I'm not sure how many have seen this Netflix limited series from Shonda Rhimes, but I devoured the whole thing over a few days last week and I have a couple of big questions.
The story is a take on the real Anna Sorokin/Delvey who inveigled her way into New York's high society between 2013 and 2017. I came into it cold, knowing nothing about the woman, or what had happened to her in real life. The series is structured in that way that everything seems to be these days - with two separate timelines. The present(ish) day where Anna Chlumsky's Vivian Kent is trying to write Anna's story for "Manhattan" magazine (more on that in a minute), and then we go back in time to see what Anna was doing. The story unravels over a slightly too long nine episodes, and at first it did feel that if you didn't know who Anna was, the show wasn't going to explain that to you. In other words, the first episode was slightly jarring and I was left feeling I'd need to Google the characters to get caught up. But then I'd find out what happened and that'd spoil the series. Things improved, but the show has made some very odd decisions. At the start of each episode they say that the story is true aside from the bits they completely made up. Of course, as viewers, we don't know which bits are true and which are dramatic licence. We do know that "Vivian Kent" and "Manhattan" magazine were, in reality, Jessica Pressler and New York magazine. "Manhattan" magazine shares "New York" magazine's typeset masthead. But by fictionalising the reporter, who we are supposed to care most about, they then run into some seriously unethical areas. When Anna gets a plea deal, everyone is in no doubt that she should take it, but the "Kent" knows that it'd be better for her if she went to trial. So she basically works with the defence and persuades Anna that she should go to trial. (Her defence lawyer similarly wants the fame that a trial would get even if her client might be better off with the plea). I've no idea what happened in reality, but the reporter getting involved like this would surely be a career killer at any proper journalistic organisation. Indeed, the backstory of "Kent"'s character is about something she'd done at Bloomberg that completely derailed her career. Then we follow "Kent" going around to see the various people who Anna was involved in and trying to get them to talk. She does this with great gusto, but often falls back on the line that she won't put their name in the story but call them something slightly vague. Except that the things she's calling them are so specific, everyone would be Google-able in about five minutes. Now I like Anna Chlumsky from Veep, but here she's going off the rails big time, gurning the whole way through. She's pregnant (which I think the real reporter was), but it takes over her story to such a large extent, that it becomes tedious. A lot has been written of Julia Garner's Delvey/Sorokin and in particular her accent which is truly something. But I actually found Chlumsky's character more distracting. Garner portray's her character in a way that you can see how sheer self-belief allowed her to carry off what she did. Can I recommend this? No. Did I devour it? Absolutely, despite being way too long. But there's plenty for a journalism ethics class to take apart in this. At least from this side of the Atlantic. Adam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGBijSxM60z8L1KKYz8t-ipGYpYZZ7_hOJ-37djwkDVPKw%40mail.gmail.com.
