that money was the reason for their fallout, presenting quite the conundrum for Lucy, a woman who frequently grapples with the clash between love and materialism.
Materialists is Song’s second feature film, and she again finds herself imbuing the script with facets of her own experience, enhancing the honesty of the story. In her Oscar-nominated and much-celebrated first feature, Past Lives, Song referenced her own experience as a woman who migrated from Seoul to Toronto to New York City, finding herself seated at the bar between a man from her past and a man from her future. She realized that she was suddenly their interpreter, as her childhood sweetheart spoke Korean and her American husband spoke English. These delicate details surrounding words and language are what made Past Lives connect with viewers, and in Materialists, Song uses a similar framework (the love triangle), but sharpens the dialogue to create another honest look at the complications of love. When Song was working as a playwright in New York, she found a side gig as a matchmaker, learning quickly just how open and honest people were willing to be with her about their needs and desires in a potential partner. That experience, combined with her interest in digging into how the search for love has evolved, forms the core of Materialists, a film that further establishes Song’s unique cinematic identity.
Just as I felt when I was sitting in the theater watching Materialists, speaking with Song was like having a conversation with someone who just naturally understood what it’s like to be a working girl in New York. Throughout the interview, we discussed the decisions she made in Materialists, why Victorian novels and stories about willful heroines inspire us, and how impractical but wonderful it is to live in New York City.
Sophia Ciminello: Hi, Celine! I was just thinking about how the last time we spoke, we were in the lobby at Alice Tully Hall, gushing about Dakota Johnson and her style.
Celine Song: Oh my God, we were doing that! Yeah, I think my favorite thing is that it’s so specifically coming from her own authorship of herself and who she is too. So it’s such an amazing thing to get to play with, to sort of see somebody who is so in charge and in control in so many ways. And to get to see her be so vulnerable in my movie. I love working in that way, you know?
SC: Of course. And one of my favorite things about Materialists is that there’s such a delicate balance to her character in particular. Lucy is just so many things at once. She’s cynical, but you also believe that her clients would trust her and want to open up to her. How did you know that Dakota was your Lucy?
CS: Well, I usually write without thinking about a specific actor. I’ve always done it that way. So, I think that I wrote the character of Lucy, and then I went on a search, kind of like a matchmaker, in search of the perfect match for the character Lucy, or someone who’s a soulmate of Lucy. And I remember sitting down with Dakota for lunch, and it was supposed to be a general meeting where I was just kind of meeting her to see. And then I remember, before I got up from that lunch, we were done. I texted my producers in my studio and said, “I think I found our Lucy.” Because it was just so clear, when I met Dakota, that she was Lucy. And I think it’s the thing that you’re talking about. It’s the amazing, very like, cool and very guarded shell that if you actually put a little pressure on it, it will just completely crack. And then inside, you realize there’s so much warmth and sensitivity and, just like a really beautiful listener in there. I don’t know, there’s something about it where you’re like, yeah, I feel like I would be able to tell her anything and ask her to matchmake me. But also know that there is something that is like, so warm and gooey and extremely vulnerable inside. I think it’s that duality, which is something that’s so relatable for most of us who are working women, because I feel like so often that we, and also just working people in general, see that in a professional realm, there is a way that we have to put on a very cool veneer.
SC: Oh, all the time. You feel like you have to perform in that way sometimes.
CS: Yes, right, and you have to draw lines and be very good at understanding boundaries. And there’s a bit of that hard shell that we have to form just so that we can survive and be professional. And then of course, there are ways that we’re extremely broken inside; the ways in which we don’t like ourselves. And there are ways in which we’re just extremely vulnerable. I think there’s something about Dakota as this character that felt so relatable to any working girl and any working person.
SC: Absolutely. I also read in an interview that you love Phantom Thread, and I have to tell you that I thought a lot about that film when I watched Lucy in this…
CS: Ahh, yeah?
SC: Especially in how these characters interact with the idea of marriage or dancing around that type of commitment.
