Chris Evans’ character reduced to plot device in Materialists is drawing public attention as viewers and critics express disappointment over the film’s handling of poverty as a theme. The controversy centers around how, despite a strong cast and the directorial reputation of Celine Song, the portrayal of financial hardship lacks the nuanced exploration many expected.
Discontent Grows Over John’s Depiction and Film’s Missed Opportunity
Materialists, under the direction of Celine Song and featuring performances from Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal, and Chris Evans, has ignited strong responses for its treatment of Evans’ character, John. Viewers anticipated a film that would delve into societal divisions of wealth and class, as well as the emotional repercussions of economic struggle. Instead, the movie presents John—a working-class man struggling financially and reeling from the loss of his relationship with Lucy, played by Dakota Johnson—as a surface-level figure rather than a fully realized individual.
Online reactions emphasize that John is depicted as a narrative counterbalance to affluent characters, primarily existing as a plot tool to highlight Lucy’s internal dilemmas and choices within a materialistic environment. Critics argue that the film misses its chance to deeply examine the psychological and emotional realities of poverty in an increasingly material-driven world, especially with someone of Chris Evans’ ability delivering the role. The resulting outcry on forums like Reddit reflects a collective disappointment in the narrow focus and lack of complexity in John’s portrayal.
Expectations were especially high since Celine Song’s prior film, Past Lives, gained acclaim for its emotional storytelling. This made the absence of substance in Materialists all the more apparent, with critics noting that poverty is shown as merely a social backdrop rather than a driving force shaping character or narrative.
Poverty Framed as Aesthetic Over Substance
A major point in the criticism is how the film treats poverty as an aesthetic choice rather than a lived reality, failing to demonstrate the social and emotional impact on John’s life. Instead of exploring his aspirations, fears, or past hardships, the story glosses over the opportunities to add depth to the working-class character. Audiences and critics alike note that John’s economic challenges are framed as markers of simplicity or humility, leaving the broader human experience of poverty virtually untouched.
Despite its progressive ambitions and visually appealing storytelling, Materialists is faulted for prioritizing style over an honest look at the complexities of class struggle, economic mobility, and the emotional burden faced by those in similar circumstances to John. The film’s unwillingness to meaningfully address these topics leaves its central character underdeveloped, failing to show the exhaustion or psychological impact that financial hardship often creates.
Celine Song’s choice to focus on surface-level contrasts rather than exploring the internal landscape of her working-class protagonist draws sharp contrast to her previous storytelling approach, deepening the sense of disappointment among her admirers. While John technically occupies “space and time” in the film, he lacks a visible internal journey, with his financial reality failing to influence the plot beyond its effect on Lucy’s arc.
Backlash Reflects Broader Concerns About Onscreen Representation
The negative reception of John’s character in Materialists signals a larger frustration with the depiction of poverty in cinema. For a film set against the backdrop of excess, critics say it wastes an opportunity to create a meaningful portrait of class hardship and perseverance. Many believe that stories featuring wealthy and working-class dynamics should dedicate space to authentic, layered exploration rather than rely on visual motifs or convenient plot devices.
Materialists ultimately falls short not only for reducing Chris Evans’ John to a minor narrative element, but for reflecting a broader cinematic tendency to treat real human struggles as aesthetic choices. The resulting backlash extends beyond this individual film, highlighting a growing expectation that today’s movies pursue genuine, complex representations of reality, especially when dealing with issues of financial and social inequality.
Currently showing in theaters across the USA, Materialists continues to fuel discussions about the responsibility of filmmakers to portray working-class lives with the depth and authenticity audiences and critics expect. The evolving conversation raises crucial questions about class, empathy, and the future direction of onscreen storytelling.
