Netflix’s Depp V. Heard is a wasted opportunity
The docuseries is so obsessed with staying neutral that it fails to really say anything
TV Features Depp v. Heard
It’s been 14 months since the divisive defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was controversially broadcast live on TV, TikTok, and YouTube for the world to salivate over. Fourteen months, too, since the jury ruled in favor of The Pirates Of The Caribbean star—despite a U.K. judge previously finding that Depp had abused Heard on at least 12 occasions. Fourteen months since a video of Heard, in which she spoke about the physical abuse that she had gone through in her marriage, started trending on social media as TikTok users recreated it in a bid for laughs. And 14 months since the world was left wondering what the shocking events surrounding this trial truly means for high-profile court cases going forward.
Is it any wonder, then, that Netflix has already rolled out a new docuseries about it all?
On paper, Depp V. Heard has serious potential: Ahead of its streaming premiere, BAFTA-nominated director Emma Cooper promised to eschew the drama (and the trial’s more disturbing revelations) to instead delve deep into the incredible, often horrible reaction of all those people who viewed the tumultuous defamation trial online, turning her camera lens squarely on us in the process.
“As I started to look at the noise on social [from the trial], I thought there were very, very many opinions about the material,” Cooper told Netflix’s You Can’t Make This Up podcast. “I found it really compelling that we could all watch the same thing and have completely different responses and opinions to the evidence that was being put forward. There are many ways of looking at truth in a society.” Further musing on the concept of truth, Cooper added that “it’s a curious element of the human mind and brain that we observe the same scenarios differently, and have different perspectives.” She continued, “I simply wanted to put forward that these two people passionately believed their own truths, but those truths were not interlocking.”
No fresh insight, no new information
It’s an interesting idea, especially since finding a way to take a truly neutral stance on one of the most divisive courtroom dramas in recent times is no small feat. (This writer found writing this article a headache, so a three-hour docuseries must be one hell of a cluster migraine.) Still, Depp V. Heard becomes so obsessed with its idea of neutrality—with avoiding being drawn into either side of the debate—that it fails to really say anything.
Using social-media responses from the trial, along with pool footage of courtroom testimony, the series doesn’t take advantage of the (sorry to bring this up again) 14 months that have passed since the trial. Captain Hindsight was clearly too busy fighting fires elsewhere to offer us some useful retrospection here. By which we mean that there are no talking heads, no experts, no freshly contributed voices or information. The aforementioned U.K. trial, which this media circus is inextricably linked to, is barely mentioned. And the social-media commentary that buzzed around the case like a swarm of angry bees? Well, Cooper acknowledges that it existed, of course. The director also suggests that there was more money involved in churning anti-Heard sentiment than there was with Depp—but the reasons for this aren’t discussed whatsoever in the docuseries.
It’s an overwhelming oversight, to be perfectly blunt. Especially as Bot Sentinel, a research firm that uses data science and artificial intelligence to detect and track bots, trolls, and suspect accounts on social media, last year published a report that claimed some 627 Twitter accounts were dedicated primarily to tweeting negatively about Heard and her supporters. Almost 3,300 accounts were tweeting the hashtags #AmberHeardIsAnAbuser, #AmberHeardLsAnAbuser, #AmberHeardIsALiar, and #AmberHeardLsALiar, with the misspellings perhaps intended to get around Twitter filters. (It’s important to note that while Heard’s legal team hired the company in 2020, Bot Sentinel says it wasn’t paid by anyone for the Heard research it did in June 2022 after a verdict was reached in the court case).
Does Netflix’s three-part docuseries explore these claims? No, although it does find time (one whole episode, in fact) to rehash the infamous “poop-in-the-bed” incident from the trial. Does it explore what drove this online discourse? No, although Depp and Heard’s gruesome recollections of that now-notorious sliced fingertip are painstakingly laid out side-by-side for all to see. Does it clarify any of the finer details around defamation law? Nope, although we get plenty of FaceTime with anonymous trolls in Deadpool masks and reenactments of ordinary people following the coverage at home. All of which are wonderfully produced, sure, but all of which are utterly pointless, too.
