Disappointed by the characters in the TV show, yet will watch season two

There are TV shows that we watch that are immeasurably good. They’re entertaining, they’re funny, they check off all the boxes. Shows like “Never Have I Ever” and “Stranger Things” that are undeniably perfect. But then there are shows that you watch for the aesthetic, shows that you watch just to watch. “Emily in Paris” is one of those shows. 

“Emily in Paris” is a comedy-drama Netflix series that follows Emily (played by Lily Collins) as she makes her way through a new job at an unwelcoming marketing firm in Paris. There’s just a couple of holes in Emily’s plan to bring her American perspective to the firm: they don’t want her there and she doesn’t speak French. She doesn’t even know how to say the words “I don’t speak French” in French. She moves into a run-down apartment and works all season to get on her boss’ good side as she deals with multiple romance flings, finds new friends and makes Paris her home. 

As someone who’s never visited any country other than Mexico, my only dream is to travel and see all of the beautiful wonders of the world. When shows like “Emily in Paris” come around that give me a glimpse of what Paris could possibly be like, how could I not want to watch it? And with Lily Collins as the protagonist, I was going to binge it. 

As every Instagram comment has reminded me, the Paris depicted in the show is completely unrealistic and that has led to much criticism. But I’m not watching a show about a social media strategist whose life gets uprooted in Paris for the reality of it. I’m watching it because I want to see the impressive outfits and cringeworthy drama. I’ve seen the show get a good amount of attention and I had a good time watching it. It had its moments. To cut it short, I will be watching season two if it gets renewed. Not because it was particularly good, but because they left off on the worst cliffhanger possible.

Let’s start off with the show itself; any Netflix show has to make me feel like I watched something worthwhile, like I didn’t just sit on my bed all day for nothing. I like to feel that I completed something after binge watching a ten-episode series. But I didn’t get that feeling after finishing “Emily In Paris.” I felt incomplete and not in a good way; the show simply didn’t feel finished. It was a grand mess of an ending.

Along with any TV show I’ve ever reviewed, my main frustration is due to its characters. If a show has obnoxious characters that are completely unrelatable, I won’t continue watching it. Characters are what make something worth watching, so I’m going to start by ripping the main characters to shreds. 

When we first met Emily, I loved her. She was bubbly and determined to do well in her job. We are so often given the broody character to love that it was refreshing to have the main character be the most optimistic one, albeit naive as well. Optimists haven’t received much of a spotlight in recent years and with Gen Z being known for their nihilism, that’s understandable. But Emily had a can-do attitude that I’d love to see more often. She did make some questionable choices throughout the show, but there wouldn’t have been a show without them, so there isn’t too much of a fight there. 

A character trope that I’m tired of is the mean boss. I hate the idea that when women finally climb to the top of a business, they become cold and snotty to other women instead of uplifting them. I never understood this portrayal of women in the media when I was younger and it’s one that I’ve grown to hate. It’s exhausting for women in college to have to fear that this trope may be true. Sylvie (played by Philippine Leroy-Beaulieu), Emily’s boss in Paris, is a powerful woman who isn’t welcome to new ideas and pushes Emily down at every opportunity she has, and it’s exhausting. It’s time to ditch this type of character and move on, because I would love to see more empathetic and helpful women bosses (See: “The Bold Type.”)

Emily’s main love interest is the boy next door. Literally. He lives one flight down from her and he is the most bland character I’ve ever seen as a love interest. This is absolutely devastating because I watched this show solely to fall in love with characters, but instead I only fell in love with the scenery. He’s the type of character that you’re supposed to love, the one who you’re supposed to be rooting for the whole season. I’ll admit, I liked him for the first two episodes. Then it all went downhill because he is one of the worst men on the show. I can’t fathom what was going through the director’s and writer’s heads when they were creating this character; did they really think that he was going to be likable to the public?

For my final criticism: every single one of Emily’s love interests is white. There was one recurring Black character and he was the token side character without a backstory and that’s the biggest disappointment throughout the whole series. It’s boring to only see white men pictured as the romantic partner in a series. 

