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
PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health
We must make medications affordable without sacrificing access
As the executive directors of LGBTQ+ advocacy orgs in nearby states, we share an unshakeable commitment to the wellbeing of our communities. This commitment drives us and our organizations to advocate for health care affordability and accessibility, whether for gender-affirming health care and HIV treatment, or simple prevention measures and non-discrimination. And, it is why we oppose giving unaccountable advisory boards the power to set prices, and therefore threaten access, to critical, life-saving drugs such as HIV treatment medication.
The LGBTQ+ community loves acronyms, but there’s one that we wish more people knew about: PDAB. A Prescription Drug Affordability Board is an appointed board that reviews the cost of some prescription drugs and determines if they are affordable. While this sounds good, the reality is that these boards may actually limit access to some important drugs, or even cause new affordability problems for patients. Plus, they have done little to consider patient or community input or demonstrate true accountability to the communities affected by their decisions – like our friends and family members living with HIV.
Our organizations continue to raise concerns about PDABs and their expansion because of our serious concerns about their potential impact on LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV and other chronic conditions. In fact, Virginia’s governor recently vetoed a bill that would have created a prescription drug affordability board. In his veto statement, Gov. Youngkin said: “This legislation risks limiting patient access to essential medication by prioritizing costs over medical necessity. Affordability of prescription drugs is a critical issue, but this proposal would instead compromise patient welfare in the Commonwealth of Virginia.”
Maryland’s PDAB was created in 2019 and has yet to bring down costs, even for those in the state health plans. FreeState Justice advocated against expanding the board’s scope to potentially set “upper payment limits” or UPLs for drugs purchased by state and local government health plans. UPLs can easily backfire and decrease access for many patients. We are particularly concerned about the potential unintended consequences of actions by these boards.
Because LGBTQ+ communities are disproportionately affected by HIV, our organizations advocate for the rights, equality, and well-being of people living with HIV. Thanks to significant advancements in science and treatment, HIV is now a manageable chronic illness. But only if we maintain access to the medications that people living with HIV rely on.
Beyond HIV, LGBTQ+ people experience higher needs for health care and steeper barriers to access than other populations. Almost half, or 47 percent, of LGBTQ+ people have a medical condition that requires monitoring or medication. And, LGBTQ+ people are more likely to delay or go without care due to cost issues. That is why PDABs, and in particular, upper payment limits, could exacerbate health disparities for the LGBTQ+ community.
In the handful of states with PDABs, these boards have made decisions that impact patients living with chronic conditions, including HIV– often without considering comments from advocates, patients and providers, or the programs that support patients in accessing and affording these treatments.
Programs like the AIDS Drug Assistance Program and other supports help make the cost of HIV treatments affordable for patients. These programs were hard-won by advocates, who for years have held fast to the mantra: nothing about us, without us. This principle of HIV advocacy is directly opposite of what PDABs do: empower an appointed board of experts to make decisions about the affordability of HIV medications without any input from people living with HIV.
In February, the Oregon PDAB heard many stakeholder comments on the importance of preserving access to HIV treatment. Advocates explained how drug assistance programs work and why patients need access to as many treatment options as possible. Despite this strong testimony, the board chose to review an HIV medication, Odesfey, against community recommendations.
Today many communities including people living with HIV are concerned and fearful about the serious impacts of federal funding cuts to health care. State PDABs are a costly tool, and they have not produced the savings they promised. This is a moment to preserve access and stabilize the system, and avoid any changes that could jeopardize the care people need.
There’s so much at stake for our communities when it comes to access to health care. We do need to address the high cost of prescription drugs, but there are better ways to do it that earnestly incorporate community input and take a more comprehensive look at the complex health care system. Our organizations are ready to bring LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV into the discussion. By bringing patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to the same table, we can come up with better solutions that truly make medications affordable without sacrificing access. Our north star is clear: a healthcare system that listens to all voices and makes sure everyone gets the care we need to thrive.
Phillip Westry is executive director of FreeState Justice in Maryland and Narissa Rahaman is executive director of Equality Virginia.
Opinions
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
Nation’s highest-ranking gay public official is a MAGA sell out
It’s an odd dichotomy: President Trump appoints the highest-ranking openly gay government official in history in Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, yet he launches cruel attacks on transgender Americans.