Angering both Depp and Heard supporters
We get it, of course: Cooper isn’t a journalist; she’s a filmmaker. Her aim isn’t to expose any new truths about the Depp V. Heard trial, but simply to hold up a mirror to the events and allow us to reflect upon them. Which means, yes, she winds up dazzling us with all those same impartialities of which we were already painfully aware. Because, as mentioned, the trial took place just over a year ago. It has dominated headlines and conversations ever since. And, ironically, Cooper’s delving into all of that social-media coverage earnestly points out that if there’s one thing we really didn’t need, it’s a documentary that aims solely to “show us both sides” of the testimony we’ve already heard.
Similarly, we absolutely don’t need to see a collection of tweets and TikTok videos about the trial. Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past few years will undoubtedly have been fed a steady stream of them through social-media algorithms anyway. All it serves to do is reduce this documentary to serve as a highlight reel from one of the biggest lowlights of last year. As a result, it’s royally pissed off everyone and no one somehow simultaneously: Depp supporters are fuming that it fails to address claims that Heard fabricated and “stole” her testimony from her assistant. Heard supporters, too, are upset that there is no scrutiny of the social-media trends against her.
All of these complaints are more than fair. Indeed, while the trial’s verdict is final and the case is resolved, it would have been interesting to examine what this case means for the #MeToo movement. It would have been useful, too, if it had delved into Heard’s allegations that Depp spearheaded the online hate campaign about her rather than waggle his metaphorical eyebrows and drop loaded hints about it. And it would have been far better to have at least some thoughtful analysis in the mix by, say, having legal experts explain what this particular case tells us about trials in the age of social media, or a charity spokesperson’s concerns about how all of the memes might have changed the public’s views of intimate-partner violence. It might be interesting to explore how the vitriolic debate on both sides has damaged friendships and relationships IRL or include a group of data scientists’ take on how online discourse can or cannot influence trial verdicts, or … well, anyone talking about anything, to be honest. We’d have even gone for a court reporter or two’s take on the whole “TikTok took our jobs!” dynamic.
Depp V. Heard is, we suppose, a good summary of the same events that basically anyone with a good internet connection is already aware of. It also, too, reminds us that Depp and Heard each had a different version of the events that led to that courtroom in the first place. But, to quote Community’s Britta, duh doy!
83 Comments
Saw the ad, looked like absolute trash.
“The docuseries is so obsessed with staying neutral that it fails to really say anything”Jesus, what a sad statement. Sums up modern “journalism” perfectly. Apparently, if something isn’t a hit piece or a puff piece, it’s worthless.
Being surprised that a Netflix documentary isn’t deep and journalistic? That’s where we are?
I watched it. I hadn’t followed the trial very closely, so it was illuminating.I was puzzled by one thing, though. Heard’s retelling of what caused the Australia fight didn’t make any sense to me.I’m guessing the documentary cut some vital part of her testimony for brevity, because going from “hey let’s do Molly” to a trashed house and a mutilated finger seems… bizarre.
watch the trial…it doesn’t make sense even there…you know why? because it never happened…she cut off that finger and to be able to trump that fact she came out with that crazy and shocking story to overwhelm the jury…listen to the audio from that night…she is crying,not because she was raped but because she felt guilty for cutting that finger and kept screaming “he needs me,he needs me…is he hurt?”
So, just so we’re clear, Heard cut off the tip of Depp’s finger, but then Depp told two different sets of doctors that he did it, and also scrawled a bunch of nonsense around the house in his own blood (the way assault victims are known to do)?
Well, good news on that front: Barney’s not gonna shoot her dogs. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/aug/23/australia-news-live-naplan-test-literacy-numeracy-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-date-referendum-anthony-albanese-peter-dutton
The Australia thing is that we have very strict biosecurity laws and by not declaring their dogs they bypassed a bunch of them. It’s the same reason Australia didn’t, initially, allow Katy Perry to release an album full of random plant seeds at first. I think in the end all the seeds had to be replaced with local fauna.
So you didn’t like the documentary because it didn’t regurgitate YOUR narrative of the events. Got it. Seems kind of disingenuous to criticize this documentary for retelling the facts of the case in a bid for views considering the AV Club did the same several times a day during the trial and is doing it yet again here.