CS: Yeah, and both are about women going after what they want, right? I really think that their souls have a similar shape (Lucy and Alma) because both of these characters have that…you know, I think every time we describe Lucy, we use that word ambitious. We’re like, yeah, that’s a woman who wants something. I think that’s something in general from Phantom Thread, Ibsen plays, Shakespeare plays, it’s always been a really powerful and feared thing. So, I think it’s interesting how Lucy can be seen as somebody who is a very powerful authority figure as a woman. In a way, of course, it’s just because she has a will. She has the ability to achieve her will and everybody’s so terrified. Everybody thinks, “Oh my God, a woman who has a will and a power and an ability to achieve that will, and that’s so terrifying.” The two of them definitely belong to the same coven. They’re in the same party (laughs).
SC: (Laughs) Oh, I love that. You also start the movie in a really unexpected way, where we have this very quiet, ancient romance before we hear the sounds of modern-day New York. How did you decide to begin the story this way?
CS: Yeah, it was one of the first things that I wrote, because I feel like in that scene, there is the story of the whole movie in it. It’s that scene, and then of course, the final scene at the marriage bureau in New York City. The thing about it is that there are material records from ancient times of different tools that passed from one area to another that were clearly traded for food. But then what we don’t know is how those people felt for each other, right? So, it’s about the ephemeral. It’s about the thing that does not have a record that exists, which is the feeling between two people about each other, that is not in history at all. All we know is that these tools move from here to here. We don’t know that they were in love, right?
SC: Right. That’s always the part that’s left out.
CS: Right, and this is so connected to the marriage bureau. You know, what’s amazing about marriage is that every historian will tell you that the marriage record is one of the most powerful historical records. It’s one of the most accurate records ever, because that’s how we know when or where people were born, right? But if you actually look at those names, it just looks like two names next to each other. But we don’t know which one of those was a good marriage, which ones were bad, which were abusive, which started out in love but fell out of love, and which ones started out of necessity and then turned into love. We don’t know their stories at all. All we know is that there are these two names in history. And, of course, not to forget about queer love, which has no record. And because the movie is called Materialists, the way I wanted it to begin and end the film was about the way that there are, of course, material things that are quite real that we’re all contending with, but it doesn’t mean that this thing, this ancient feeling, this love and cure to loneliness is something that just because it doesn’t have a material mark, it doesn’t mean that it’s less real.
SC: That’s such a beautiful explanation for it. The way you brought in the ending makes me think of marriage being this contract, too.
CS: Right, exactly.
SC: And your script reminded me a lot of how, in Victorian novels and romances, marriage was really a financial proposal. What made you want to bring that approach into a modern romance?
CS: I feel like it’s exactly what you’re talking about. To me, it really is like a Victorian romance set in 2025. I think it’s really because we actually haven’t come so far from it. I wish that we would have come a lot further from it. I think in some ways, we have come far from it, thanks to the feminist ancestors who basically made it possible for women to have options for their future and happiness besides marrying a man. You know, that’s what the story of the Victorian romances is. It’s about that one moment in a woman’s life, in that time where she has a choice that she can make and authority over her own destiny. It’s the only time that she can make a choice about her future, right? So, in 2025, we do have a lot of options for what we want our future to look like. That’s not only restricted to marrying a man of means. And I think that’s what’s amazing about Jane Austen, for example. She is so interested in talking really frankly and practically about this dilemma that women are in. How do we actually accept our powerlessness and make a decision that is going to shape our whole future? And her answer is always love. Still, you have to choose love. And I think that to me is the spirit of what I wanted to talk about in Materialists. So, in that way, it’s improved very much. But there’s another way that it’s gotten very difficult. So these conversations about bachelors, how much money they have, used to happen in small communities in these drawing rooms and at garden parties. It used to be something where you could still contend with and speak with other human beings. No matter how much money they make or don’t, you would still be able to look that person in the face. Now, in the modern world, because now, the entire dating and marriage market that you see crushing Jane Austen’s heroes is down here (holds up phone). Right? (Laughs).
SC: (Laughs) Oh, yeah, it’s exhausting. And that’s what really resonated with me in the writing. It’s the gamification of dating and how that encourages materialism too.
CS: And now you’re not just competing with your town. Now, you’re competing with the whole world, right? About your value and how you exist like a stock on the stock market. Where you fit in the dating market is all exposed, and there’s just so much lying, which is understandable. So, I think in that way it’s gotten so much worse because I think this commodification and objectification of human beings. This is in every aspect of our lives, but it’s also seeping into our dating lives, which are meant to be about love. I think that you’re seeing the way that we have completely turned dating and meeting someone and falling in love into something that looks too similar to how we talk about the financial market. And that objectification and commodification of human beings will always end in violence, right? That’s why I wanted to include the story about Sophie and what happens to her. There’s always going to be a dehumanizing aspect. It seems like a funny game. You’re gamifying affection and love and dating and marriage. But then you think, well, at the end of every objectification of a human being, it’s always going to lead to dehumanization.
