Cynicism vs Honesty: the Starving Artist Love Interest
I want to talk about the starving artist love interest.
This isn’t about me. I don’t feel like I’ve ever been truly starving for success. My career has been slow but steady, and it feels abundant. But I have been perceived this way (maybe this is the truth of all character archetypes). I went on one date with a guy who told me that his friends would judge him for going out with me because, in his opinion, dating an artist is something you do in your twenties, not your thirties. Wow.
I want to compare John (Chris Evans) in Materialists to Loretta (Meryl Streep) in Only Murders in the Building. Something about John’s character as a starving artist love interest felt derogatory to me, and Loretta’s felt much more true.
Obviously, both actors in real life are very successful. Meryl Streep is the GOAT, and Chris Evans has a lot more range than most people give him credit for. Both of the characters these actors portray are also actors and pre-success. John is in his late thirties, and Loretta is past 70 (if she is the same age as Meryl Streep), and both of them are struggling to be cast in theatrical productions in contemporary New York.
In Materialists, John went to acting school with his ex/love interest Lucy (protagonist), who has since left acting to become a successful matchmaker. John has persisted with acting while he makes a living as a cater waiter (classic day job), and Lucy says he has “improved” and that he “was always good”. Which, as compliments go, is… lacklustre? The performance we see him in is stilted and only a small step up in seriousness from Joey’s role in FREUD! (Friends, Season 1) which is meant to be comically bad. We, as the audience, are left uncertain about whether or not John is a talented artist. He is committed to his craft, but is that because it’s his vocation? Or because he has no interest in any other career? We don’t get that much time with John since he is one of two love interests in Materialists, and the movie itself is limited to its 2h run time.
In Only Murders in the Building season three opens with a deep dive into new character Loretta’s perpetually hopeful, perpetually disappointing acting career. We don’t see her engaging with a day job during this audition/rejection montage. Then we see her audition for Oliver Putnam (Martin Short), and he asks her, “Where have you been?” with reverent admiration. He sees the talent that we as the audience assume has always been there, but was overshadowed by the intense competitiveness of creative industries in major cities. I'm terms of seriousness, this play within a TV show, “Death Rattle,” is campy and ridiculous to the viewers, but taken very seriously by the characters in the show. It’s an attempted comeback for Oliver, who was successful 25ish years ago as a director (for what he calls off-off-Broadway) but not lately. It’s several steps better than John’s unknown play in Materialists. We get more time with Loretta in this season of ten 40-minute episodes since she is both Oliver’s love interest and one of the murder suspects (who isn’t in this show?). And so we get to see a bit of why she might have struggled as an actor. She is both brilliant and well-studied, but she tends to overthink (which accent, for example) and come across as inconsistent. We, the audience, still perceive her, maybe because she is played by Meryl Streep, as enormously talented and in need of someone to give her a chance.
It’s not a hot take to say that Materialists is more cynical than Only Murders in the Building. The movie is literally built around the cynicism of the main character, Lucy, and its ebb and flow as a result of the plot. I still found it notable that the movie believes a struggling artist is inherently ambiguously talented and questionably driven. As an artist, the thing I know to be true above everything is that countless amazingly talented creatives never achieve success, and it’s rarely because they aren’t good enough. It’s because creative hubs are located in big, expensive cities. It's because people in general are bad at valuing creative labour (after all, it seems fun). It’s because in partnerships where the artistically employed make less money than their spouse (nearly all of them), the burden of childcare often becomes their responsibility. Artists don’t fail at being creative; their circumstances don’t allow them to center creativity under capitalism.
A person can be talented and fail, so why would the creators of Materialists not let John be that, especially because SPOILER, he is the endgame love interest? Given Chris Evans’ talent, John’s meh acting had to have been a deliberate choice, and I think it may come down to nepotism. Without calling out any specific contributors, it seems like the creators of Materialists believe (despite all evidence) that their industry is a true meritocracy. Through this portrayal, they are saying that artists who fail to make a living or an impact do so because they lack talent or drive, and conversely, artists who succeed do so because they are better, the best even. Materialists is trying to be gritty and realistic but comes across as naive, whereas Only Murders in the Building is a comedy that addresses creative vocation with a lot more honesty. Realistic does not equal bleak, and it’s kind of sad how many creative projects seem to think that it does.
Ps. The trailer tagline that made me go see Materialists in its first week was something like “making rom coms fun again”. Which, in my opinion (and this excellent New Yorker review, too), it failed to do. In my hubris, I am endeavouring to make an art series that leaves you feeling hopeful, giddy, and full of longing, just like the end of a classic romantic comedy. Coming May 2026 to a gallery near you (if you live in Edmonton).