Did this reviewer report on it though? Any big website/paper is composed of various people with differing conclusions on things. The AV Club isn’t a groupthink organization that makes the agenda & only pushes one side. They cover pop culture, and when that intersects with social issues, I’m betting there are many different voices & thoughts at the table. This was just hers.I loved the way the doc handled the information and was amused by their display of the cultural phenomenon around it, but I don’t need her to be an echo chamber to validate my opinions. Unless she starts talking how how good the “Josie & The Pussycats” movie is. I will accept that validation on all occasions.
I’m tired of neutrality being held up as some flawless ideal for all situations. Sometimes it’s OK, necessary even, to pick a goddamn side.
It’s also sort of the point of journalism, to assess the facts and provide an opinion. The media failed Heard. It’s not like neutrality is their typical MO. But in this case they were total cowards.
Heard blatantly lied on the stand. Provided the SAME PHOTO EVIDENCE FOR TWO DIFFERENT DAYS.Heard failed herself when she lied on the stand and got caught.
No she didn’t
Exactly. Fair reporting would report of the fact that amber was PROOVEN TO HAVE LIED AND FRAMED JOHNNY. if anything j think it would have been a better documentary to show how disgusting the warping of facts In the media was that now the general stance is that “they were both bad” rather than the levit verdict and evidence which shows amber is physically abusive and framed her victim and stole their story. Imo that’s a more interesting story anyway. Literal gone girl shit. Amber is a psychopath
Journalism NEVER PICKS A SIDE! There is NO OPINION in journalism. If there is opinion in the media you are consuming then you are watching propaganda.Real journalism provides FACTS ONLY and the AUDIENCE draws their own conclusions by creating THEIR OWN OPINIONS.
It’s also sort of the point of journalism, to assess the facts and provide an opinion.No, it isn’t. The point of journalism is to present the facts, not to opine on them. Opining on an issue is the job of commentators, hence their name, meaning “one who comments upon”. The media failed Heard.How? Much of the media supported Heard. The media vilified Depp for years, supporting Heard’s allegations. The problem is that Heard’s allegations are not supported by the evidence. They are, in fact, actively contradicted by the evidence. The problem with Heard’s allegations is that they were so transparently untrue that even a massive media gaslighting campaign could not convince anyone but the most credulous. And most people aren’t that gullible. It’s not like neutrality is their typical MO.Not anymore, no. That’s not an endorsement. That’s a condemnation. But in this case they were total cowards.Because some of them eventually recognized that shilling for a lying, abusive psycho isn’t a good look?
It’s also sort of the point of journalism, to assess the facts and provide an opinion.It is not.
Heard failed Heard.
It’s also sort of the point of journalism, to assess the facts and provide an opinion.
No, that’s the point of the editorial section.
Make sure that side is supported by actual facts and reality, however. Simply picking a side because a wealthy group wants you to be the voice for their desire for power isn’t a good thing. That’s how you get Faux News.
You must be joking. Not a single person online was neutral about this case. Either you’re a misogynist or a misandrist. No room in-between.
In a case like this, where everyone seems to be a mess, it may be hard to pick a side.
Sometimes the side to pick when everyone’s lying and abusive is the one pointing out that everyone’s lying and abusive.
One of them was a victim who was framed and the other is an abuser and liar prooven to be so by a unanimous jury
“Neutrality,” at least a journalistic virtue, seems like it’s being pretty badly misunderstood here. The point of it is to do your best not to bring your own biases and pre-existing beliefs into an examination of the facts, to include information even if it doesn’t fit with your preferred narrative, and to try and avoid letting your emotions cloud your judgment.
It emphatically does NOT mean you should juggle the evidence around until both sides have approximately equal piles and then draw no conclusions. That’s not how you get at the truth, and in fact usually ends up distorting it.
No, it isn’t. When your purpose is to present the facts of the case – all of the facts of the case – in order to allow the viewer to reach their own conclusions, then “picking a side” is not simply unnecessary. It is actively counterproductive.So ask yourself – “Why do I need everyone else to lie by omission? Why am I so afraid of others reaching conclusions I do not support?”
And tell me, which side did you choose? The lying abusive manipulator? Or the lying abuse manipulator?
