THE first time I posted about the Netflix miniseries Inventing Anna on my Instagram Stories, I was shocked to learn that there were “Inventing Anna” apologists.
These apologists, some of whom were strangers, reached out to me after my post, which stated that I couldn’t understand the need to immortalize Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin. It wasn’t that they were defending Shonda Rhimes and the artistic freedom which she exercised in making this miniseries starring Julie Garner. I would have understood that.
But what they are defending is the idea of Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin as an heiress and a so-called Robin Hood figure. I said that I didn’t see her as a modern Robin Hood because while she was generous to those around her, she didn’t really feed the hungry or pay someone’s rent. She didn’t finance the building of an orphanage or even volunteer in soup chickens.
She wasn’t even after fame, as the show implied. What I saw was someone in survival mode. She certainly wasn’t a Robin Hood type. Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin did what she did for money, as most of us do who clock in punishing work hours. She didn’t even swindle a large amount of money that would be worthy of a miniseries.
According to reports, Delvey/Sorokin swindled people and institutions out of about $250,000. By Western fraud standards, that’s like chump change. Yes, she got to stay at posh hotels and enjoy sumptuous meals at the expense of others, but other convicted fraudsters got away with so much more money. Delvey/Sorokin is in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for overstaying her visa.
Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin, to me, appeals to a certain segment of society, that segment that is easily impressed by material possessions. People worship a certain public figure not because of what they have done but because of what brands of bags and shoes they own. Anyway, this is not a commentary on society and its ills but a review of the Inventing Anna miniseries. It was boring, in my opinion, and the storytelling was predictable. And what’s with the role of the journalist played by Anna Chlumsky? Vivian Kent, the fictional stand-in for New York Magazine’s Jessica Pressler, was probably the most annoying character in that show. Her characterization was so bad that she made Delvey/Sorokin look good.
Another Netflix show that is a sign of the times is the Netflix documentary The Tinder Swindler. This is the story of a man who allegedly lured women with private jets, yachts and cars. After he had their love, Simon Hayut/Simon Leviev, who allegedly pretended to be son of a billionaire jeweler, was said to have borrowed money from these women amounting to almost half a million dollars.
At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, what happened to these woman and Hayut/Leviev would by and large never have occurred in the past because men and women met in the old-school way, through mutual friends or in bars. They didn’t swipe away to find the love of their lives.
There were many parts of the documentary where I literally screamed, “Don’t do it!” But I was also young once so I will not judge the alleged victims. What I will judge is the way people put so much premium on what labels people are wearing.
To me, one of the best parts about The Tinder Swindler was when one of the alleged victims of Hayut/Leviev took all his designer clothes and sold them. To someone like me, an ordinary person, those clothes represent money that can be used to pay bills. To some people, designer clothing is like an armor that presents them to the world as rich, privileged and worthy of trust.
In the old days, men who were after the money of women they had relationships with were called “gigolos.” These days, they are called “men who live lavish lifestyles.”