Opinions
Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and the deeply unsatisfying matter of re-litigating their trial
The series was panned by critics
On Aug. 16, Netflix released a three-part docuseries revisiting last summer’s televised civil litigation over allegations that Amber Heard had defamed ex-husband Johnny Depp by claiming to have survived sexual violence and domestic abuse during their four-year relationship.
Rather than offering anything new by way of insight or analysis from anyone with relevant qualifications or experience, each episode features clips from some of the online “creators” who turned their hot takes on the trial into a veritable cottage industry of amateur legal commentary and courtroom conspiracy theories, feeding the rapacious demand for anti-Heard and pro-Depp content. (As if to underscore the project’s unseriousness, these included a men’s rights YouTuber who wore a Deadpool mask and was surrounded by Spider-Man costumes.)
Worse still, “Depp v. Heard” director Emma Cooper fails not only to answer but also to even ask the obvious questions that have lingered since a verdict was returned more than 14 months ago by seven jurors in northern Virginia who were not sequestered as the case became, by far, the most popular topic on social media and online platforms.
At the same time, however, the episodes include footage of courtroom testimony that offer a glimpse, though incomplete, into some of the trial’s more salient and dispositive moments that I otherwise would never have seen (with neither the time nor the inclination, either last year or now, to follow 120+ hours of argument by the parties presented over the course of a seven-week trial.)
Do these scenes redeem the series? Hardly. But that does not mean they offer nothing of value, especially considering that while this was not the retelling of last summer’s events that we deserve, it remains the only one we’ve got. At least, for now.
Susan Sontag, in her 1977 collection of essays “On Photography,” proclaimed “The camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own.”
In “Depp v. Heard,” the cameras facilitate a very specific kind of tourism that feels both exploitative and voyeuristic, because the reality in which we find ourselves trespassing is dark: the unraveling of a relationship between movie stars through patterns of dysfunction and abuse both familiar and alien, knowable and unknowable, like a city you have visited but never called home.
Especially when coupled with the more outrageous moments from trial that made headlines at the time – such as the debate over whether Heard defecated on Depp’s bed and blamed his teacup Yorkshire Terrier – there is a temptation to treat footage of testimony concerning the smashing of liquor bottles and hurling of wine glasses, the shoving and taunting and threats, even the physical and sexual violence, as though it were pure spectacle.
However, this would suggest, wrongly, that the painful realities of the actors’ relationship are so far removed from our lived experiences that we do not, cannot, or should not relate to them. As if a seven-week trial adjudicating the conflicts in our own intimate relationships or those involving the people we love would not turn up evidence of trouble and dysfunction, or worse.
Considering that we are primed to pick winners and losers and heroes and villains, perhaps it was unsurprising that incomplete and selectively edited footage from the case provided ample fodder for Instagram reels and TikTok videos that were created in the service of narratives that, most often, favored Depp and vilified Heard.
For me, witnessing these scenes in their proper context revealed a picture so much more complicated and, frankly, ugly that the prospect of framing the case in this manner seemed as preposterous as the idea that audiences leaving a production of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” should find themselves allied with either Martha or George.
To take just one example: From the witness stand, Heard recounted how she would often return home to their shared Los Angeles penthouse to find Depp nodding off in a chair because he had washed Roxicodone down with whiskey, or lying supine on the sofa fully unconscious with melted ice cream pooled in his lap. Worried about her husband’s apparent substance use disorder and unsure how best to help, the actress admitted she would sometimes take photos of him and share the pictures with a trusted friend.
Or, Depp’s attorney asked, was she just trying to humiliate him? Or, online commentators asked (often rhetorically), was this a calculated and premeditated move to collect evidence she would use against Depp in litigation or for purposes of extorting him?
As if these motives are mutually exclusive.
Having experienced the pain of watching loved ones spiraling in the throes of drug and alcohol addiction, I can tell you why I suspect Heard took the photos, but of course the reality is neither I nor anyone else – perhaps not even she – has any clue.
Last year, so much of the online noise about the trial came from content creators who made specious arguments to poke holes in the credibility of Heard’s testimony or alleged ulterior, sinister hidden motives based on the actress’s countenance, demeanor, speech, and other behavior.
For example, in clips that were often selectively edited or presented outside of their proper context, Heard might have seemed to cry more hysterically upon realizing the cameras were trained on her, which were used as supposed proof that her claims of suffering abuse at the hands of her ex-husband must therefore be fabricated.
Watching the footage in the manner presented on screen in “Depp v. Heard,” it becomes even more obvious how silly these interpretations were. In reality, of course, no one – not even police officers, trial court judges, F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents, trial lawyers or forensic psychiatrists – can reliably spot when someone is lying to them.
