By EMILY PAOLICELLI
Arts Editor
Netflix snatched up Lifetime’s psychological thriller “You,” which turned into a huge hit as soon as it hit the streaming platform. Of course, there are spoilers ahead.
The characters that appeared in the show’s first season enforced many negative stereotypes, which can be chalked up to the show’s supposed intention of satirizing a typical romance story. However, a satire can be done without writing tropey, underdeveloped characters which begs the question, is the writing tropey on purpose, or simply lazy?
Peach’s character, portrayed by Shay Mitchell, enforced the stereotype of the “predatory lesbian:” not only was Peach attracted to Beck, which could have been written as a light-hearted quirk to their relationship, but Peach was unhealthily attached to Beck (Elizabeth Lail), and it absolutely didn’t help Peach’s case that Joe (Penn Badgley), the resident stalker, murderer, and unstable criminal of the series, was disgusted by Peach’s actions and explicitly said so.
Beck’s other friends, Annika and Lynn, were portrayed as dumb and ditzy, and were only concerned with men, social media, and how others view them, which lines up with the stereotypical characterization of a millennial woman. The only ones of the group who seem to exhibit any capability of advanced thought are Beck and Peach, and even that isn’t apparent until a few episodes in.
Alcoholism and addiction are also demonized; all characters who suffer from alcoholism or addiction are portrayed as weak and pathetic, and two of them ultimately both face their deaths at the hand of the protagonist. Both of these characters are portrayed as the enemy, which may be true to an extent, but are never given the chance to face their addiction or better themselves before their deaths. Claudia’s addiction story arc is rushed and lacking in depth, and feels sudden and out of place.
With the majority of the series experienced the point of view of Joe, does that justify the problematic portrayal of Beck and her friends? Of Ron and Benji? The answer to that could depend on Joe’s backstory, of which we don’t see much. The audience does get to see that Ivan Mooney was abusive towards Joe in their past, but there was nothing concrete to show what made Joe into the criminal he is. Not all abuse survivors become sadistic killers in the future, although that seems to be the message the show is trying to send based on the limited backstory available to us.
Each individual story arc was absolutely unexpected, with the exception of the cliffhanger at the tail end of the first season. As each story arc came to a close, I found myself frequently wondering, what else could possibly go down with the amount of episodes there are left? However, once the story arcs were presented, everything that unfolded within them was predictable and frankly unimaginative, especially to a fan and frequent watcher of psychological thrillers. Beyond that, man story arcs were incomplete and unfulfilling, leaving plot holes all over the place that may or may not be resolved in the following season
All in all, the series was much more psychological than thriller. Despite the protagonist being a homicidal criminal, it was very easy to sympathize with Joe after a while. He was written as charming, rational, and sociable, frequently engaging in good deeds in conjunction with his murderous shenanigans. I had to remind myself that rooting for Joe would warrant a reevaluation of my own morals and beliefs, especially during the fight with Peach, another character with unstable and manipulative tendencies.
