When the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial was going on last year, I actively tried not to pay attention. Abuse and domestic violence are rough things to hear about in the best of times, and both Heard and Depp seemed like damaged people going through a complicated legal battle that was none of my business. I expected to hear about it somewhat, because I travel in pop culture-focused circles online, and opinions are like buttholes. Everybody has one.
What I didn’t expect was the complete inability to escape it. I was hearing about the case everywhere, and from people who, up until that point, had never expressed a particular interest in either actor. Suddenly, people were “legal experts” engaging in a running commentary on this sad, disturbing trial. I never chose to watch any of the videos related to the trial on purpose, but there were eventually so many in my feeds that I got snippets of the drama through osmosis.
Netflix’s Depp v. Heard is the first time I saw the court footage free of edits made by social media creators. If this three-episode docuseries has any value at all, it’s that it allows viewers to see the footage plainly, without filtering it through the prism of some random vlogger’s perspective.
Social Media Creators v. Propriety
While Netflix advertises the docuseries presenting “both testimonies side-by-side for the first time” as a selling point, Depp v. Heard isn’t actually about the case itself. Director Emma Cooper’s interest is primarily in the social media response to the case, and how it not only affected this and future court cases, but also the real world, in a way that makes me feel sad for humanity.
Watching Depp v. Heard, I became genuinely disgusted by all the footage of YouTubers and TikTokers, many of whom once created content about all sorts of things, suddenly becoming entirely devoted to this case. Many of them used their content about the case to get folks to donate to their channels and “hit that subscribe button!” I was disgusted by the actual lawyers vlogging about the Depp v. Heard case with the glibness of morning show hosts to boost their professional social media presences under the guise of “legal expertise,” and treating the case like a pop culture event. Content creators made millions of dollars capitalizing on a defamation case that centered accusations and descriptions of abuse.
Even more disgusting was the sexist nature of that content. Creators of all genders directed all of their vitriol at Heard, reserving nothing but praise and understanding for Depp while insisting it had nothing to do with Depp being a man, and everything to do with Heard being a lying liar who lies.
The lack of self-awareness among these content creators is stunning. The docuseries shows Heard and Depp’s testimonies side by side along with commentary from these content creators, making it crystal clear that they held Heard and Depp to completely different standards—which had nothing to do with actual facts.
Watching the footage of Heard and Depp leaving the courtroom each day was disturbing, too. As if waiting for a concert or a sporting event, Depp’s fans gathered outside the courtroom each day to cheer for him as he’d arrive and depart, holding up signs to show their support. Those same fans booed and hurled insults at Heard as she entered and exited the courtroom. Every single day. Then those same people would go online and comment about Heard’s “dour” face.
You’d have a dour face, too, if people made publicly booing you into a community activity.
The element Depp v. Heard leaves unexplored
One of the fans whose footage was used in Depp v. Heard mentions in passing that, while legitimate news outlets were restricted to space across the street from the courthouse, fans were allowed to gather on the lawn right in front of the doors.
I’ll say that again: Legitimate news outlets were made to stand across the street from the courthouse. Fans were given closer proximity to the plaintiff and the defendant.
It was Depp’s legal team that requested that cameras be allowed at the trial. Virginia has strict defamation laws, which is why Depp’s team chose to have the trial there despite neither party having any connection to the state. In Virginia, it’s the judge’s prerogative to allow cameras in the courtroom or not. This could’ve so easily not been a sh*tshow had Judge Penney Azcarate not been swayed by glamorous Hollywood-types and denied Depp’s legal team’s request.
While I was disgusted by social media creators and fans treating the trial like entertainment, legal institutions being influenced by celebrity attention made me furious. However, Depp v. Heard doesn’t really get into that, which is a shame. Instead, the docuseries goes all in on the general public’s response to the trial, ignoring the fact that this circuit court in Virginia was so aflutter over the prospect of having Depp in their courtroom and screaming fans outside that they forgot about the enormity of their responsibility.
The sh*tshow continues
Despite the trial being over, the circus continues to this day. There’s a docuseries, after all—one whose very existence prompted its woman director to receive hate mail before anyone had even seen it.
Depp v. Heard goes into the trial’s aftermath, specifically the public response to Heard over an interview she gave post-trial. Again, vitriol was thrown at Heard at a level that Depp never received, even when his fans got a bit of comeuppance.
In an effort to have more ammunition with which to smear Heard, a lawyer and Johnny Depp fan crowdfunded the money to unseal evidence that wasn’t admitted during the trial. What fans got instead was evidence that implicates Depp in many of the abusive acts Heard testified about. It turns out she wasn’t lying. Yet the sexist double standard that led fans to place a such a high burden of proof on Heard suddenly disappears when evidence makes Depp look bad.
Meanwhile, as Heard continued to be called every sexist slur in the book, pro-Depp vlogger Andy Signore said in Depp v. Heard that the vitriol was understandable “because [Heard’s] a liar, and people are angry.” People believe she lied, and those lies might have “ruined an actor’s career.” Yes, that totally warrants the death threats, hate speech, and rape fantasies.
All for an actor who played a pirate that people liked and presents like a drunk, lecherous, mumblecore hobo most of the time. He’s so credible? And yes, I reserve the right to throw one angry, superficial insult Depp’s way. Considering what Heard has been subjected to, this is nothing. And unlike the Depp fans spotlighted in the docuseries, I’m under no illusions that he knows or cares who I am, or will be impacted by my support, or lack of it, in any way.
As much as we throw around the phrase “The Court of Public Opinion,” we need to remember that it’s not an actual court. What fans think about a case like this doesn’t matter. People will always have their opinions, of course, but during this trial those opinions were given a weight they didn’t deserve by social media algorithms that manufacture engagement, and social media users more concerned with monetizing their content than with being decent, thoughtful human beings.
I’m generally a fan of well-researched true crime documentaries and docuseries, but Depp v. Heard isn’t about true crime. It’s about the true cynicism and apathy of which human beings are capable, and it is a nauseating watch. Depp v. Heard attempts to hold a mirror up to society, showing how dangerous it can be to glibly consume other people’s lives as social media content.
Sadly, the people who need this mirror held up to them the most are likely going to miss the point entirely.
Depp v. Heard is available now, exclusively on Netflix.
(featured image: Netflix)
