Note: there are “spoilers” for “Inventing Anna” below, but seeing as how the show is (…more or less) based on real-life events, I’m going to assume if you are reading this, you are somewhat familiar with the IRL backstory here.
I read “My Friend Anna” by Rachel DeLoache Williams a few years ago (read my [and my friend Elizabeth’s] review here! on our book review blog!). I remember the book as a fairly well-written scam story that detailed how Rachel came to befriend Anna and the subsequent trust issues that came with the experience of being on the hook for $62k (which sounds truly horrifying). But, with the release of Netflix’s “Inventing Anna,” I’ve been thinking even more critically about the book and how who tells these stories affects the narratives themselves.
“Inventing Anna” is the much-anticipated, Shonda Rhimes-helmed, 9-episode limited series that purports to be about how Anna “Delvey” Sorokin allegedly passed herself off as a German heiress in order to convince financial institutions to lend her vast sums of money. The series is actually about the (at times, seemingly questionable…) reporting process of Jessica Pressler (“Vivian Kent” in the show) as she dug into Anna’s story and ultimately unraveled it in a cover story for New York Magazine, which continues to be one of the top-read articles on the site.
(Jessica Pressler’s reporting also led to the movie “Hustlers,” so I will definitely give credit where credit is due—girl knows a good story when she finds one.)
But, I somehow wasn’t aware that Anna was involved in this show until just before it aired. She was paid more than $300k for the rights to her story, and as such, I think we need to take these 9 episodes with not just a grain, but a heaping tablespoon of salt. (While much of that $300k went to restitution, I have to assume she still made a tidy profit.) If Anna wasn’t forthcoming with financial institutions and her own parents, why would she be forthcoming to Shonda Rhimes?
Back to Rachel. Rachel befriended Anna through the way you befriend people in New York in your 20s—through friends of friends of friends—and Anna allegedly paid for lavish spa treatments, dinners, drinks, clothes, and so on and so forth for Rachel. Things unraveled during a trip to Marrakesh, when Anna allegedly forced Rachel to pay for a $62k hotel bill (much of which was put on Rachel’s company credit card).
Rachel subsequently had her debt cleared by Amex, sold a book that went on to become a much-lauded read of 2019, and sold the rights to the book to HBO for $35k at a minimum ($300k if the project comes to fruition).
Now that Anna’s version of the story is available to watch on Netflix, Rachel is telling anyone who will listen not to watch it because it glorifies the person who scammed her. (It also, not uncoincidentally, makes Rachel look like a self-obsessed, whiny, fame-chaser.)
All this to say—it is incredibly important to follow the money when it comes to any story. (Not just scammer stories, but also news stories from our increasingly corporatized media…but that’s a whole other topic that I will not get into.) “Inventing Anna” doesn’t pretend to be objective, which is fine, but just know that’s what you’re getting into. Jessica Pressler, Anna Sorokin, and Anna’s friend Neff Davis were all involved in the making of this show, which is abundantly clear upon watching it. Rachel has also profited off of this story—this show just isn’t the one she’s made money from.
Ultimately though, this show only serves to make a scammer more famous—Anna is currently at 624k Instagram followers, and I imagine some weird-ass brands will be paying her for spon con (…hehe) sooner rather than later. (This is assuming they haven’t already. I don’t feel like doing more research and I never said this was journalism.)
The intent of this newsletter is not just to harp on shows I hate-watch (because I actually don’t want to hate-watch many shows) (except, obviously, “And Just Like That”). I was kind of excited to watch “Inventing Anna” because a good scammer makes for a good story, but this show is not about a good scammer, nor is it even a good story. And it could have been, which is what’s so annoying.
I suffered through all 9 episodes of this mess, so I thought I would share some “live reactions” and notes I took as I got increasingly frustrated by this show. Because, y’all, these episodes were all over the place…
Episode 1: VIVIAN
Is this… “Scandal”?
Why are we focusing so much on the journalist?
Anna Deavere Smith is in this? She was nominated for a Pulitzer. She won a MacArthur Genius Grant! And she’s in this?!? (I do love Cyrus Beane though, that evil genius.)
