SPOILER ALERT: This story contains plot details for Season 4, Part 2 of “Emily in Paris.”

Goodbye, Emily in Paris. Hello, Emily in… Rome?

Fans of the sappy comedy Emily in Paris may have been shocked by the ending of Season 4, Part 2, which hit Netflix this week. In the season finale, Emily (Lily Collins) is tasked by her boss Sylvie Grateau (Philippine LeRoy-Beaulieu) to open a new office in Rome, where a sexy new client – and, of course, a sexy new man, Marcello Muratori (Eugenio Franceschini) – is eagerly awaiting her arrival.

On one hand, it’s a rise for Emily: She’s getting a promotion and now runs her own office in one of the most romantic cities in the world. On the other, she’s leaving behind her friends, her crush Gabriel (Lucas Bravo), and, to some extent, her viewers. With this twist, “Emily in Paris” suggests that the series would change setting, at least temporarily, in a Season 5 (which already seems to be a done deal). That means that amid the polka-dot ruffles, pain au chocolat, and general nonsense, creator and showrunner Darren Star has asked an existential question: What is “Emily in Paris” if not Emily in Paris?

Two passionate fans – assistant film editor Pat Saperstein and social media editor Rachel Seo – sat down to discuss the show’s latest developments, its shocking ending, and whether, contrary to popular belief, the series is actually good.

The Couture

Rachel Seo: Let’s talk about the costumes. I personally hate Emily’s clothes (I guess I’m supposed to?), but I also think the way her style has evolved over the course of the series is interesting because it reflects the change in tone of the series. After finishing season 4, I rewatched part of season 1 and was surprised at how much more grounded it felt.

Pat Saperstein: It’s interesting to remember that in the early episodes of Sex and the City, the stars lived in a rougher, more down-to-earth version of New York. Here, there are just so MANY outfits in each episode. I, too, despise most of them, but there are always a few killer ones. By the end of this season, I felt that some of her outfits were drifting into the matronly – completely wrong for someone her age, but still often desirable. However, if people start wearing newsboy caps because of Emily, I will never forgive the costume designers.

I also have to say that the Jean Patou jacket with the red leather belt was just stunning. And I’m not mad about the cobalt blue pantsuit by Barbara Bui that she wore in Giverny.

Rachel: The jacket was beautiful, and I loved the fluffy, colorful coat she wore when she visited Camille’s family for Christmas. As for the outfits for her visit to Italy, I thought they did a great job of dressing her as who she really is, a white American millennial woman from a big city. The decision to put her in a blue and white polka dot ruffled top was certainly informed by a Taylor Swift-meets-Madewell ethos.

The comparison to Sex and the City and its evolution as a series is clever; it also made me think of the original Gossip Girl. The longer these shows go on, the more they become parodies of themselves. In season 1, Emily wore colorful berets with plaid shirts and had moments with Gabriel (like the kiss in the club when she was babysitting the pop star) where sexual tension and chemistry were palpable. In season 4, she wears giant striped dresses that look like spirals used for hypnosis; she breaks up with Gabriel because he won’t coddle her on a ski slope; and she moves to Italy because hot, man, why not.

The development of the relationship between Gabriel and Emily

Knock: First off, did Gabriel change his hairstyle this season? He used to be cuter. Anyway, this on-off relationship has been a blast for four seasons now. But I have to commend Gabriel for his candid and scathing speech telling Emily that she was basically acting like an idiot. Too bad her utter refusal to learn even the most basic French left her vulnerable to being tricked by Sylvie’s secret devilish stepdaughter, who mistranslated his speech and said, “I don’t want to see you anymore.” Let’s face it, as long as we have Emily, we’re going to have to stick with this virtually sexless and eternally unsatisfying romance. There’s no friendzone for you, Emily and Gabriel!

Rachel: His hair is longer – I’ve been wondering the same thing. He has a rougher look? And even though Emily has apparently been taking French lessons for years, it’s amazing that she couldn’t speak a full sentence until this season. Better late than never, I guess?

Emily and Marcello

Knock: I like the idea of ​​his family’s quiet luxury cashmere company (is it based on Loro Piana?) that hosts company dinners at a long table in the middle of a village. Why not? But Marcello is no Gabriel, and I have a feeling Emily is more excited about the prospect of some amazing gelato than the possibility of eating molto Marcello. Do you like him?

Rachel: He’s boring because he’s a little too perfect. A charming, handsome heir-appointed to a luxury cashmere brand who just wants to live in a small town in Italy and focus on his family? He should be a little more evil.

Emily moves to Rome

Rachel: Do you think she’ll actually move to Rome? I don’t think she’ll move to Rome. If – when! – the show gets renewed for season 5, they’ll spend a few episodes there. Gabriel will come and confess his love to Emily, she’ll reject him, and then she’ll have a revelation in a conversation with Marcello that will bring her to her senses. Then she’ll go back.

Knock: I think you’re right, because Gabriel is obviously not going anywhere. How often can you change your username on Instagram? Still, she would be a bit pasta to give up the beautiful apartment in Rome and to fight with Mindy again for a place in an attic.

Is “Emily in Paris” actually good?

Rachel: We’ve already talked briefly about whether the show is “good” or not and what “good” means. What do you think?

Knock: Maybe it’s not super-good, but it’s not trying to be “Succession,” either. It’s not easy to make a show that’s this easy to understand and looks this good while doing it. Although costume designer Marilyn Fitoussi should probably be credited as the show’s main creative force, the script is pretty clever and the visual effects are top-notch. Sure, the double entendres and triple entendres are as maudlin as a triple-creme brie. But the dialogue, while often absurd, is crisp and crackling in the best romantic comedy tradition. Ultimately, the show’s genius lies not just in the fashion, but in the way it combines an Audrey Hepburn-style American ingénue with French actors in a way that feels fresh and entertaining — though it’s admittedly a soufflé-light confection.

Rachel: I agree with you that the show is effortless and that it certainly takes a lot of work and skill to make it work. I don’t know if I would go so far as to call the show “good,” but maybe it’s “good” for what it is, which is pure entertainment?

Knock: Totally agree. See you next time in Rome, Rachel!