Netflix’s latest documentaryThe Tinder Swindlerhas scored gangbusters ratings for the streamer since premiering on the service on February 2. The documentary details the actions of a conman who used Tinder as a way to extort money from his unsuspecting victims. Netflix reports that approximately 45.8 million households checked the documentary out, revealing that there’s certainly an appetite for content about con artists in today’s entertainment scope. No one knows this better than Netflix itself which has done quite well with con artists through shows likeLupinandMoney Heistand films likeArmy of Thieveswhere such characters are leads. But more than simply providing good blockbuster heist flicks and shows, there seems to be an interest in the people behind the deception itself.
Films based on real-life con people have done surprisingly well. 1973’sThe Stingis one of the highest-grossing films in the US once adjusted for inflation, with a story inspired by con men Charley and Fred Gondorff. Who doesn’t remember the 2002Leonardo DiCaprio-Tom HankscaperCatch Me If You Canabout real-life felon Frank Abagnale? The movie did more than $350 million on its $50 million dollar budget. 2015’sAmerican Hustlealso did decently in theaters, with its starry cast and a plot based on FBI’s Abscam operation to roundup con artists in 70s and 80s, luring people into multiplexes. More recently,Jennifer Lopez’s crime dramaHustlersdefied odds and played well critically and commercially, even as mid-budget films continue to fail at the box office. Suffice it to say Hollywood is well aware of the enduring appeal of the grifter.
TV series have not been far off, especially recently, with true crime cases being adapted from articles and podcasts. American journalistChristopher Goffard’s podcastDirty John(based on the life of con man John Meehan who hid his life of crime from multiple women) was adapted into a series of the same name to a positive reception. Even more recentlyJessics Pressler’sNew Yorkerarticle“How Anna Delvey Tricked New York’s Party People” was adapted into a Netflix seriesInventing Anna, based on the life of con woman Anna Sorokin.Elizabeth Holmeswho duped Silicon Valley into believing that her company had revolutionized blood sampling will be the focus of her own series, calledThe Dropoutcoming soon on Hulu as well as a feature film in development. It’s no surprise that networks are taking note of this interest in criminal figures by adapting books likeCaroline Kepnes’YOUor the upcoming Showtime seriesRipleybased on the popularThe Talented Mr. Ripley.
RELATED:7 Shows Like ‘Inventing Anna’ For More Con Artists and Millionaire Schemes
The voracious appetite for the cons, as well as the lives of these colorful characters, has inspired a slew of documentaries.The Tinder Swindler, a story of an Israeli con man entrapping multiple women into relationships where he abused their trust, and the three-part docuseriesThe Puppet Master: Hunting The Ultimate Conmanabout a manipulative British con man manipulating everyone around him for his own gain, all seem to be good examples of this trend. In a world where social media connectivity and influencers remain at large, Ordinary Joes committing extraordinary acts seem to have become of particular interest to the masses. The nexus between such criminal behavior and more tame acts of duplicity is also beguiling. Stories of online manipulation and catfishing have become a genre of their own, inspiring reality series like MTV’sCatfish: The TV Showabout people on the internet pretending to be othersor Netflix’sThe Circlewhere reality contestants duke it out to be the most socially likable version of themselves on screen, even if that means inventing new personas.
As the success of countless films and series have proved, audiences are deeply intrigued by the lifestyle of those skirting the law. In such fare, there is an added layer of the victims of the deception typically belonging to the upper echelon of society and being more removed from the regular viewer, making the conman an enthralling figure that inadvertently exposes the hypocrisy of social classes. Psychologist Maria Konnikova has stated that the reason for our fascination with such criminals is rooted in the fact that these acts are not outwardly violent, usually relying on the con artist’s wit to outsmart those around him, with their victims often being an untouchable segment of society. This explains why the showrunners behind Netflix’sInventing Annahave underpinned Anna Delvey, presenting a girl boss version of her who deserves our respect for fooling the 1 percent.
However, whereInventing Annafails, andThe Tinder Swindlersucceeds is in highlighting that most people that are targeted by con artists in real life are the working class, regular people, who are irrevocably hurt and financially ruined by their simple acts of faith in another human. Catfishing in particular is a crime that occurs more to regular people those who amass great wealth and power, and is pretty much the easiest con for anyone to pull thanks to the proliferation of dating apps and social media users.
Meanwhile, others have pinned our attraction to such figures on their larger-than-life charisma and charm that differentiates them from others and allows them to get away with their actions. It helps that Hollywood has spent decades packaging con men as figures worthy of our awe. If lovable actors likeRyan Reynolds(Red Notice) andAnne Hathaway(The Hustle) are the faces of them, then it is understandable why the public continues to be more enthralled than repulsed by frequent tales of such egregious individuals. Despite the mountain of evidence presented against him inThe Tinder Swindlerand a plethora of research-backed articles, the man at the heart of the documentary Simon Leviev, has gone on to profit from the fame he’s gotten through the documentary, currently enjoying a fan following and even charging for services on Cameo before he plans to make his Hollywood debut.
This underlines the relative ease with which viewers themselves are able to permit the crimes of con men today, especially if their outward appearance is non-threatening. Individuals that possess conventional standards of beauty, are able to come across as more sympathetic and escape sentences more than people considered non-attractive even in the court of law. So it stands to reason that this very attribute plays a role in how audiences themselves standby guilty parties when viewing content. Superficial attributes play a role in them being objects of affection even after records of their crimes are readily available for perusal. Of course, this is even easier to swallow when presented with a fictional character and scenario, or framing the crime in such a way as to give the audience an incentive to root for the perpetrator of the crime, as is the case with on-screen serialized and filmed content.
All of this is particularly troubling because making con artists seem heroic and intelligent can come at the expense of dehumanizing victims. Stories about wealth inequality have continued to strike a chord with people through content likeParasiteandSquid Game, which preface the nauseating opulence of the rich with the dire struggles of the common man today. It is perhaps narratives such as these that allow us to dismiss the harm real perpetrators of injustice do on others either by framing the con as a form of Robin Hood machination or by making the victim unsympathetic. Often this is done to make the viewer feed into the idea that the criminal is some kind of mastermind. Ultimately it is up to the viewers, to recognize the harm of such adaptations as well as of the writers to not malign real-life victims.
With true-crime stories looming large over the cultural zeitgeist, and events like CrimeCon gaining more attention, we’re not likely to stop seeing both real and fictional con artists on our screen sometime soon. The question that remains though is an age-old conundrum. Are we servicing real-life criminals through artful depictions on screen? Or is this all just escapist entertainment that we need not worry about?