OK, Vivian the journalist has a photo wall in her apartment. This is straight out of “Scandal,” and Shonda’s storytelling style has not evolved since 2010.
I…am uncomfy with how much of this episode is focused on the journalist.
The only journalism stories I am interested in are “Spotlight” and “All The President’s Men.” Those reporters won Pulitzers. Vivian didn’t even initially think to look at Instagram to get info on Anna in 2017-18, so I think it’s safe to say she will not be joining the ranks of Woodward and Bernstein.
Episode 2: VAL
Oh, this theme music…I know this from somewhere. This isn’t “Scandal,” it’s “How to Get Away with Murder.”
Julia Garner is a good actress. She just has one of those faces that looks SO different with every expression she makes. It’s a shame the material she has to work with is not good.
Why is Vivian acting as if she has no concept of extremely wealthy people? She is a reporter at New York (“Manhattan”) Magazine. She has probably rubbed shoulders (or at least interviewed) wealthy people before.
(I love when rich people pronounce it “Ibitha.”)
Vivian is spending the night at her source’s house? Isn’t this a breach of journalistic ethics?
Does Jessica Pressler have it written into her contracts that she has to be a character in these shows/movies that are based on her reporting? I don’t like it when reporters make the story about themselves. Frankly, I could have done without this framing device because it’s primarily revealing what Anna (allegedly) did via interviews with other people—it’s telling the audience rather than showing us. Which I hate! It’s lazy writing!
Episode 3: NORA
I am still extremely annoyed with this journalism framing device. It’s taking all of the tension and emotion out of the show. We knew the outcome of “Spotlight” too, and there were still insane amounts of tension! I want to get into Anna’s psyche more and understand what motivated her to do what she (allegedly) did, and how she knew how to do it.
I know Anna herself was involved in this show, but it is increasingly obvious, and I am not a fan.
Every time I hear the name “Vivian Kent,” I think of Vivian Kensington. Both of which are very fake names.
Shonda is phoning this in. Which I guess is fine, she has that Netflix money now and is not beholden to broadcast network ratings, but I wish I was not so committed to dissecting this show now.
I love Stewy from “Succession” as Anna’s defense attorney. And Tabitha from “Succession” as his wife! What a slap in the face to Roman Roy.
Episode 4: ALAN
Fyre Festival. Wow, that brings me back. Two scammers collide.
Anna is wearing the Valentino Rockstuds in 2017? People should have known. They were already becoming passé among a certain crowd. (…I think. Needless to say, I am not part of that crowd.)
Alan is GOOSE! He definitely did not feel the need for speed in getting Anna her loan.
“Martin Shkreli” cameo. What a specific time in New York.
The irony of the “journalism is dead” line from Alan’s daughter in a show based on a magazine article. And look, I love journalism. True, objective, no-agenda journalism. This show is not portraying it well.
Is Vivian doing ANY of her own research? It’s a good thing she has the rest of the Scriberia gang to remind her how to report. (Sidenote: “Scriberia,” Siberia, Russia, Anna…idk, there is a joke there that I can’t quite land.)
I made an earlier note that Anna Chlumsky’s brown hair color is NOT good, so when the Blade CEO told her she is CLEARLY a civilian with that hair color, I did get a good laugh.
Episode 5: NEFF
“Write down card numbers and charge later.” Oh dear, well we all see where this is going.
This is an insane amount of airtime to give to Jessica Pressler’s journalism mistake. Do we even care about this? Is this show’s arc supposed to show how she’s such a good journalist but everyone makes mistakes? Because I’m here for the Anna tension, not the Jessica Pressler Redemption Story.
Neff is telling Vivian about the PR databases Neff got Anna onto, and Vivian is clueless. How would a reporter not know about the PR databases??? Vivian’s journalism skills continue to be sus.
I remember exactly where I was when I first saw the Fyre Festival tweets—what a time to be alive!!!
Well it’s very clear why IRL Rachel is writing all these articles talking shit about this show. They REALLY did her dirty. She could not look like more of a bitch in the sauna scene with Anna and Neff.
