Material girl
A tale of two on-screen Proenza Schouler moments on Materialists and Succession (and what they reveal about power and taste)
If you’re new here: Spilled Milk is a newsletter that covers fashion and culture topics I haven’t had the chance to explore in-depth for the publications I write for. It’s also a space for unapproved pitches to find a second life. Past topics have included the 2008 coffee table book Influence by the Olsen twins, defending The Real Housewives of New York, and fantasizing about ultherapy in the metro. If you missed my letter on what it means when your style mirrors that of your friend group, read it here.
In this letter, we explore distinct Proenza Schouler moments on screen—specifically, the icy blue dress worn by Dakota Johnson’s character in Materialists and the wardrobe of Naomi Pierce, played by Annabelle Dexter-Jones, in Succession—examining the difference in how these looks were styled and what they reveal about themes like power, class, and taste. One is impressive, the other (and I’m sure you can guess which), not so much.
First impressions
Materialists (2025) ran longer than I wanted it to. I understand that some people enjoyed the film, but I left the cinema quite disappointed (I couldn’t take that damn knee surgery scene seriously, one Letterboxd user wrote as a review, which I then hearted). The beginning of the film was promising, offering sharp observations on modern dating, but soon, its charm fizzled out, leaving us with (mostly) one-dimensional characters in situations where the stakes simply didn’t seem that high. There was a lack of nuance: the main theme of the film—choosing between someone with financial stability vs. someone you love, who doesn’t necessarily tick all the correct boxes—were too obvious, repeated as if the audience didn’t get it the first time Dakota Johnson’s character Lucy, a matchmaker, declared that dating was like math. Some of the dialogue was hard to swallow too, as if two robots were in conversation. Shall we see each other more seriously?—who speaks like this? Additionally, the music was a bit distracting, making serious scenes more comical than the director probably intended.
Celine Song is incredibly talented, but somewhere along the making of this film, things got lost. I’m happy to discuss with anyone who thinks otherwise. Where you are in life also contributes to how you view a film—one of the two friends I saw it with shared the same sentiments as I did (“The dialogue was very distracting“), while the other enjoyed it (“I am in the same situation as Lucy!“).
The dress and its mixed signals
In one scene, Lucy attends a wedding of two people she had successfully matched. It is an important scene as we’re introduced to her two love interests: Harry, a wealthy finance bro played by Pedro Pascal, and her old love John, played by Chris Evans. She wears a flattering blue strapless dress by Proenza Schouler, which, if I were to guess, was chosen because 1) it is meant to depict her cold, icy exterior, adjectives which she uses to describe herself later in the film, and 2) it simply looks flattering on the actress. Clearly they wanted it to be a ‘moment’—their promotional campaign includes the actress in this exact look and the Materialists title on the film poster in a shade that mirrors the dress. She is dressed fairly nice throughout the film but to me, it is just that: nice, one-dimensional. Now, if you want a dress in a film that will take your breath away, search Keira Knightley’s emerald green dress in Atonement. I just learned that it has its own Wikipedia page.
Thinking about the styling in this scene once again, perhaps the film’s costume designer Katina Danabassis was actually working on a different level, styling Lucy the way she did because she is, essentially, a basic character. Come to think of it, there is a lot of talk about class and taste in Materialists. The character is a matchmaker making 80k a year, she admits she wants to “date up.“ Taking this into consideration, her aspiration, her desire for access suddenly makes her wardrobe all the more interesting. The bright blue Proenza Schouler dress she wears is striking, not only for its color and fit, but for what it signals: she’s trying to belong somewhere shinier. Whether this was intentional or not, looking at it this way gives the scene a deeper meaning.
…Okay, after doing a little digging and landing on this article on Elle, this is what the costume designer says: “On the rack, that dress looks like nothing, but Dakota gravitated toward it, put it on, and it just worked. I also really liked the city vibe to it; I liked that it wasn’t super romantic. I liked that it was communicating business without being too sexy, and the back is so beautiful.” As usual, I am reading too much into things!
On-screen Proenza moments that I prefer
The dress in Materialists brought to mind the way Naomi Pierce, played by New York City royalty Annabelle Dexter-Jones, repeatedly wore Proenza Schouler in Succession—a stark difference! The show’s costume designer Michelle Matland describes her character as the type of person “who can put a boa over a bikini, walk into a party, and all of a sudden it’s the Met Gala.”
Her wardrobe effortlessly reflects this attitude; she cares about fashion but she is at ease, wearing her clothes like a second skin. We see this in various scenes where she’s speaking at a tense family meeting or comforting poor Kendall Roy at his infamous birthday party, where he cannot keep it together but she certainly can. We all want to be Naomi. Naomi is an insider, Lucy of Materialists is not.
In this Vanity Fair piece, Dexter-Jones, who helped shape the look of the character, shared that Naomi’s style is elegant without preciousness: “She’s the rebellious one in her family. She’s the black sheep. [Her look] has an Upper East Side feel to it, but she likes to fuck it up.” For contrast, Nan Pierce, her mother in the series, dresses in “headbands, silk neck scarves, and crisp white shirts.“ I think it helps that the actress who plays Naomi is a New York insider in her own right, coming from a family of downtown socialites and creatives: her mother is jewelry designer Ann Dexter-Jones, and her half-siblings include Mark and Samantha Ronson.
On “bad art“ and practicing being stupid and dumb
I’m writing this as I finish the last chapter of Art Monsters by Lauren Elkin. Towards the end of the book, she explores Eva Hesse’s art, and how, during a period of creative block, her good friend, fellow artist Sol LeWitt gave her advice about letting go of perfectionism and self-consciousness: “You must practice being stupid, dumb, unthinking, empty. Then you will be able to DO.“ Here is the full part in the book:
To go back to Materialists, I’m not saying that Celine Song and her second film are “stupid, dumb, unthinking, empty.“ I didn’t enjoy it, but it doesn’t mean I’ll label her as a bad filmmaker. She clearly puts a lot into her work, as you can see here in her A24 Podcast conversation with Sofia Coppola. We can also look at the fashion industry, which just experienced what journalist Lauren Sherman calls designer musical chairs. We’re often quick to judge a designer based on their first show for these major fashion houses, when we should give a designer time to evolve. The same applies to filmmakers. At the end of the day, even if I wasn’t a fan of the film, my friends and I got a discussion out of it, which is better than nothing.
xx