I had high hopes for "Inventing Anna." I read the original magazine stories about Anna Sorokin/Delvey in both "Vanity Fair" and "New York," the latter which served as the basis for this series, except for the clearly fabricated or heavily embellished parts. The writing is about as subtle as a claw hammer slammed into drywall, and most of the acting is just as over-the-top awful, especially Anna Chlumsky as reporter Vivian Kent.
Julia Garner is fine as the title character, a shameless young con artist who ripped off several young Manhattan residents, restaurants, shops and ritzy hotels in her quest to live the good life as a faux heiress/art entrepreneur. I assume her weird accent mimics that of the real Anna and underscores how completely stupid so many of these NYC sophisticates were to fall for her snooty-tooty act. She looks like Anna as well.
Chlumsky not only overacts, she resorts to facial contortions and histrionics that make her actively unlikable. I found myself hating Vivian, who is the central character of the series more than Anna. She's awful to her sensitive husband, who is admittedly a wimpy schlump. She makes loud proclamations about "deserving" a great journalistic career, although she's clearly a lazy, short-sighted and even possibly unethical reporter.
I agree with other reviewers that "Inventing Anna" is way too long for such a slight story, and lazily delves into political, "woke" dialogue to make some sort of point about...what exactly? I guess this series was meant to be a soap opera about greed and materialism? I have watched soap operas that had far superior writing and acting. If it was more camp, it might have worked better.
I think "Inventing Anna" would have been better if it had told the story from the perspective of Rachel and the other victims, not Vivian Kent, the reporter. One could have some sympathy for them, but not for Vivian, who is just as grasping and entitled as her interview subject.