However convincing some YouTuber may have been, and however comforting the idea that we are able to see through the lies of others, I’m sorry to tell you the research on this is overwhelming and uncontested.
As Malcolm Gladwell observes in “Talking to Strangers,” Amanda Knox was falsely convicted for a murder she did not commit because “much of the prosecution’s case…rested on the allegedly strange, guilty behavior she exhibited,” which “the public deemed not in line with typical responses to grief and trauma.”
The cameras did not tell the complete story.
Well before 2022, private details about Depp and Heard’s troubled relationship had spilled onto the pages of tabloids like The Sun, which called Depp a “wife beater” in a 2018 story alleging that “overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife.” After he sued the paper for defamation, London’s High Court of Justice ruled against the actor in 2020, concluding the claims at issue were “substantially true.”
Still, last summer’s litigation between the actors earned far more public attention and unearthed far more (and far more titillating) private information, causing, therefore, far more damage than the supermarket rags and gossip blogs – as well as, ironically, the financial and reputational damage resulting from the very defamation claims that were adjudicated at trial.
As a reminder, Depp sued his ex-wife for a 2018 opinion article in the Washington Post in which she had written, “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” Heard was referencing the backlash against, essentially, identical claims she made in a statement after securing a restraining order against Depp following their divorce in 2016. (“During the entirety of our relationship, Johnny has been verbally and physically abusive to me,” she wrote.)
In so many cases including this one, intimate partner abuse is messy. An audio recording of one of the couple’s arguments shows Heard acknowledging she had struck her ex-husband but denying that she punched him. Her testimony, meanwhile, detailed serious violent crimes, including that Depp had thrown her into a ping pong table and repeatedly hit her in the face before sexually assaulting her with a liquor bottle that may have been broken.
Of course, assuming their sworn testimony to be true, it must also be said, domestic violence is a gendered crime. And the imbalanced power dynamics within their relationship put Heard at a disadvantage, including in this respect. While both are famous actors, the wealth, power, and fame wielded by Depp was then (and remains, now) much greater.
The disparity was evident from the outset. In the Netflix series, throngs of fans are shown cheering the Pirates of the Caribbean star and booing Heard on the first day they were sighted arriving separately to the Fairfax County Circuit Court. Meanwhile, online, evidence of a sustained and coordinated character assassination of Heard had just begun to emerge.
The smear campaign would persist through the trial and beyond. The actress was called a manipulative liar, a gold digger, an abuser, a violent psychopath, a drug addict, and worse. Some of the most outrageous claims were among the most widely circulated: She snorted cocaine on the witness stand, killed her own mother to conceal testimony that would have exonerated Depp, plagiarized lines from the film The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Creators mocked Heard by lip-synching over audio of her testimony about suffering violent abuse in videos that went viral on TikTok along with hashtags like #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, which was seen nearly 3 billion times on the platform. (#justiceforamberheard earned just 25 million views.) One-sided articles and videos, many containing false and misleading claims, were promoted by Ben Shapiro’s conservative media outlet The Daily Wire through its estimated $35,000 and $47,000 purchase of Facebook and Instagram ads.
“Depp v. Heard” was panned by critics.
“If ever a true-crime documentary needed the usual collection of talking-head interviews with esteemed journalists, law enforcement veterans and legal experts to put things in perspective,” Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times wrote, “this is it — but that never happens.”
Others, like CNN’s Brian Lowry, agreed: “How much is gained from listening to a guy in a Deadpool mask offering extensive trial takes is a question ‘Depp v. Heard’ should have contemplated and apparently didn’t,” he wrote.
Several reviews added that part of the problem was that not nearly enough time had elapsed between the events and their retelling. Bustle’s Scaachi Koul pointed to other recent projects involving the private lives of public figures (especially women) that, with sufficient space and distance, found new and interesting things to say about their subjects and opportunities to tell their stories anew.
Ryan White’s excellent documentary “Pamela: A Love Story,” which was released by Netflix in January, manages to find plenty of material about actress and model Pamela Anderson along with the broader sociocultural forces of the 90s and early aughts that helped shape – and were shaped by – the era’s most enduring sex symbol.
The film would have been nothing, however, without Anderson. Listening to her tell her own story, one realizes how poorly suited everyone else was to the task – particularly the leering talk show hosts and journalists who treated her as nothing more than a sex object.