There was only one and it was amber
Only one lying abuser and that’s heard
Yup. There’s a word for it:“Bothsideism”There will always be people that take sides, often quickly, then build their walls of denial. Ideally, there is a middle-ground populated by a majority who follow events close enough to be knowledgeable but not invested enough to become biased.
…Depp V. Heard becomes so obsessed with its idea of neutrality—with avoiding being drawn into either side of the debate…Angering both Depp and Heard supportersWe get it, of course: Cooper isn’t a journalist; she’s a filmmaker.To be honest, from the above it sounds like she WAS being a journalist, and did a decent job.
A journalist’s job is to get to the truth.
Are you claiming the documentary is lying?
Exactly not play down Amber’s abuse as “mutual”
As an actual journalist – as opposed to either a bunch of wankers on the internet looking to get their opinions validated or some shitfucked clickbait writer shitting out content grist for the mill – you are correct.It is not journalism to state an opinion or take a side. It is journalism to present facts and let the viewer/reader make up their own mind.
I mean, I do prefer when journalists try to be as objective as possible, but complete objectivity is by definition impossible. Even the most fact-driven reporting makes decisions about what facts to present and how to arrange them into a narrative. That’s opinionated, by nature.
Ah, nihilist take on the matter: “You can’t be objective so why even bother? Let’s just declare everything shit so I don’t have to engage with it.”Certainly made Trey Parker and Matt Stone rich, I’ll give it that.
That’s… not even a remotely accurate representation of what I said.
No, it’s an accurate representation of where what you said came from.
I assure you, it is not.
What you stated is just reporting the news, that’s not journalism either. Real journalism is digging until you get to the heart of the matter and reporting what you find. And I think you’ll often find that that is often one sided.
Real journalism would have exposed the much more interesting part of this story: how a female abuser was able to misuse the metoo movement to frame her victim, and convince the world that he was in fact the abuser and at worst she wasn’t an abuser but prehaps mutual abuse at best. The root of this matter is even when men proove their innocence social politics has made it impossible to maintain that
Reporting is journalism. Full stop.
What about when they gloss over the most important clarifications
This shit is so exhausting. The Depp stans refuse to comprehend the fact that he was even moderately abusive, and folks that want to advocate for victims of domestic abuse didn’t spend every waking hour consuming TikTok and Youtube coverage of the trial for two months. There’s even less actual discourse than your typical hot topic.
Maybe so, but she is a complete lying psycho bitch, so you know, who knows how a guy responds to that.
Untrue. What is frustrating is that people like you don’t understand that the whole point of the defamation suit was to disprove a SEXUAL ASSAULT and PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. Neither shied away from their marriage being toxic. But Depp proved that he did not SEXUALLY ASSAULT Heard by raping her with a bottle, and also proved that he did not hit her before she filed for a TRO.The trial had NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR TOXIC MARRIAGE AS A WHOLE, It was specifically to disprove the lies of PHYSICAL abuses Heard claimed.Heard lied on the stand and submitted the same photo evidence for two different day’s evidence. Doctored photos with filters and tried to pretend they were from multiple days.
The Depp stans refuse to comprehend the fact that he was even moderately abusive…Feminist domestic abuse activists define defending yourself from a domestic abuser as a form of “domestic abuse”. It isn’t that “Depp stans refuse to comprehend” the idea. It’s that they do comprehend the idea and they reject it. Because it is idiotic. “How dare you defend yourself when attacked by a woman! Weren’t you ever taught to not hit girls for any reason whatsoever?”
Adonates for DV victims also know that the idea of mutual abuse is bullshit damaging to victims and doesn’t exist
The only things people bring up for him being abusive though is him doing drugs (ok? She did too… even harder ones also drugs does not = phsycial abuse) and then he spoke bad about her over text… yeah victims don’t usually have nice things to say about their absuers… next… yeah totally bias to care more about a person beating someone, cutting their finger off and framing them. Also let’s not forget that testimony and witnesses showed that abuser was also abusive to her EMPLOYEES not just johnny. She has multiple victims and is a repeat offender who framed her victim. Sorry for thinking that’s important. Maybe go find some empathy
Is exhausting when people minamaloze the significance of amber having lied on the stand (prooven) and framed her victim for things she did including cutting off his finger and almost killing him.
