In the last episode of Youâs first season, romantic heroine Beck finally realizes that the gorgeous, thoughtful man sheâs been dating, Joe, is actually a monstrous serial killer whoâs been stalking her, manipulating her, and will probably kill her. We the viewers have known this from the jump, because You puts us inside Joeâs head from the first moments of the show, but the entire first season of You is the process of watching poor hapless Beck fail to recognize the danger sheâs in. Finally, she discovers his hidden box of serial-killer trophies and the inevitable happens: Sheâs trapped in Joeâs snazzy basement dungeon, scrambling to strategize her way out, desperate to avoid what sheâs sure happened to Candace, Joeâs last girlfriend whoâs been mysteriously missing for months.
Beck does not succeed. She writes a magnum opus, an essay about the falseness of romantic tropes thatâs an effort to re-seduce Joe so she can escape, but her attempt fails and Joe murders her. In the end, Joe posthumously publishes Beckâs work, which has conveniently fingered Beckâs therapist as the murderer so Joe escapes suspicion. Then, in the last moments of the season finale, we watch as Joeâs internal stalker engine starts all over again. We can hear his intrigued inner monologue as he follows a faceless woman into the aisles of his bookstore, analyzing her appearance for what he imagines is her intended appeal and possible vulnerabilities. We assume that this is his next prey. Then she turns around. The woman is Joeâs ex-girlfriend Candace, the woman whom Beck assumed heâd killed, and to his astonishment (and ours!) sheâs not dead. What a twist!
There are two kinds of questions to ask about this ending. The first kind: Is it well-made? Does it deliver on the story the season had been building toward? Does it feel like a fitting conclusion for the previous nine episodes, are the performances good, does the final twist make sense, is it an entertaining hour of television? Does it hint toward whatâs to come in a second season? The second: Is the ending of You ⌠good? Beyond the storytelling and structural ideas, is it good for the world and for its viewers that this is how Beckâs story ends?
Those questions are also questions about the whole series. Is it good that a show about a psychotic, narcissistic, self-absorbed killer â a show about a dude who bears a surface-level resemblance to swoon-worthy romantic Prince Charming tropes but who is actually an abusive, violent stalker â exists? Is it good that You prioritizes Joeâs point of view over everything else, putting us in the head of a man who murders people and who can only see life through the filter of his own needy obsessions? Is it good that Beckâs perspective gets only part of one episode, while Joe dominates everything else? Is it good for us, the viewers, to watch yet another story about a woman trapped in a cage begging for her life?
In her recap of the final episode, Jessica Goldstein asked exactly this question, and comes away with an unequivocal no, it is not good. âIt feels like You wants to be edgy and subversive. But a story that gives a violent male character a full, complicated history (or, I should say, attempts to do that) while never revealing more about its female character beyond what said male character can discern and/or chooses to project onto her is not subversive, at all,â Goldstein writes. âWas it necessary â was it even remotely good television â for an entire episode to be devoted to Beckâs being psychologically tortured until she gets killed?â
Goldsteinâs further point is that it doesnât matter that You tried to undermine and satirize all of the romance plots that are culturally coded as sweet, but which are actually abusive, manipulative nonsense. Because in the act of satirizing them, You also straight-up replicates them. It is still giving Joe the voice and making Beck the victim. It is still centering Joeâs perspective, even as itâs trying to turn him into a monster. Badgleyâs performance is as a highly charismatic, magnetic murderer, which means that while youâre watching him be a murderer, youâre also watching him be magnetic. Itâs a point thatâs hard to argue, especially given how much time Penn Badgley, the actor who plays Joe, has spent on Twitter trying to dissuade the showâs fans from falling in love with a psychotic, misogynistic killer.
You is a show about a dude who stalks, tortures, and kills people, in a TV landscape that is already full-up with objectified, tortured, and/or dead women. The existence of any part of the showâs audience who finds Joe attractive is pretty incontrovertible evidence that on some level, the showâs attempt to undermine Joe fails. You is a ripe target for bad fandom, for viewers who misread the show for their own ends and blithely ignore that every character is supposed to be a loathsome monster. (Yes, even Beck.)
And yet. That first question, the question about whether the finale is well-made, whether it follows on what the beginning of the season started, whether the performances are good, whether the twist makes sense, whether it sets up a second season, whether it is an entertaining hour of TV⌠in spite of everything, the answer to that question might still be yes. Everything that happens in the final episode is the fitting and inevitable conclusion of what You warned us would happen from the first moments of the pilot. If the showâs central engine is to demonstrate the toxicity of masculine behavior when filtered through a rom-com ideology, then Beckâs death â and just as crucially, her relative voicelessness throughout the season â is the whole point. I cannot blame the show for following through on all of the things it told us would happen from the start.
Iâm also loathe to cede all of Youâs reception to the bad fans. Itâs possible to misread everything that happens in the finale and insist that Joeâs still attractive, but itâs also clear that misreading is totally counter to everything the show tells us. It makes sense to see Beck as one more dead girl on TV and Joe as one more monstrous anti-hero, but that means flattening all the deliberate, skin-crawling contradictions the first season establishes, the connection weâre meant to draw between Joeâs loving words and his violence, the fact that all of this is sort of a farce, and that Candace being alive at the end is a good twist! I have no idea how You season two will play out, but a woman who knows Joeâs true nature and returns from the dead so she can confront him seems like a good start.
Even if this particular showâs goal is to satirize and puncture our collective mythologizing of the attention-worthy violent man, it makes sense to feel like TV would be better if it took a break from violent men like Joe for a bit. But thatâs a broader question about the whole show, and about its cultural goodness on a scale separate from its storytelling. If the question is just about the end, and whether that ending is well-made, then the conclusion of Youâs first season is everything the show had been building toward all along. Joe kills Beck, as we always knew he would. The performances work (Hari Nef forever!), and itâs an appropriate culmination for a show thatâs been telling viewers from its very first moments that its protagonist is a dangerous, untrustworthy killer.
Crucially, itâs also not really the end. Youâs final word is not that Joe succeeds, toxic masculinity is the route to romantic happiness, and Beck was too dumb to live. Its last gesture is Candaceâs return, suggesting that Joeâs comeuppance is yet to come. I have to believe that the worm will turn in season two, and that Joe will finally face some consequences. His fate hovers over him like the Sword of Damocles, and if You lets him escape in its final endgame, itâll have become a bleaker and less self-aware show than Iâd hoped. For right now, though, Iâm happy for the season to end with Joe thinking heâs gotten away with it all, blind to whatâs to come.
Want to know whatâs new on Netflix? Check out Vultureâs streaming guide.