Song, Johnson, and Evans on set. The director says meeting Evans in person was “inspiring.”
A24
Once you’ve entered the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it’s pretty tough to dip back out into the world of a struggling actor. But that’s exactly what Chris Evans is doing in Materialists. The new romantic dramedy from writer-director Celine Song — the follow-up to her soulful 2023 debut Past Lives, which earned Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay — sees Evans trade his Captain America spandex for a cater waiter’s apron as John, a broke theater actor working odd jobs to pay the bills. The film sets up a love triangle between John, his high-end matchmaker ex Lucy, played by Dakota Johnson, and Harry, a charming, wealthy suitor played by Pedro Pascal.
“John is amalgamation of an entire lifestyle of theater artists in New York City,” Song told Rolling Stone on a recent video call from New York City. “He’s somebody who was born poor and grew up poor and has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it in a way that’s really beautiful, and I find that to be quite moving.”
So how did she land on a literal American hero as her romantic underdog?
“There is a merchandise of Chris that people who do not know him maybe see first and foremost, because that’s the easiest way to understand an actor, as an object,” Song says. “But then when I actually met Chris the person, he was so inspiring as John, because there’s a part of Chris that’s John and has been John forever. Chris for a while was an up and comer, and he also understands that.” She adds with a laugh, “He’s had roommates.”
Evans welcomed the change of pace the role offered. “It’s certainly nice to play someone who has challenges and struggles that I can relate to, just very human, pedestrian hurdles, as opposed to life-ending consequences,” Evans says of playing a guy without superpowers. “His posture, physicality, clothing, the tangible things that you can live in to bring a character to life — it’s nice that it was flannels and sweatpants as opposed to a shield.”
Rolling Stone spoke with Evans about Materialists, his own experience with moviemaking behind the camera, and modern romance.
What drew you to Materialists?
What Celine does so well is take what seems at times like simple dialogue and make the scene, from a directorial standpoint, incredibly special. She has a way of making it feel the way these things actually feel when they’re happening to you.
Sometimes very simple things can happen in life that feel so profound, and when you try to tell a friend about it, it’s never the same. And that’s about the restraint that she shows as a director. The restraint she shows as a writer. The silence and the pacing have just as much impact as the words themselves.
When you read the screenplay did you immediately feel connected to John?
I assumed that I would be cast as Harry when I first met with [Celine]. She said, “Which role do you like?” And I said, “Well, I like John, but I guess I’d be OK if you want to cast me as Harry.” Both roles were wonderful, but I was a little more drawn to John. Luckily she felt the same.
What did you like about him?
There was more vulnerability, there was more pain. John is a guy who isn’t where he wants to be in life. And I think it’s easy to project an attitude of not caring, because if you care, then you’ll have to try. And if you try, you might fail. John is this living embodiment of, “I’ll push you away before you can push me away.” But he also can’t help his heart. He loves Lucy. And to admit that to Lucy, to admit that to himself, requires risk. And that’s where his growth unfolds.
Did playing John remind you about your early days in acting, considering he’s still trying to break in?
I absolutely can relate to that aspect of John. The drive, the doubt, the shitty roommates, these are all things that I absolutely identify with. I myself am a little bit more of an open book. I’m too sensitive, you know. I’m a delicate guy. And as a result, I probably overshare as a coping mechanism, where I think John is a little bit more of a closed book.
If you were 37, living with an inconsiderate roommate, and working random gigs to get by, would you still be trying to pursue acting?
I don’t know how I would handle it if I were in my late thirties still trying. But I certainly know it would make me punchy. It would make me feel defensive and a little ossified and not wanting to feel inadequate because of the fact that I haven’t reached my dreams. You feel inadequate enough to yourself, and to have a romantic partner also tell you the ways you’re inadequate, it’s just too much.
Talk to me a little bit about shooting the barn scene near the end of the film, where John and Lucy have a painful but necessary heart-to-heart. John says some rather swoon-worthy but also sorrowful lines.
One of the things that I love about Celine is that she shoots on 35[mm film]. Past Lives was absolutely gorgeous. And when you show up that night and see those string lights, you know you’re going to be in a frame of film that’s going be beautiful. You feel that it’s special.The scene itself is this very vulnerable, very honest declaration of his love and knowing that he doesn’t have what she wants, but also stating what he’s desperate for. It’s just very raw, and so it’s very painful. But as an actor, when you try to call from your own personal experiences, there’s plenty of things in life that I could call to, to feel that level of vulnerability, feeling just totally exposed and honest with your heart in your hand — and it usually leads to tears [laughs].