Although if someone portrayed me as having this terrible ombre hair in the year of our lord 2017, I would also be telling people not to watch it.
Neff throwing justified shade at Vivian’s hair…we love to see it.
Oh my god Vivian’s hair makeover finally my god
We are at the hour mark and there are still 16 minutes to go. WHY IS THIS SHOW SO LONG.
Episode 6: KACY
OK, La Mamounia here we go…..wow, what a place. Obligatory reminder that I have also stayed there, in 2016. Unlike Rachel, my workplace actually paid for my stay. (It was a business trip.) And let me tell you…those private riads are f*cking bonkers. (I did not stay in one.)
Interesting that the episode is about Kacy when Rachel was the one who was (allegedly) scammed into paying for La Mamounia.
I can’t believe they actually filmed at La Mamounia—and yes the guards really do check the cars for bombs before you go through the gates.
(The YSL gardens are worth seeing. Here’s another gratuitous photo of me in Marrakesh.)
Yawn. This show is super boring at times. This episode is about a Marrakesh vacation gone wrong; why is it so slow! Julia Garner is doing her damndest with what she had to work with but there’s really not much there.
I’m uncomfortable with the image of the Moroccan hotel employees yelling at the white girls and that is ostensibly why Rachel hands over her credit card???
Could this have been an “American Crime Story” season? Because I think this would have been much better in Ryan Murphy’s hands.
Episode 7: RACHEL
Wow, I couldn’t care less about Vivian’s baby.
After seeing her “reporting” process, are we to believe Vivian wrote the lede to this article right off the bat, no editing required?
I am not a Rachel apologist, but why shouldn’t she be able to make money off of her story? She is clearly being portrayed as villain here because of Anna and Neff’s involvement in this show. Is this some revenge plot on Jessica Pressler’s part after Rachel scooped her?
How did Neff just walk into the NYMag offices????
The way my eyes ROLLED when Vivian limped out of the NYMag offices in labor with everyone clapping.
My boyfriend can attest to me being intense to watch TV with—I generally need to hear every line and rewind all the time if I miss something. But I actually fast forwarded through the birth scene. I just. do. not. care.
Episode 8: ANNA
Maybe this episode will be interesting as people react to the article.
“(Anna) needs to invest in a deep conditioner” YES FINALLY. And it needs to be said—Julia Garner’s hair mostly looked nice throughout the series. This is some revisionist hair history and I will not stand for it. IRL Anna’s hair was not as nice.
Anna clearly wants to be portrayed as a mysterious person, but (as a jury confirmed), she’s just a scammer.
This episode centers on “Anna?” Are we finally getting into her psyche???? (Doubtful.)
Vivan, upon seeing the reaction to her article: “(Anna’s) not a take, she’s not a meme…everyone missed the real story.” She says it’s about “identity under capitalism.” No, Anna is just a scammer, and not a very good one.
I know they’re trying to make Rachel look bad when she’s demanding the DA arrest Anna (“I have murderers on my docket, I don’t care about your vacation money”) but tbh it’s all relative and if I was scammed out of 62 grand, I would be pretty fucking upset and crying all the time too.
Vivian: “(Anna’s) not a sociopath.” WE GET IT. Anna was involved in this show.
OK, an Anna flashback…this is what we’ve been waiting for !!! Except at this point, I trust basically nothing from this show because I think it’s safe to assume Anna is a liar with an agenda.
I got curious as to where Eschweiler is in Germany. After some light googling, I have questions. Why did Vivian fly to Berlin and not Frankfurt—the latter is MUCH closer to Eschweiler (like, four hours closer via train), and is a major airline hub. See below. The bottom of the red line is Frankfurt, and the far left of the blue line is Eschweiler. And there is Berlin, alllllllll the way to the east.
Is this entire episode going to try to convince us that Anna is legit?????
Yes, everyone’s hair always looks this good when they’re on a 5150 psychiatric hold.
Julia Garner’s talents are wasted on this show.