And maybe that, above all else, is the lesson to be gleaned from “Depp v. Heard”: Let’s come back to this story, sure, when we’re ready to cut through the bullshit, reframe the conversation away from the “him vs. her” framing, stop relying on provably unreliable evidence, and consider the broader context of their relationship and the impact of the trial that happened on TikTok and YouTube. And let’s definitely listen to Heard if and when she’s ready to talk about this again.
Until we get that docuseries (or documentary, scripted series, film, book, whatever), I fear everything else will be deeply unsatisfactory and unsatisfying.
Opinions
Reflecting on six years on the CAMP Rehoboth board
Purpose, people, and the power of community
Some people let life happen; I prefer to plan it—meticulously, intentionally, and yes, sometimes overboard. After losing many loved ones and navigating my own setbacks, I learned not to let life drift by; instead, I live it with intention—curating the people, commitments, and actions that bring joy and meaning, even if others mistake that intentionality for control.
True to form, I close each year with an annual life audit reflecting to see if my personal goals were achieved and, if not, why did I fall short. This habit reflects a simple philosophy: fulfillment doesn’t happen by accident. It comes from daring to imagine the life you want and living deliberately at work, in service to others, and in the everyday moments that make life meaningful.
This year’s assessment is a bit more complicated because on Dec. 31 I will conclude six years on the board of CAMP Rehoboth Community Center — two full three-year terms, including three years as board president. When putting pen to paper, I quickly realized the lessons from the last 12 months were six years in the making.
For those who may not know, CAMP Rehoboth (CAMP is an acronym for Create A More Positive) is widely recognized as the leading provider of life-affirming programs and services in support of LGBTQ people in Rehoboth Beach, Del., and the greater Sussex County area. Since its founding 34 years ago, CAMP’s work has enabled LGBTQ people to thrive. In fact, it is the reason my husband Greg and I (along with thousands of other LGBTQ people) decided to make this part of Delaware our home.
If the past few years have taught me anything, it is that leadership is not a position—it is a practice. It is a daily decision to show up with clarity, steadiness, and a willingness to hold space for others as we navigate change together.
Purpose is the compass. Purpose gives direction when circumstances shift, resources tighten, and competing demands threaten to pull us off course. At CAMP Rehoboth, our purpose has always been to ensure LGBTQ people have access to life-affirming programs, culturally competent services, and a place where they feel seen, valued, and supported. Purpose guided our leadership transition and executive director search, reminding us that the leader our community deserves must bring experience, emotional intelligence, and a deep understanding of what belonging means.
Values are the guardrails. They keep us aligned when opportunities, distractions, or pressures arise. Our values show up in our strategic planning, financial stewardship, and insistence that inclusion is a practice, not a slogan. They ensure that when challenges—political hostility, funding uncertainty, changing community needs—emerge, we respond with integrity instead of reaction.
People are the engine. Organizations don’t create impact — people do. Staff, volunteers, board members, donors, and community members together make the mission real. Investing in their capacity, wellness, and professional development ensures they can do their best work. When we take care of our people, they take care of the community.
I am a gay man who knows how obstacles can feel insurmountable and hope can falter having lived through the AIDS epidemic and fought for civil rights like the legalization of same-sex marriage. In those moments, I chose to focus on what I could control rather than what I could not. Getting involved gave me purpose and proved that fulfillment comes from taking action to make a difference—for yourself and for the broader community.
Gratitude is the culture.
As I close this chapter, what I feel most is gratitude. Gratitude honors those who built the foundation, celebrates those who carry the work forward, and reminds us that progress is a collective effort. Thank you to our staff, especially Executive Director Kim Leisey, who serve with skill and heart; to our volunteers like former board member Chris Beagle and current board president Leslie Ledogar, who give more than anyone will ever know; to our donors, who invest in possibility; and to the community that trusts us to be there in moments of celebration, struggle, and change. Finally, none of this would have been possible without the steadfast love of my husband and the unwavering support of close friends who lifted me in the moments I needed it most.
Reflection, planning, and intentionality do not guarantee perfection — but they make fulfillment possible. Life is too short to leave it to chance. By daring to dream, acting deliberately, and giving generously, we can create lives that are both meaningful and impactful — not just for ourselves, but for the communities we touch.
Wes Combs is an outgoing board member of CAMP Rehoboth.
Trump saw the writing on the wall with regard to releasing the Epstein files. He tried to get ahead of the parade by asking Republicans to vote for release, instead of facing his biggest embarrassment when they were going to anyway. Then there were the major Republican losses in the last election. Now House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), and Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and their Democratic ranking members, are investigating the Pentagon after it was reported Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth potentially committed a war crime with regard to the bombing of boats suspected of running drugs. It really seems we are seeing the beginning of the fall of Trump.