Now that you’ve read me bash all of the main characters, you might come to ask, so did you actually like anyone? Of course I did, three people to be exact: Camille, Pierre Cadeau and Mindy. Camille should have been the star of the show; she had more personality than every other main character. She was kind to a fault, an actual angel and helped out Emily when she didn’t deserve it. The only reason I’ll be watching this show for season two is in hopes that Camille gets the ending she deserves: a better friend than Emily and a better boyfriend than Gabriel. 

Pierre Cadeau was the dramatic fashion designer whose sanity held on by a thread and I loved it. They gave him a personality and that’s all I wanted in this show. This was the lowest bar as well—I was already invested in the idea of the show, I just needed the characters to have actual character traits and other than these three, everything fell flat. The last character that I liked was Mindy, Emily’s first best friend. We get to see Mindy’s character develop throughout the season as she grows out of her stage fright and pursues her dream of becoming a singer. 

I had a lot of critiques about “Emily in Paris,” but that doesn’t mean that I regret watching it, mostly because I’ll watch anything that Lily Collins is in. It was disappointing and although I enjoyed the views of Paris, we were robbed of something that could have been perfect. But instead, it’s being called out for its French stereotypes and boring characters. 

“Emily in Paris” is a form of romantic escapism and I’m always here for that, it just didn’t quite meet the bar that “Monte Carlo” set for me when I was 11. But as always, you can enjoy something and still be critical of it. 

Written by: Itzelth Gamboa — arts@theaggie.org

Commemoration is through education, America’s history of oppression in the Philippines continues to be prevalent today

Filipino American History Month (or FAHM, as it’s widely known in the Filipinx-American (FilAm) community) is celebrated in October to commemorate the first recorded presence of Filipinos in the continental U.S.

Many organizations hold events to bring attention to the significance of this month and educate the community on the history of FilAm people.

Although this month celebrates the beginnings of what is now one of the U.S.’ largest ethnic groups, it is mainly an opportunity for people to seek out information on their cultural background and the struggles of what the FilAm community has faced. 

One of the most repressed narratives in FilAm history comes from how the U.S. was (and still is) complicit in the erasure of Filipino communities and culture, while refusing to truly recognize those effects. 

The U.S.’ heavy-handed influence stems from the aftermath of the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonialism. While the U.S. had originally offered their support for Philippine independence, after the war the U.S. claimed sovereignty over the Philippines and overthrew the rising government.

Additionally, the U.S. government offered Filipinos American citizenship and land if they enlisted in World War II, but once the war ended, they were denied those things and were not recognized as veterans. Despite having used the islands as a warzone, the U.S. also refused to help rebuild the Philippines lands and economy, instead creating an imperial rule that mimicked the U.S.’s own system of government under the veil of democracy.

This bureaucracy still exists as the primary form of authority in the Philippines with its current president, Rodrigo Duterte, working closely with Donald Trump. 

Much of the history is oppressed to hide the effects of colonization in the islands that continue to exist and to deter people from rising up against the current government. This is seen in the implementation of U.S. education in the Philippine school systems and by consequence, its erasure of indigenous history, which would reveal how the people have repeatedly fought against oppression through multiple revolutions.

Students learn the English language in their classes and more about the benefits of the U.S.’ influence rather than the indigenous peoples, called the archipelago, and their languages.

The use of the word “history” in FAHM is very intentional in that the purpose of the month is not just to celebrate Filipino culture, but also to recognize the struggles that the Filipino people have faced. 

Saira Singh, a recent UC Davis graduate in biological sciences with minors in education and human development, currently works as an ethnic studies educator for Pinoy/Pinay educational partnerships and sheds light on more of the advantages and limitations of this commemoration.

“It isn’t just about the culture, like the food, music or art. It brings light to issues and provides educational programming or publications that are beneficial to the community,” Singh says, “it’s about the history, the struggles, and the people.”

“America has a ‘heroes and holidays’ approach to commemorating history and groups of people when the best way to honor these groups is through integrated education of ethnic studies in history and recognition of America’s part in oppressing these groups.”

For those interested in learning more, UC Davis’s Mga Kapatid, Kappa Psi Epsilon Sorority, INC., BRIDGE, and other UCD FilAm organizations have educational opportunities for students to learn more about FilAm cultural history.

