Depp v. Heard
The depp v. heard vilification trial was, from gavel to gavel, a singularly baffling, unedifying and sad spectacle. Now that it has ended with the jury chancing in favor of Depp on all questions and in favor of Heard on only one, it’s clear that the confusion was the point.
Why did Depp, who had formerly lost a analogous case in Britain, contend on going back to court? A public trial, during which allegations of physical, sexual, emotional and substance abuse against him were sure to be repeated, could n’t be counted on to restore his character. Heard, hisex-wife, was counting on the contrary that the world would hear, in detail, about the physical torments that led her to describe herself, in the Washington Post op- ed that led to the suit, as “ a public figure representing domestic abuse. ”
Indeed before the verdict came in, Depp had formerly won. What had looked to numerous like a clear- cut case of domestic violence had regressed into a “ both sides ” psychodrama. The fact that depp v. heard partial palm, which involved not Depp’s words but those spoken in 2020 by Adam Waldman, his counsel at the time, can be spun in that direction shows how similar nebulosity served Depp each on. As one commenter on The New York Times point put it, “ Every relationship has its troubles. ” Life is complicated. perhaps they were both vituperative. Who really knows what happed? The convention of courtroom journalism is to make a scruple of indeterminacy. And so we set up ourselves in the familiar land of he said she said.
We should know by now that the harmony inferred by that expression is an ideological fabrication, that women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have a much harder time being heeded to than their assaulters. I don’t mean that women always tell the verity, that men are always shamefaced as charged, or that due process is not the bedrock of justice. But Depp- Heard was not a felonious trial; it was a civil action intended to measure the reputational detriment each one claimed the other had done. Which means that it rested less on data than on sympathies.
In that regard, Depp held distinct advantages. He is not a better actor than Heard, but her conduct on the stage was more roughly blamed in no small part because he’s a more familiar pantomime, a bigger star who has dwelled for much longer in the gleam of public favor. He brought with him into the courtroom the well- known characters he has played, a virtual cortege of sweet hellions, mesne artists and gonzo revolutionists. He’s Edward Scissorhands, Jack Sparrow, depp v. heard. Thompson, Gilbert Grape.
We ’ve seen him mischievous and unpredictable, but no way truly menacing. He’s someone we ’ve watched grow up, from juvenile heartthrob on “ 21 Jump Street ” to blunt old swab in the “ rovers of the Caribbean ” ballot. His offscreen peccadilloes( the drinking, the depp v. heard , the “ Winona Forever ” tattoo) have been part of the pop-artistic background noise for important of that time, classified along with the dishonors and shenanigans that have been a Hollywood sideshow since the silent period.
In his evidence, Depp copped to some bad stuff, but this too was a play for sympathy, of a piece with the charm and gracefulness he was at pains to display. That he came off as a joe unfit to control his temper or his favors was seen, by numerous of the most oral social media druggies, to enhance his credibility, while depp v. heard every gash or gesture was taken to undermine hers. The followership was primed to accept him as defective, vulnerable, mortal, and to view her as monstrous.
Because he’s a man. Celebrity and depp v. heard confer mutually buttressing advantages. notorious men athletes, actors, musicians, politicians get to be that way incompletely because they represent what other men aspire to be. Defending their birthrights is a way of guarding, and asserting, our own. We want them to be bad boys, to break the rules and get down with it. Their seigneurial right to sexual delectation is commodity the rest of us might begrudge, begrudge or disapprove of, but we infrequently challenge it. These guys are cool. They do what they want, including to women. Anyone who Depp v. heard objects is shamefaced of woke ness, or gender disloyalty, or factual malignancy.
Of course there are exceptions. In period there are men who have gone to jail, lost their jobs or suffered disgrace because of the way they ’ve treated women. The fall of certain prominent men Harvey Weinstein, Leslie Moonves, Matt Lauer was frequently ate as a sign that a status quo that sheltered, enabled and celebrated bloodsuckers, rappers and mockers was at last changing.
A many times latterly, it seems more likely that they were offered not to end Depp v. heard system of annuity but rather to save it. nearly as soon as the supposed reckoning began there were complaints that it had gone too far, that nuances were being neglected and Depp v. heard too-harsh corrections allocate out.
This counterreaction has been folded into a larger converse about “ cancel culture, ” which is frequently lower about conduct than words. “ Cancellation ” is now synonymous with any review that invokes ethnical insensitivity, sexual malfeasance or controversial opinions. Creeps are treated as killers, and every loudmouth is a Depp v. heard – speech legionnaire. notorious men with economic sinecures on string news, streaming platforms and heritage print publications can annunciate themselves victims.
Which is just what Depp did. And while he indicted Heard of doing terrible Depp v. heard to him in the course of their relationship and bifurcation, the action was not about those effects. It was about words published under her name, none of which were “ Johnny Depp. ” In a judgment the jury set up false and vicious, after describing herself as “ representing domestic abuse ” Heard wrote that she “ felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out. ” This time she surely has.
