Inventing Anna

As "Inventing Anna" (2022 release; 9 episodes ranging 60 to 80 min each) opens, we are reminded that "This whole story is completely true. Except the parts that are totally made up." We then go to "November 20, 2017" as Anna Delvey is charged in a New York court with various crimes and remanded to Rikers Island. In a parallel story line, we are introduced to Vivian Kent, a struggling writer at Manhattan Magazine and who happens to be pregnant with her first child. She pitches the idea of doing a deep dive on this Anna Delvey to the magazine, and goes off to Rikers to meet Anna in person. At this point we are 15 min into Episode 1.

Couple of comments: this is the latest brainchild from Shonda Rhimes ("Grey's Anatomy", "Bridgeton"). Here she uses an article from New York magazine to bring a sprawling look at the real life story of this mysterious Anna Delvey a/k/a Anna Sorokin. Who is she? A German heiress with unlimited funds from her trust? A skilled con woman out to connive Manhattan's high society? Both? More? This mini-series spares no expenses, and we get a lot of "the life styles of the rich and famous" type stuff. And Julia Garner ("Ozark") is terrific in the lead role. But two things hold this mini-series back: first, I am bothered by the disclaimer that opens each episode that "all is true, except where it isn't". So what this means is that we have no idea what parts are based on the real life story of Anna Delvey, and what is "totally made up". Second, at a running time of almost 10 hours, the mini-series is too long for its own good. Leave out the fluff, and instead it should've made a terrific 3 or 4 part mini-series. After having seen the first three episodes last night, I thought to myself "Am I really gonna spend time to watch 6 more episodes of this?" I honestly don't know as of now.

"Inventing Anna" premiered on Netflix a few days ago, and all 9 episodes are now ready to be binged if you are so inclined. If you are into true crime mixed with "life styles of the rich and famous", I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

I watched this with my wife and daughters and we was all really captured by it. However even thought the main story of Anna and the people she defrauded is intriguing and intertwined the side stories let the production down.

Anna C. Is pregnant throughout the series and this story was written by someone who clearly has never had a child as the line, 'I haven't even baby proofed the apartment.' From the workaholics guy who is the father made me laugh so loud (like a baby can crawl around the apartment on day 1 - LOL 😀) then the whole pregnancy pains and birth was all just total fluff. The story is Anna and the ppl she defrauded and the side stories got too much time that wasn't necessary.

I only write this short review to react to some of your reviews, lol. To all, who thinks that Anna is the hero of this story. She isn't. She comes off as a delusional, superficial con person. Which she was. And is, I guess. And the journalist and the lawyer, who fell for her, they come off as pathethic. They fell for the con woman. So I think the show doesn't want us to feel sympathy for Anna. Well I didn't, for sure.

Netflix paid Anna Sorokin, the German scammer at the heart of this series, $320,000 for the rights to her story. Sorokin used the money to pay back some of the funds she had stolen from banks, and some of the fines she owed the State of New York. Then she got on every talk show and new excerpt she could to keep building her fame.

As of this writing, she is awaiting deportation back to Germany, but is currently sick with COVID. ICE believes she contracted COVID so that she could stay in the US longer, because, after all, Anna is a con artist.

And, just so that we all understand how sociopathy and Hollywood works, the banks were repaid with Anna's story rights. The ordinary human beings whose credit cards and bank accounts she use are still out of money. Despite NY's Son of Sam law, Anna is profiting from her crimes by becoming an antihero through this story written by Shonda Rimes. When we watch this film, we are helping a sociopath profit.

Grifters grift.

Julia Garner does a great job as Anna, although her voice made me want to shoot the TV. Shonda gives us an engaging script. But what's the difference in this an making a movie of OJ's "If I DID IT?" The degree of crime?

I didn't like the idea of elevating a grifter, and I especially didn't like the built in idea that her thefts were okay because she only stole from rich people. She didn't.

She wasn't Robin Hood. She was just a thief.

Oh dear. This show focuses on an annoying, self-absorbed journalist who is trying to discover the truth but what is interesting is Julia Garner's performance. It would be much better if they had ditched the boring 'finding out' bits and just let Anna's story tell itself.