For all of you folks wailing and gnashing down there in the grays, take a listen here: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/how-media-failed-amber-heard-on-the-mediaMore about the coverage of the trial than the trial itself, but might give you a window into the ways that the coverage you consumed during the trial might not have been as reliable or unbiased as you thought at the time.
The grays are filled with burners who have never posted on any other topic but this one… it’s insane.
I mean, he did that shit. Were they shitty to each other? Seems that way, but considering the crux of the lawsuit was defamation, and the jury actually found he did (at least some) of the shit she described, there really isn’t much of a story there in the micro. The macro (him paying for influencers to advocate on his behalf, society feeling it necessary to choose sides in a domestic dispute, our inability to assess any sort of situation with nuance) is where a meaty and fruitful discussion might actually be able to get some traction… probably also makes for a lame documentary.
The “crux of trial” was Heard’s defamatory claims of SEXUAL ASSAULT and PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. Depp proved Heard was never sexually assaulted when she claims she was and that Heard was never hit by Depp prior to her filing for a restraining order.Heard lied on the stand she submitted the same photo evidence for multiple days of accusations – all Heard did was lie throughout the trial.The jury awarded a palsy win to Heard only because the jury didn’t believe her friends lied for her and didn’t think Walden 100% accurately portrayed what happened in one statement. But if you watch the trial – it did play out that way – the jury got Heard’s win wrong. Probably because Heard’s team played it up so much that if Heard didn’t win it would set back women 50 years….when it wouldn’t.
I am sorry, but the jury didn’t find that. They found that SHE lied about all she claimed HE had done. The jury agreed that Adam Waldman, as Depp’s lawyer and apparently speak on his behalf, was wrong about one thing out of three statements she sued JD for.
So no, the jury did not find that “he did (at least some) of the shit she described” – please read the verdict again.
As for Depp paying for people being on his side online; I doubt it, but if you have evidence of it then please show us. I know Ms. Heard hired first one PR firm, then fired that and hired another.
What shit? Druhs? There wasn’t a single bit of evidence she provided that he abused her but he provided plantly to proove she lied and abused HIM
What shit did he do? Drugs? Meanwhile she CUT OFF HIS FINGER AND BEAT HIM AND MOCKED HIM FOR NOT HITTING BACK AND BRAGGED ABOUT HOW SHE WOULD LIE TO THE MEDIA
JFC. The Depp stans are crawling all over this thread, replying shrilly to every single comment.Someone needs to do an analysis on social media denizens overly invested in crapping on: Amber Heard, or: Meghan Markle. I bet the overlap is significant.
It’s completely unsurprising that there’s only two kinds of people defending him in the comments:Accounts that post about literally nothing but Johnny DeppTroll accounts that post nothing but bigotry and sad attempts at “triggering” people while we all roll our eyes with boredom
Troll accounts that post nothing but bigotry and sad attempts at “triggering” people while we all roll our eyes with boredomYeah, trying to penetrate your ideological biases in order to get you to recognize reality is an uphill battle. But if we don’t try, who will?
You are the minority, baby.
Forgot the 3rd:Ignortant one sided seeing people who assume depp supporters are overreacting and can’t comprehend that some people might legitimately be upset about the unfair treatment of johnny who prooved in court he had been framed and a unanimous jury agreed. These small minded people think that it’s all reactionary and can’t father real people simply giving a shit about the truth.
The Depp stans are crawling all over this thread, replying shrilly to every single comment.Then stop making stupid comments. Problem solved.
Smoney needs to do a social media analysis on how an abuser was able to warp the metoo movement to frame their male victim. Johnny prooved his innocence multiple times ovee yet comments like your are proof that it doesn’t natter how much proof a man has simply because of his gender people will assume he was at fault. So I ask… what does it take for you to see the other side? How much evidnece is good enough for you? And how much are you willing to dismiss and still call amber a victim?Im a feminist and I have been one but that means I belive in equal rights and I’ve been disgusted to see 3rd wave folks warp the facts of this case to their own bias.
At least they could have shown a reenactment of Amber Heard shitting the bed. Why else am I watching?
I really loved it. I watched zero of the trial or online stuff (I’m not on Tiktok), but I used to love talking to my sister about it & hearing her takes on what was unfolding. Getting it just from that one lens, the biggest shock to me was that they didn’t talk more about Depp’s lawyer. From how my sister described her, she sounded fascinating and almost Johnny Cochran levels of good.
