SPOILER ALERT: This story incorporates plot details from Season 4, Part 2 of “Emily in Paris.”
Goodbye, Emily in Paris. Good morning, Emily in…Rome?
Fans of the frothy comedy “Emily in Paris” may have been shocked by the Season 4, Part 2 finale, which dropped on Netflix this week. In the season finale, Emily (Lily Collins) is assigned by her boss Sylvie Grateau (Philippine LeRoy-Beaulieu) to start a new office in Rome, where an exciting new client –– not to mention an exciting new man, Marcello Muratori (Eugenio Franceschini) –– is eagerly awaiting her arrival.
On the one hand, it’s a step up for Emily: She’s being promoted to run her own very personal workplace in one of the most romantic cities on the planet. On the other, she’s abandoning her associates, her major love interest Gabriel (Lucas Bravo) and, in a sense, her viewers. By deploying this plot twist, “Emily in Paris” is signaling that the present, in a fifth season (which seems like a done deal), would change gears, at least briefly. Which is to say that creator and showrunner Darren Star has posed an existential question amid the polka-dot frills, ache au chocolat and commonplace silliness: What is “Emily in Paris” if not Emily in Paris?
Two passionate fans –– deputy film editor Pat Saperstein and social media editor Rachel Website Positioning –– sat down to discuss the show’s latest developments, that surprise ending, and whether the series, contrary to popular perception, is actually any good.
Haute couture
Rachel’s website positioning: Let’s talk about those costumes. Personally, I despise Emily’s clothes (I think I’m being speculated for that?). However, I also think the way her style has evolved throughout the collection is fascinating, as it reflects the tonal shift of the present. After I finished Season 4, I went back and watched part of Season 1 again and was struck by how much more down-to-earth she seemed.
Pat Saperstein: It’s fascinating to remember that in the early episodes of Star’s “Intercourse and the Metropolis,” the celebrities lived in a grittier, more down-to-earth New York setting. Here, there are simply SO many outfits in each episode. I despise most of them, too, but there are always some stunning ones. By the end of this season, I thought some of their outfits were verging on the matronly—all inappropriate for someone their age, but generally covetable nonetheless. But if people start wearing newsboy caps because of Emily, I’ll never forgive the costume designers.
Also, can I just say that the Jean Patou jacket with purple leather belt was to die for? I’m also not crazy about the cobalt blue Barbara Bui pantsuit she wore in Giverny.
Rachel: That jacket was eye-catching, and I appreciated the fluffy multicolored coat she wore when she visited Camille’s house over Christmas. As for her outfit when she was visiting Italy –– I thought they did a great job of dressing her as she is, essentially, which is a white American millennial girl from a major metropolitan area. There was definitely some form of Taylor Swift-meets-Madewell ethos governing the choice to put her in a blue and white polka dot ruffled top.
The comparison to “Intercourse and the Metropolis” and its evolution as a present is sensible; I was also fascinated by the original “Gossip Woman.” The longer these shows go on, the more they start to feel like they’re becoming parodies of themselves. In Season 1, Emily was wearing multicolored berets with plaid shirts and sharing moments with Gabriel (for example, that kiss in the club when she was taking care of that pop star) that felt palpable with sexual pressure and chemistry. By Season 4, she’s wearing big striped outfits that look like spirals used for hypnosis; breaking up with Gabriel because he won’t take her to a ski slope; and moving to Italy because the man is hot, why not.
The evolution of Gabriel and Emily’s relationship
Pat: Did Gabriel initially change his hair this season? He used to be cuter. Anyway, this on-again, off-again, off-again, and possibly on-again relationship has been maddening for 4 seasons now. However, I have to commend Gabriel for his heartfelt and blunt speech where he told Emily that she was basically looking like an idiot. Very dangerously, his complete refusal to learn even the most basic French left her susceptible to being tricked by Sylvie’s secret evil stepdaughter, who mistranslated his speech to say, “I don’t want to see you anymore.” Face it, as long as we have Emily, we’ll be stuck with this virtually sexless and eternally unsatisfying romance. No friend zone for you, Emily and Gabriel!
Rachel: His hair is longer –– I had the same question. Is he cultivating a more rugged look? And while Emily has apparently taken years of French lessons, it’s wonderful that she hasn’t been able to speak a full sentence until this season. Better late than never, I guess?
Emily and Marcello
Pat: I like the concept of her home’s quiet, luxurious cashmere company (is it based on Loro Piana?), which does business lunches at a large table in the middle of a villa. Why not? However, Marcello is no Gabriel, and I really feel like Emily is more excited about the prospect of fantastic gelato than the potential of molto Marcello. Do you want him?
Rachel: He’s annoying because he’s a little too nice. A handsome, handsome heir apparent to a luxurious cashmere model who simply wants to reside in a small town in Italy and pay attention to his family? He needs to be a little more evil.
Emily attacks Rome
Rachel: Do you think she’s actually going to move to Rome? I don’t think she’s going to move to Rome. If—when!—the show gets renewed for Season 5, they’re going to spend a few episodes there. Gabriel is going to come back and confess his love for Emily, she’s going to reject him, after that there’s going to be some revelation that she has in some dialogue with Marcello that brings her to her senses. Then she goes again.
Pat: I feel like you’re right, since Gabriel clearly isn’t going anywhere. How many times does Instagram allow you to change your agreement? However, it can be a bit peace to hand over that sweet apartment in Rome and go back to competing for attic space with Mindy.
Is “Emily in Paris” really good?
Rachel: We talked a little earlier about whether the gift is “good” or not, and what “good” means. What do you think?
Pat: It may not be great, but it’s not trying to be “Succession.” It’s not so easy to make a show that’s so straightforward and looks so good doing it. While costume designer Marilyn Fitoussi certainly needs to be named as the show’s chief artistic force, the writing is kind of clever and the visuals are top-notch. Sure, the double and triple entendres are as sticky as triple-cream brie. But the dialogue, while constantly absurd, crackles and sizzles in the best romantic comedy fashion. Ultimately, the show’s genius isn’t just its style, but also the way it pairs an Audrey Hepburn-style American ingénue with French actors in a way that feels contemporary and enjoyable—though admittedly, it’s a light soufflé confection.
Rachel: I agree with you that there is a naturalness to it that I’m sure requires an inordinate amount of work and skill. I don’t know if I would go so far as to call the gift “good,” but perhaps it is “good” for what it is, which is pure leisure?
Pat: I totally agree. See you next time in Rome, Rachel!