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 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.

Have you ever watched something where the producer tried to mock something they have contempt for but turns out to be the world the producers actually live in? This program is about a European grifter who pretends to be an heiress and she proceeds to fool all manner of Americans into giving her money and letting her rack up debts she can never pay. All of the characters cry about their victimhood rich and poor. It is a statement about how shallow and phony people have become. In this day and age this type of wealth, pretend or real, is distasteful and ugly. The script is full of contradictions. A journalist who wrote fake news wants people to believe it wasn't her fault. Working class people want you to believe they have already made it and the rich want you to believe they have scruples. Everyone is fake just like the story. Shonda should know that you need at least one redeeming character to hold the audience's attention. I got through episode 5 and couldn't think of one reason to continue watching.

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.

Not so bad in general, but too long... Julia Garner is always good, but Anna Chlumsky, gosh, so bad acting. Her facial expression is so exaggerated, faces and faces and faces. Watching her scrunch her face up was really annoying.