SC: I was glad that you included that too, because there is what can be that (unfortunately), more realistic, darker side to dating. But you use this in a really gentle way, where it’s ultimately about a connection point between her and Lucy.
CS: Yeah.
SC: And that gamification aspect feels so relevant here in New York.
CS: Oh, it does, right?
SC: I think we feel like we have to talk about money in a very particular way, living here. I just watched an interview with NBC News and Zohran Mamdani discussing how single people in the city spend $20,000 more each year to live here than those who live with a partner…
CS: Oh, I’ve heard this!
SC: And that’s become such a discussion point with New Yorkers and dating. How do you see New York City as a character that interacts with these ideas around the intersection of love and materialism?
CS: I’ve heard it too that in New York, dating and moving in together after six months is a pretty normal rhythm, right? That’s because the rent is just too damn high! (Laughs).
SC: (Laughs) With the rent here, six months is plenty of time!
CS: (Laughs) Right. I think that when we’re talking about, like New York City specifically, it’s like, well, it’s kind of hard to sort of coast here because this is such a cutthroat place to live when it comes to survival, just bare minimum survival. So I think that’s part of the reason why it is one of the best cities to depict the pressures of working, right? And then of course, when it comes to dating, because it feels like because there are so many people here, it should make things easier to find the love of your life here. And in a way, maybe it is. But I think what’s also so real about New York City is that it’s somehow at the same time…it is kind of like exactly how you describe Lucy. Just to survive, you have to be such a cynical, practical, at times calculating, and tough, very robust person to just survive day-to-day. But on the other hand, it’s also a city of romance.
SC: Right. It’s that duality we were talking about.
CS: Yeah, because I would say almost all of us are here because we are here to be in the greatest city on earth in some way. And most of us are here because we’re pursuing a dream. because otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense to live here.
SC: I know. Practically, it really doesn’t. What are we doing? (Laughs).
CS: (Laughs) Right, practically the only reason why you’re here is because you want to do something that you can only do in New York. And often it is so much about that, but I also believe it’s a city of dreams. Everybody’s here because they have a dream about a better life, more money, a dream job. Like we’re all here because we’re pursuing something, right? So in that way, you also have to be an endlessly optimistic romantic person. So somehow you have to be so cynical and so dreamy, and dreaming of what the future could be. So, it is that contradiction, I think, that is something that all of us New Yorkers really respond to. It’s something that I think all of us really understand. I hope, by the time this interview comes out, Zohran Mamdani will be our mayor!
SC: Me too! Fingers crossed.
CS: Right! Oh, please, I want it so bad, but I think to me, you know, I have such a deep affection for New Yorkers because I know that they’re like me. We’re here because we’re living in a totally not practical way, right? Against all odds, i.e. rent, right? We’re still here because we dream about something, we want something, so I think that’s what’s amazing about Dakota as Lucy. It’s because of this contradiction we’re talking about. The passion and the way that she is protecting herself, right? Those things are actually what New York is.
SC: That’s exactly why we live here. Celine, thank you so much again, and congratulations on the movie!
CS: Thank you, Sophia. See you again!
Materialists is now streaming on HBO Max.
- National Society of Film Critics (NSFC) Winners: ‘One Battle After Another’ Dominates with Four Wins - January 3, 2026
- Interview: Gwyneth Paltrow on “Boys and Their Toys,” goop, and Returning to the Silver Screen for ‘Marty Supreme’ - December 24, 2025
- Interview: Production Designer Jack Fisk on Recreating 1950s New York and Building a Ping Pong Playground in ‘Marty Supreme’ - December 23, 2025
DiscussingFilm’s Global Film Critics Awards Nominations: ‘Sinners’ Leads with 20 
Pittsburgh Film Critics Association (PFCC) Winners: 9 Wins for ‘Sinners’ 
Critics Association of Central Florida (CACF) Awards: ‘Sinners’ Wins 7 
Director Watch Podcast Ep. 134 – ‘Dick Tracy’ (Warren Beatty, 1990)