Is Dakota Johnson Good At Acting?
Let's finally answer this.
Materialists came out a week ago, and in that time, no one has had a single take on the Dakota Johnson-led rom-com. You may find this hard to believe, but not one person has tweeted or commented on whether the movie works, is a trainwreck or matches the phenomenon that was Celine Song’s previous film, Past Lives. I’m honored to be the first person in recorded history to posit an opinion. Unfortunately, Materialists is a no from me, dawg.
From the on-the-nose dialogue to the generic plot developments, I found myself wishing for a better movie, especially from this writer and cast. Frankly, I was a bit annoyed with some of the film’s ridiculous decisions, especially an assault subplot that felt heavy-handed at best. There’s a lot to say about the movie, and yet, I want to focus on the ostensible lead, Dakota Johnson.
The 35-year-old daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson is on a press tour for the ages, constantly delivering with her trademark deadpan humor and ability to just say whatever she’s thinking, no matter where she is. And still, I don’t think she works at all in Materialists.
She’s in over her head, especially with these wordy, emotional monologues, and every scene centered on her is unfortunately wooden and apathetic.
This question comes up time and time again, especially after her bizarre performance in the Madame Web fiasco1, but seemingly every time there’s a new Johnson role, we have to argue over whether or not she can act.
To put it simply, the answer is yes. With a ton of reservations.
Unlike other actors and actresses in her age range, Dakota Johnson is wholly dependent on the material given to her. She doesn’t have the most range, but instead can do one or two things really well. Notably, the pouty, put-upon millennial existential angst. It’s when she starts to demand the frame instead of letting the camera come to her that things get dicey.
DJ2 is at her best in Luca Guadagnino’s A Bigger Splash and Suspiria, Bad Times at the El Royale and The Lost Daughter. Although the lead of Suspiria and a key component of the other three, she’s part of a full acting troupe that allows her to do what she does best, instead of pushing too hard. Plus, all of these roles take advantage of her notoriously inscrutable delivery and understated sense of humor.
Materialists, among many other flaws, is demanding she be a personable, overly-expressive matchmaker, and let’s be honest, this is a role for a younger Rachel McAdams, brimming with a romantic heartbeat. Dakota Johnson is too odd to be holding the center of a generic-ish romantic dramedy.
Kristen Stewart may be the most recent (and best) comp to Dakota Johnson, a similarly impassive actress, who had an early book-series adaptation take over her life3. Both were immediately panned for their respective middling material and found life in various independent, more artistic projects from interesting directors.
In the last few years, Stewart has figured things out jumping between foreign thrillers, prestige-y pictures and fucked-up genre exercises. There’s Love Lies Bleeding, Crimes of the Future, Spencer and Happiest Season, four movies that couldn’t be more different.
Since she was criticized for the Twilight movies, especially the latter half of them, Stewart has become one of the more compelling actresses we have, taking on challenging roles and trying new things even when they don’t work out.
I can’t blame anyone involved for jumping at the chance to star in the second movie from the writer and director of Past Lives, but this one just didn’t work. It happens.
To answer the question above, Dakota Johnson is good at acting. Even if Materialists does everything in its power to try to prove the opposite.
To be fair, I don’t blame her. I blame everyone who’s ever existed.
if I can call her that
Fifty Shades & Twilight
she is not, next question
She is awful in "Royale", it's as if she is on too many benzos or something.