That’s not to say the felon doesn’t continue to have the power to screw the country, and the world. He does. Those around him like Vought at OMB, and his personal Goebbels, Stephen Miller, will push him harder to advance Project 2025 before the mid-term elections. There are so many things in that 900-page document that have yet to be perpetrated on the American people. I am sure the felon doesn’t know half of them, as one can be quite confident, he never read it. Each day we wake to some new outrage by the grifter in the White House. His family cutting deals with the Saudis, upping and lowering tariffs as the mood strikes. Not in a rational way because they have already proven to be a disaster for the American people. Then the continuing destruction of our healthcare system by RFK Jr.
Then the felon threatens Venezuela, and illegally declares the airspace around it closed. The felon threatens Indiana Republican legislators who don’t go along with his request for redistricting, with primaries. A judge in Texas rules their redistricting is illegal, though the Trump Supreme Court did overrule that. He calls Marjorie Taylor Green a traitor, then his MAGA cult threatens her life. She resigns. He does the same to Democratic legislators who made a video telling the military they do not have to obey unconstitutional orders. The felon called that “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He went further and reposted a Truth Social post that read “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” This now has his MAGA base threatening their lives. They are not resigning. All of this adding to the feeling his acts, and statements, clearly reek of desperation.
He continues to blame Biden, nearly a year after taking office, for his own failures. He blames Biden for not vetting the Afghani immigrant who shot the two National Guard members from West Virginia patrolling D.C. This, while it was his administration, that granted him asylum without any vetting, in April.
I find it incomprehensible there are still some people, who can’t, or don’t, want to understand attacking Democrats for what is going on today, makes no sense, when the felon controls the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Staying home, or voting for third party candidates, with no chance of winning, is like voting for the Republican. In the recent elections we began to see those who don’t like what is happening, wake up. They realize only a vote for a Democrat will make a difference. We saw that across New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Georgia.
As we approach the midterm elections, I plead with those who are not there yet, look at history, count how many independents were ever elected to Congress. In our system that rarely happens. Wishful thinking doesn’t win elections. Yes, I want Congress to look younger. I am happy Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Jerald Nadler (D-N.Y.), among others, have retired, allowing for primaries in their districts. I could name a few more in safe Democratic seats who I hope do the same. While not in office, young people should appreciate those who retire, might still have some wisdom from their years of service to share.
The young aren’t compelled to listen, yet someone like Pelosi, with her vast experience, could help a new person as they run to win, and then navigate the halls of Congress. If you look at all the demonstrations against the felon, and his administration, the age of the people demonstrating often skews older. Those like me have the time to demonstrate, and we do. We want to see the felon fall, and will work hard to make it happen. While too old to run for office, I will continue to voice my opinions. I will even endorse candidates I like. I suggest to all candidates it is important to do more than talk in generalities. You need an issues section on your website. Tell voters what you will do when elected. What bills will you introduce, which ones will you support. That may be old-fashioned, but it’s still important. And definitely be clear which party you will support if elected. I know, another old-fashioned idea.
As the felon continues to lose the support of the American people, I see young people begin to move to the Democratic Party, realizing if they step up to be counted, it will make a difference for their future. If this trend continues, I believe we are headed toward a better time in America.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Opinions
Tammy Bruce, Trump’s lesbian nominee for deputy UN ambassador. Just say no!
Senate Foreign Affairs Committee advanced former State Department spokesperson’s nomination this week
One evening In the late 1990’s, I drove over to the home of my late friend, Jim Hormel, to review a number of countries to which he was being considered by the Clinton administration to serve as our country’s first openly gay ambassador. It was a very big deal. Secretary Madeleine Albright would eventually swear him in during a teary-eyed ceremony, but only after a recess appointment in order to avoid an ugly, partisan fight in the Senate over Jim’s sexuality.
Fast-forward to today, and our country has had over 30 openly gay male ambassadors — both career diplomats and political appointees — and one, single lesbian at an ambassador-ranked position at the Asian Development Bank, Chantale Wong. (Ambassador Wong is also one of only two people of color among the openly gay or lesbian ambassadors.) I am very proud to have helped convince Amb. Wong to come out of retirement to take on that important role, because the time was right for someone with her passion, experience, and commitment to push for inclusive development policies at a major international financial institution. In fact, she had occupied the position once before as acting executive director of the ADB under the George W. Bush administration, and used that expertise to successfully champion an inclusive development policy that explicitly names sexual orientation and gender identity as a non-discrimination category, as well as other programs that benefit community members. But getting through the Senate confirmation process was not an easy task before this second Trump administration, especially for those without the resources or connections to deploy their own personal lobbyists, even when the candidate was superbly qualified.