They are making Vivian look like a terrible journalist, which is odd considering Jessica Pressler was involved in this show. It took her ages to realize Anna didn’t actually try to commit suicide, and she was basically on a mission to find some juicy family backstory in Germany and continuing to somewhat defend Anna.
I can’t believe there’s an entire other episode of this nonsense.
EPISODE 9: TODD (STEWY)
Why is this episode the same length as a ’90s rom com? I have a life! (…do I, though?)
I’ll give Anna this—girl understands a fashion branding moment.
Todd’s wife: “I want this trial behind us.” We all do, Mags. We all do.
Vivian doesn’t want to go buy Anna new clothes because it’s unethical as a journalist. Never mind the fact that she has already crossed a few journalistic lines throughout this show.
Stewy’s opening statement is great.
Vivian takes a photo for Neff in the courtroom. How are those journalism ethics treating you now, Viv?
RACHEL’s OMBRÉ. Honestly, I’m offended for her.
I don’t know if Rachel’s testimony is intended to make us dislike her, but as someone who has been severely gaslit and had money stolen from them by someone I trusted, I do empathize. And frankly, I can relate to needing to write the story of someone betraying you to make sense of what happened. (If only I had made $600 grand from my story.) (The actress is getting hammy with the tears though.)
Vivian is laughing and rolling her eyes at Rachel’s testimony—way to stay impartial, lady.
Todd’s paralegal (partner?) just happens to speak Russian? Convenient.
Wouldn’t Anna be found in contempt for not appearing due to “wardrobe issues”? (There’s a chance I’ve watched too many episodes of “The Good Wife.”)
Finally someone yells at this bitch the way she deserves. Go, Stewy!
What is the timeline of this show? I thought Rachel’s Vanity Fair article came out before Anna was arrested. I am very confused.
Suggesting that people can’t profit off of their trauma is a bit rich. We wouldn’t have any songs or novels or art. We wouldn’t have “Lemonade”!
Kacy is flaky as hell. Pick a side or stay home!
Vivian and Todd are toasting to Todd’s cross-examination of Rachel—continuing to stay very, very objective here.
Everyone is falling all over themselves to praise Anna for the genius decision to wear “white for closing arguments.” It’s not genius.
Why are all of these ostensibly objective journalists (the “Scriberia” Boomers) cheering for non-guilty verdicts? What am I missing? I mourn the loss of real journalism.
If we can watch an entire trial in one 44-min episode of “The Good Wife,” this episode could have easily been cut in half.
Vivian: “I care about her…more than I should.” Yeah, we know. You’ve been on her side throughout the entire fucking trial.
Wait…did IRL Neff direct any episodes of this show???????? My god. After some light research, I found that Neff did consult on “Inventing Anna” and now works in LA. Shonda bought her life rights. So she ALSO profited off of her relationship with Anna. i.e., Rachel isn’t the only person who did, yet she is the one who was villainized for it in this show.
OK so IRL Rachel’s hair did NOT look this bad. Thank god. They really did her dirty with that ombre.
Series MVPs:
Shonda, for taking the money and running.
Netflix, for tricking us all into watching this.
My boyfriend, for watching the trailer and then opting out of watching it with me.
Final Thoughts:
The streaming era has many benefits—the rebirth of the modern romcom and the space to tell more diverse stories, to name a few. But it also has one major downside: shows and movies can now be any length. As recently as 10 years ago, “prestige dramas” were typically comprised of a tight 12-episode season, each episode 44 minutes in length (due to commercials). (Think “Breaking Bad” and “Mad Men.”) The ability for shows to be any number of any episodes of any length has created a monster of sorts. Scenes that used to end up on the cutting room floor can now be included. And I hate it. Not everything needs to be so goddamn drawn out. Give me a tight script and let me move on with my life!
(I realize the irony of me saying this when I’ve written just over 3,000 words about a show I mostly hate-watched. I have never claimed to be succinct. It’s part of my charm.)
As always, I would love your thoughts and comments on this show!
I held off on reading this for a while, thinking I might continue on with this show. But after weeks of not picking it back up, it’s clearly not happening. Thanks for reaffirming that decision! There is too much good content out there.