The fact that it was shot on 35mm also raises the stakes in terms of how many takes you can do.
Absolutely! That’s part of the romance of making movies. I like the fact that there is a finite amount of film. I like watching mags of film being switched out of the camera. I like checking the gate. I like all that stuff. I like things dipping in and out of soft focus and not being able to fix it in post. That’s the art of it.
What distinguishes Materialists from other romantic films? Celine Song’s writing seems to tap into a different perspective on love, one could say more grounded.
Most rom-coms have this very idealized version of love, which is fun. It’s great for escapism, but it doesn’t always reflect real life. And this movie has a much more realistic, grounded, slightly less naive interpretation of what love is as something that’s far more relatable to the modern viewer. The landscape of love today is really tough. A lot of the social norms that used to keep marriages together have been deconstructed. Now it’s predicated purely on compatibility, and that can very easily devolve into an algorithm as opposed to matters of the heart.
Lucy says early on that love is easy, but dating is difficult. That seems to synthesize the film’s theme.
Couldn’t have said it better. Love is your heart. It’s clear. It’s binary. Dating is when the math comes in, dating is when it becomes a calculation. Dating is your mind, dating is pragmatism, and trying to reconcile the needs of your mind and the wants of your heart is messy.
Later this summer you also star in the Ethan Coen thriller Honey Don’t! Is this a shift in gears in your career?
I hope so. It’s just working with good filmmakers. As long as I’ve been doing this, it always comes back to the filmmaker. There are always a hundred reasons to do a movie. Sometimes it’s great a role. Sometimes it’s a really funny script or an amazing director, a great producer. But sometimes you try to squint to make a movie make sense and check enough boxes to make sense. The only box that matters is the filmmaker. It really comes down to the director, and that’s really all I’m pursuing these days. And if I like their work, then I’m in.
You directed your own romantic dramedy, Before We Go, a decade ago. Is this a genre you particularly enjoy, or were there other reasons to tackle it in your first feature as a director?
At that time, I wanted to direct, but I also was thinking from a very pragmatic perspective: I needed to learn. I had never been to film school. I was veering into a lane that I had no experience in. So I just felt like I owed the title of director a little more respect than to jump in and try and do something that I knew I might not be able to handle. The piece itself is a very contained script: two people, New York City, all-night shoots, felt very manageable to me. I did love the topic, but there was a more pragmatic motivation behind it as well.
Is directing something you want to try again?
It really is, but the tricky thing is I have about a hundred other things that I’m also interested in. I’m slightly fickle. Some days I’ll wake up and I want to direct, but then some days I wake up and I want to go learn carpentry. [Laughs.] Honestly, it’s about the movies I see. When I see an incredible movie that really inspires me, it completely pulls my focus back. But if I step away from actually going to see films, my interests drift.
It would be interesting to see what you would do behind the camera now, 10 years after that first attempt and after the experience of working with directors like Celine.
I would do it very differently. Oh, my gosh. When you look back, you just realize how much of the movie was done in a defensive posture. You have a movie you see in your head, but you almost don’t have the courage or poetry of language or just knowledge of the medium to convey what you want it to be. You end up sometimes out of just simple fear, intimidation, letting things settle to a familiar, recognizable place.
I probably would take a lot more risk or be a lot more confident in what I wanted to see happen. But part of the reason that diving back in is so intimidating is because you know that it would have to be that the second time. You can’t do the same thing if you’re going to do it again. It’s such a demanding thing. You give so much of your life: the prep, the filming, the post. To do it again but not do it properly would be a disservice to myself, my time. And that’s a little intimidating.
What would you say is the defining quality of Celine Song as a filmmaker or what you found most memorable about your work with her in creating John?
Conviction. She knows exactly what she wants. I’ve worked with a lot of directors that have an idea, and they’re very passionate, but they’re more than happy to collaborate, massage, meet in the middle, find, make it this kind of, “Well, you bring this, and I’ll bring this.” And not to say that Celine is not a collaborator, but she’s also very confident in her reasons. There’s not a word that she writes that’s filler; everything is on purpose. And it takes a minute to understand that, but once you find that trust, that confidence, and you start to say, “OK, I’m going to let go a little bit and let you take the wheel completely. If you say jump, I’m just going to say how high.” She’s two for two now, in my opinion.
Admin