So, a few months ago, when I read that Tammy Bruce was nominated by President Trump to be one of our ambassadors to the United Nations, I choked on my coffee. I couldn’t believe that our second ever openly lesbian ambassador would be a far-right, anti-trans, anti-Muslim, Trump loyalist. But, maybe the choice was not so surprising after all, which then says a lot about the Biden administration’s priorities. Trump was also the president who made good on the Human Rights Campaign’s longtime push for an openly gay G7 ambassador, with the appointment of another far right, anti-Muslim, gay ambassador, Richard Grenell to Germany. These two people alone should convince any sane human why identity-politics alone has severe limits.
After 16 years of submitting short lists of qualified lesbian-identified and trans-identified candidates to the White House Office of Personnel Management to be considered for appointed ambassador positions, and also simultaneously trying to support senior, career diplomats who are lesbian or trans to advance in their careers, I was particularly frustrated and enraged. While I believe it’s time to move beyond identity politics, I also deeply believe that diverse representation matters. Not tokenization (and not donor-purchased ambassadorships) but exceptionally well-qualified, diverse American people, who represent the actual plurality of our nation, which makes us stronger. The foreign affairs arena, in particular, is overly white and male dominated. Think what you may about “DEI,” but a diplomatic corps that doesn’t reflect the diversity of our nation doesn’t make our country stronger — it actually makes us less globally relevant and decreases our understanding of this rapidly changing, multi-polar world.
The 34:1 ratio of gay men to lesbians among our nation’s openly queer ambassadors that exists today is infuriating to me as a woman, a feminist, a lesbian, and as a human rights leader. And yet, the nomination of Tammy Bruce, infuriates me even more. She is an extremist ideologue who uses her platform for hate.
Bruce’s hate centers on her anti-Muslim extremism. According to CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck, “Trump’s pick for deputy UN job questioned [the] loyalty of American Muslims … (Bruce) for years promoted inflammatory, anti-Muslim and conspiratorial claims, including suggesting that former President Barack Obama was a secret Muslim bent on harming America. A CNN KFile review of Bruce’s blog posts, social media posts, columns and radio commentaries starting in the early 2000s shows a pattern of demeaning language about Muslims, including suggesting that American Muslims needed to prove their loyalty after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks … Bruce didn’t respond for comment.”
When nominating Bruce, Trump said, “after being a liberal activist in the 1990s, (Bruce) saw the lies and fraud of the Radical Left, and quickly became one of the strongest Conservative voices on Radio and Television.” Bruce wrote the book “The New Thought Police,” aiming to “expose the dangerous rise of left-wing McCarthyism.” In addition to poking fun at feminists, anti-racists, and progressives, she has particularly promoted misguided anti-trans ideology, such as championing the cause of Chloe Cole, a “detransitioner” who had top surgery at age 17. Bruce uses this outlier case to justify legislation to ban trans health care in the United States.
The extremist right loves to scapegoat trans people and their right to appropriate, life-saving health care. Confirming Ms. Bruce for this role as a U.S. representative at the United Nations, with all of her whacky and fringe ideology, is incredibly dangerous for U.S. citizens and for others throughout the world. The person who represents the United States at the United Nations must be able to talk to every other country representative, in order to be effective. Ms. Bruce will be viewed with suspicion and avoided because of her past statements and views. Again, such extremism has no place in our government or representing our country. In her confirmation hearing, Ms. Bruce called President Trump’s leadership at the United Nations “inspirational.” She refused to call the massacre in Sudan a genocide. She didn’t seem to understand what leverage the U.S. might have with the UAE to stop arming this genocide. She deferred multiple times to serving this President in whatever foreign policy aims he has. In this era of increasing authoritarianism, we do not need more obsequious servants to King Trump. Now that Ms. Bruce has been voted out of committee, this proud lesbian, respectfully requests all U.S. Senators to not confirm Ms. Bruce for U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations.
Julie Dorf is co-chair of the Council for Global Equality.
PHOTOS: The Holiday Show
The best books to give this holiday season
Studio’s ‘Mother Play’ draws from lesbian playwright’s past
Choose U ambassadors share lived experiences with HIV, personal reflections, and insights
DOJ seeks to join lawsuit against Loudoun County over trans student in locker room
EXCLUSIVE: George Santos speaks out on prison, Trump pardon, and more
Victory Institute honors transgender Spanish senator in D.C.
The beginning of the fall of Trump
Markey reintroduces International Human Rights Act in Senate