Written by: Mariah Viktoria Candelaria — arts@theaggie.org

The Arts Desk’s weekly picks for movies, books, music, television shows

Book: “Big Little Lies” by Liane Moriarty

If you are a fan of the hit HBO show “Big Little Lies” (which if you read my last Culture Corner article you would know boasts a “stacked cast, incredible editing and possibly the best title sequence of all time”), the book opens a new door to the BLL experience. The novel is strikingly similar to the show with a few key differences. It is set in Moriarty’s native Australia and a few characters are axed, but besides that, very similar. Rather than comparing them, the show and book work together in a way other adaptations do not. There were specific moments in the miniseries that felt empty, or a little unexplainable. With the aid of the book, those gaps are filled. The characters you love in the show are given a much more in-depth motive: their actions and reactions make more sense. This is especially obvious in Jane (played by Shaline Woodley), whose character was the least developed in the show. If you haven’t watched yet, the novel is a fun, easy read that keeps you engrossed from the first page to the last. It might be because it was the first book I read in maybe nine months, but reading “Big Little Lies” was an experience that stayed with me. 

Movie: “Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed” Dir. Raja Gosnell

If I had a time machine I would go to the night “Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed” premiered in theaters and watch it the way it should be seen—on the big screen. The 2004 film is perhaps the only good live action adaptation ever made. Following the events of the first movie, Mystery Inc. is almost torn apart by a scandal that tarnished their name. Through the course of the movie, they take down monsters and explore their group dynamic. If you suspend your criticism and embrace the campiness, it really is so good. The set design and outfits are amazing, some standouts are the bright pink and orange 70’s inspired interior of the gang’s office and Velma’s forever iconic orange leather jumpsuit. It’s so well cast. Despite being high profile actors in a children’s movie, they really gave it their all. Everyone matches their 2-D counterpart perfectly, especially Mathew Lillard’s Shaggy and Linda Cardenelli’s Velma. It outshines its predecessor while making you laugh and feel genuine emotion. I predict in at least 10 years it will be added to the Criterion Collection. And please, if you have the time, take a moment of silence for the third live action Scooby Doo movie we never got because this one absolutely bombed.

TV Show: “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”

Recently, the final season of Netflix’s “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” aired, and I was able to look over the show in its entirety and try to comprehend what it was. Over the course of its four seasons, we watch the antics of Kimmy’s life in NYC through a cartoonish and absurd lens. Kimmy Schmidt’s strongest asset is utilizing a type of comedy that is completely unique to the show. It teters the line between and silly and completely unhinged. This is only pulled off by its amazing cast, who fit their characters so well it’s impossible to imagine anyone else playing them. Even though sometimes it feels like they put a quota on jokes per minute, the humor stays with you. I often find myself revisiting specific jokes (like the season four opener where they changed the theme song’s lyrics to “Little girl, big city this is the show now/little girl, big apple, it’s a fruit that’s bigger than people”). The show fluctuates in quality, sometimes losing its footing and diving headfirst into truly terrible takes (there is an episode that tries to take on cancel culture that gives me physical second-hand embarrassment). But throughout its four-season run, it never stopped being truly funny and entertaining. 

Album: “Ungodly Hour” by Chloe x Halle

I am incredibly lazy, to the point where making playlists is too much effort. When I want to listen to music, I click on an album and skip. Sister duo Chloe x Halle’s “Ungodly Hour” feels more like a curated listening experience than an album. Each track is engrossing, from the more upbeat dance songs (“Do It” and “ROYL”) to the slower, intricately produced tracks (“Don’t Make it Harder on me” and “Ungodly Hour”). It’s hard to define the gene of “Ungodly Hour” because Chloe x Halle have the rare artistic ability to take pieces from various types of music while having it remain cohesive. They utilize their voices as instruments. Older sister Chloe grounds the songs with her strong, controlled vocals while younger sister Halle’s floats atop the tracks. You can hear the meshing of their artistic abilities; the dynamic produces unique music while keeping the sound uniform. The production is what takes their music to the next level, and it is heightened knowing how involved the sisters were in the process. One of the album’s best tracks, “Tipsy” was produced solely by Chloe. Not only is the music amazing, but through promotion, the duo has proved they are the best performers on the scene right now. They have given live performances on various shows, each time with new elaborate sets and outfits all fitting within the constraints of pandemic performing. Chloe x Halle’s “Ungodly Hour” has a song for any occasion. Nine months in and I can confidently say this is the best album of the year. 

LIVVY MULLEN — arts@theaggie.org