Opinion: I mean, would you want Anna Delvey as a member of your club?

Netflix is flexing hard with the con artists of late, from The Puppet Master to The Tinder Swindler, and now with Inventing Anna, Shonda Rhimes’ soapy-drama take on fake German heiress Anna Delvey. For anyone who didn’t have the pleasure of reading Jessica Pressler’s jaw-dropping article for The Cut in 2018, then I highly recommend doing so before embarking on a binge-watch of the nine-part dramatisation, which documents the rise and fall of this high society grifter. 
 
The long-read is a far more reliable telling of Delvey’s – real name Anna Sorokin – story than the one Rhimes has served up. With Pressler’s piece as a launching pad, the series uses her months-long reporting on the fraudster as a framing device to understand just how this Russian-born German immigrant, played by Julia Garner, was able to con her way into the upper echelons of Manhattan society, convince people she was a billionaire heiress and still get them to foot the bill for her lavish lifestyle. The ‘Eat the Rich’ side of me was certainly amused at Anna’s ability to navigate this overprivileged world with somewhat ruthless disdain and superiority. You’ve got to love her handling of a spoiled rich trophy girlfriend’s suggestion that she was rejected as a member for Soho House in the second episode. ‘I’d rather hang out at a McDonald’s or start my own club and reject their members,’ Delvey chuckles indifferently, with her art collector pal replying, ‘You should, they let far too many members in now,’ (only week three of this column and already it’s gone meta).

Whatever, Delvey. Look: as much as I lack empathy for the super-wealthy people and overpriced institutions Delvey managed to swindle, her overly sympathetic portrayal still rankles me. It’s not like she was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor – in fact, she was stealing money to fund a project for the super-rich specifically to enjoy, and the series frequently shows her open disregard for most people in the service industry. This screen-Delvey also has no qualms in dishing out racist remarks when her cover is being blown, as witnessed in a later episode when she calls Morocco a ‘dirty country’ after management at Marrakesh hotel La Mamounia requests a valid payment card for her stay. I can excuse grand larceny, but I draw the line at North African xenophobia.  
 
Delvey was clearly a piece of work – and yet Inventing Anna seems to excuse her entitled and criminal behaviour, framing her as a poor little faux-rich girl who’s just trying to achieve the American Dream, living the ‘fake it ’til you make it’ grind. Plenty of immigrants get the job done without the need to scam money for Celine glasses and $400-a-night stays in luxury hotel suites.

Clearly, the writers were trying to explore themes of capitalism, class and privilege, but Inventing Anna is not a well-plotted map into that conversation – especially when it boasts at the beginning of each episode, ‘This whole story is completely true. Except for all of the parts that are totally made up.’ That statement is probably not cute to the real people whose names haven’t been changed for the purpose of this highly fictionalised account, like Vanity Fair editor Rachel DeLoache Williams. If Delvey is the show’s antihero, then Williams is its villain, even though her former friend’s lies landed her with a $62,000 credit card bill that she couldn’t afford. There’s nothing like dragging an innocent woman’s reputation through the mud to make the guilty, titular party look like the victim instead.

One thing’s for sure: Inventing Anna proves Anna Delvey isn’t alone in inventing a version of herself for financial profit. I can only hope viewers go back to the original, fact-checked reporting for an equally sensational, more accurate depiction of this fake heiress’ misadventures.

Prince Andrew

In the latest excuse for the abolition of the British monarchy, Prince ‘I’ve never sweat a day in my life’ Andrew has paid an out-of-court settlement to Virginia Giuffre, the woman alleging she was forced to have sex with the Royal three times, aged 17, at the order of his late paedophile pal, Jeffrey Epstein. 
 
The payout is no small fee: according to reports, someone is shelling out around £12m to the sexual assault survivor to keep the case from going to a public trial. In a joint statement to the court, the Duke of Yuck says he ‘pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims’.
 
I have so many thoughts. Like, where’s that money coming from? Couldn’t be Andrew (the man’s only income is thought to be a Navy pension), so you just know his Royal mummy is going to open her Privy purse and foot some of the bill. Will the Queen be forced to sell off some land or are they hoping to siphon a little bit of taxpayer funding? Looking forward to some proper transparency over this saga, because paying £12m out to a woman accusing you of rape, whom you claimed you have ‘no recollection’ of ever meeting, seems a little steep for an innocent man.