Anyone who isn’t a member of any of these people’s immediate circles, who takes a stand on any of this, is a goddamn moron.
And yet you are here taking an impolite stand …
Because, as mentioned, the trial took place just over a year ago. It has dominated headlines and conversations ever since.Though, I mean… has it?I could be in the minority on this, but I haven’t talked with anyone about the whole affair since probably a week or two after the trial. (And have there been a ton of headlines? I guess I’ve ignored them.) Maybe my own priorities are out of order, but celebrity shit just doesn’t tend to rate all that highly in my circles.
That’s what I was thinking. I’m sure certain corners of the internet have been continuously talking about it for the last 14 months, but it really hasn’t been part of the mainstream cultural conversation since the trail and its immediate aftermath.
In a post-Tory Lanez world the discourse has definitely moved on.
For me it was the tape of her mocking him in a “baby” voice. Not something you’d do to your abuser if you’re subjected to regular beatings. And the testimony from a couple of his exes that he never touched them in a physically harmful way, that kind of abuse seems foundational to the way someone handles a relationship. Too many little things, like makeup she said she used to hide bruises (which she identified by brand and name) in public that literally didn’t exist at the time. I wouldn’t care if either of them were boiled in oil and don’t think either was blameless in the situation but her attorneys were dogshite.
The media failed Heard? Wtf? Every media I saw treated her story as Gospel.
The thing is, the actual trial is just the apex of a years-long black comedy these idiots inflicted on the world. The loose order of events, as i understand it is:Heard beats her girlfriend in an airport, ending their relationship. She will get involved with Depp shortly thereafter.Depp and Heard buy a small dog who compulsively shits everywhere. Impossibly, this dog will become the center of both their crimes.Depp and Heard attempt to commit ecological terrorism against Australia by flying their tiny shitting dog into the country on a private flight. They are forced to apologize, which they do by further insulting Australia.Depp fails to convince filmgoers he is a native american man, even though he wore a dead bird on his head. This represents part 2 of Hollywood’s failure to reboot the shared cinematic universe of Lone Ranger and Green Hornet (look it up). Depp is so scarred by this personal failure that he abuses Heard by hurling 800 dollar telephones into her face. Fortunately for Heard, years of hardcore drug abuse have left Depp’s muscles anemic and weak.Depp begins a weird campaign to amass information with which to legally detach himself from Heard when their relationship inevitably crumbles because of his abusive behavior. This includes both true accounts of Heard getting fall-down drunk and screaming at Depp and others in public, and made-up accounts of Heard hissing death-threats in Depp’s ear at the edge of sleep. A major coup is handed to Depp when their tiny dog shits all over their bed; he realizes he can blame this on Heard because a notably mentally unwell woman shitting the bed is way less sympathetic than an aging millionaire clubbing his wife with phones.Depp and Heard sue each other in England, and Depp loses so hard that it takes him a while to realize he lost, like in a samurai movie where the bad guy thinks he killed the good guy, but when he goes to laugh he just coughs up blood then falls apart at the middle.Somehow (bribes) Depp keeps information about his England case (it’s bribes) out of US news (by bribery) and they basically repeat the whole case in the US. Americans are all clinical idiots, so we perceive the case as way closer than it actually should be. Sure, he beat her, but she POOED THE BED!Depp and Heard both promise that their settlements will go to charity. They both win a few settlements from each other. Neither of them donate to charity. This officially makes them morally inferior to that time the Beastie Boys sued a girls’ educational toy line out of existence.With the case in the US being largely inconclusive, the media feels safe releasing all the horrible stuff Depp actually did. Everyone feels really bad for playing the “both sides” game. Just kidding, we all love Depp because he was Jack Sparrow! We love you, cap’n!Conservatives rail for Heard to be pulled from her role in the Aquaman franchise, because cancel culture is fine if you’re cancelling a woman. Warner valiantly refuses, both because they have way worse criminals on the payroll (like Ezra Miller and the pedophile they paid to harass Steam reviewers) and because Aquaman was the only Snyderverse movie that was any damn fun. Depp gets back into acting in the multiple-academy-award-winning vehicle “Sherlock Gnomes,” sequel to the equally stellar “Gnomeo and Juliet.”
TV Show Doesn’t Spread the Propaganda Blogger Wants it to, Gives Massive Thumbs Down
Can we imprison both of them and also deport everyone who “stans” for either one? Thanks
At least Amber has made it: She appeared in a new netflix movie. And even in a starring role, as the main villain! All credit to her!
I got a Community alert for this?Oh, Britta’s in this?
Well you can see by this article that someone has picked a side, as most of us have. Sadly, it’s the wrong one. Amber Heard was proven a liar on the stand SO many times, it was a joke. Not to mention, the only reason the U.K. pathetically(& stupidly) branded Johnny an abuser is because they IGNORED the evidence that SHE was an abuser. It was an absolute joke.
The “they were both bad” stance on this is so disgusting ns victim blaming for johnny. Anyone who watched the trail should not be taking the route of equating them. One man was belittled for trying to leave fights, had lasting injuries and infections that almost killed him and we hear the admitting of his abuser on audio and that she was planning on framing him if he spoke out. Amber lied. She is an abuser and framed her victim. The only thing they were able to proove johnny did was drugs (congrats the sky is also blue… and amber admitted to doing even harder drugs) and that he talked about her bad to his friend…. yeah people aren’t required to say nice things about their abusers. I don’t about mine. I talked about wanting to hurt him… but venting about it over text is different than doing it. Also he took it back after he said it thay he was just upset. Calling this mutual abuse is minimizing to real victims. Also I ask… what does it take for a male DV victim to get justice? Because johnny prooved his innocence several times over yet people are still treating the case as “it was both of them” imagine if that was you. If you were abused for years, finally got out, were then framed for the things your abuser did but TO THEM… then get hate for Yeats, loose your work, only to finally porove yourself innocent in a court of law just to have everyone assume you were just as bad because they only have ass absorbed the information and headlines. Fair and equal reporting of this case wouldn’t minimize the difference in evidence in this case as well as minimize the verdict. It’s actually just lazy because they are reporting the same half asked statement of base facts not the actual details and contradictions. Pathetic
So here’s my experience with this trial and how I was bitterly disappointed in my wife.When this trial was going on my wife was borderline obsessed with it. Me? I was busy following a much bigger story. May have heard of it: the Russian invasion of Ukraine. My wife and I are both feminists, but I immediately picked up on the reasons she was an extreme Depp supporter: she didn’t know who Amber was…she assumed she’s a nobody taking advatage of Depp. She’s liked Johnny since 21 Jump Street and she’s a voracious consumer of social media.Somehow, though, she “missed” the UK trial.I wasn’t allowed to speak about the war. She claimed “I know what’s going on so I don’t need to hear about atrocities.” In reality she paid zero attention to the war. I’d happily wager money that she couldn’t find Ukraine on a map.I hated all this and her priorities were deeply troubling. But I let her talk and defaulted to believing Depp. Until the Netflix special came on. I’m watching it one night when she’s not at home and when she arrives I say “Guess what I’m watching?” All I was able to get out was “It’s a documentary…” and she lit into me “Yeah! Probably painting Amber as the victim!!” I say “No, it’s actually focused on social media and how it fueled ultra-biased opinions.” For 10 minutes I tried telling her that Id been pausing it and doing research, especially given the fact I hadn’t followed the story. And as this article points out, this documentary wasn’t close to being “biased”. Ny wife and have been together 32 years and I’ve only seen her get so angry a handful of times.I waded back in the water the next day to tell her what the judgement in the UK trial was based on: strong proof Depp is a wife-beater. I also told her I fell into backing Depp a year ago because I liked his characters and because, had totally forgotten Depp’s history of drunken, drug induced behavior, violence and arrests. And of course, her own energetic pro-Depp updates each day.So no, I’m not enraged against feminists who betrayed women by siding with Depp. I’m shocked by women falling into the misogyny trap. And for setting back the gains made in encouraging women to come forwardFinally, my wife’s rationale for me not having the right to an opinion (no matter how much I’ve read and researched) is that she heard the trial each day. My wife loved “The Making of a Murderer”, thus I told her that twice a jury “heard an entire trial” and screwed Steven Avery.