Make no mistake: Those attacks are claiming lives. Trans people are killing themselves. I know of one trans person who died by suicide on Election Night, overwhelmed by fear of the incoming administration. Trump’s attacks have driven trans Americans and their families to flee the country and move to Canada, as the Blade has reported.
None of this is hypothetical or melodramatic. It’s real life and happening everywhere.
And so when Bessent was confirmed as Treasury Secretary, I wrote an op-ed urging him to educate Trump about the plight of trans Americans and the destructiveness of the attacks on the community. I waited 90 days for some sign that Bessent has a heart or at least a modicum of decency but sadly, I must report that he does not.
The attacks on the LGBTQ community under Trump keep coming. Last week’s news that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1 is just the latest evidence that this administration doesn’t just dislike us — they want us dead.
“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens — it will put their lives at risk,” Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black said in a statement.
The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.
Make no mistake: cutting this service will kill young LGBTQ people.
Just a couple of weeks earlier, Trump’s administration announced the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy would be gutted.
“In a matter of just a couple days, we are losing our nation’s ability to prevent HIV,” said HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute Executive Director Carl Schmid.
And prior to that, Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting the trans community — restricting access to affirming healthcare, banning trans service members from the military, barring trans women and girls from playing sports, eliminating the “X” gender marker on passports, and barring students assigned male at birth from using women’s restrooms.
Let’s be very clear: When you deny someone the ability to use the bathroom, you deny their humanity.
So back to Scott Bessent, the billionaire hedge fund manager now running our economy into the ground. As many Trump protesters have noted: silence is complicity. And Bessent has been silent on all of these horrific attacks on trans Americans and their basic humanity. He is spineless and a traitor to the LGBTQ community.
Bessent runs the U.S. Treasury and reportedly has Trump’s ear on all matters related to the economy. He could easily push Trump in a better, more compassionate direction, yet there is no evidence he has done that.
“The LGBTQ+ community is counting on openly LGBTQ+ nominees like Scott Bessent to step up for the community,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson after the inauguration. Sadly, it’s become clear we cannot count on Bessent. As I wrote in January, Trump likes his queer people gay, white, cis, rich, and obedient.
Bessent has ignored the Blade’s interview requests. (And after this is published, I have no illusions he will change his mind.) The mainstream media, increasingly cowed by Trump, have failed to ask Bessent even the most basic questions about his views on trans equality and Trump’s attacks.
As a member of the LGBTQ community, Bessent has a responsibility to at least speak up on behalf of trans people who are suffering. But Republicans today have lost their spines. They genuflect before their Dear Leader, line their own pockets, and leave the rest of us to deal with the consequences.
The crisis is real. People are dying. Trans people especially are suffering. The rest of us must do what we can to mitigate that suffering and to speak out in defense of our trans friends.
Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].
Opinions
Congressional Equality Caucus should participate in WorldPride
Make bold statement about our commitment to LGBTQ rights
The Trump administration, by its actions, has already hurt WorldPride. By attacking trans people, they have gotten many nations to suggest to trans citizens they not come to the United States. Canada’s queer group has said it is advising its people not to come. It is sad in so many ways. But despite what the felon in the White House is doing, WorldPride will be a success. It can be a time to not only have fun, but to make a point to the administration and the world. What was the old saying, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re not going anywhere, so get used to it.” The LGBTQ community in the United States has made great strides since Stonewall in 1969, and there is no way we are going back into the closet.
One way we can make a strong statement is if every member of the Congressional Equality Caucus would come out and join hands with constituents from their state, who are coming to D.C. for WorldPride. Together, they can take a stand for equality. Together, they can make a statement about our country to the world; that the United States values and supports its LGBTQ community.
This year from May 17-June, we are anticipating huge crowds in Washington, D.C. for WorldPride. Let us together make sure they are all safe and that they have an exciting and fun time while here. But at the same time we should use this gathering to speak out, for our community here, and the LGBTQ community around the world.
We must show the felon in the White House, and his MAGA acolytes in Congress, and around the nation, all those who would keep us down, we can, and will, stand up for ourselves. We are only willing to move one way, and that is forward toward full equality. Many years ago, during the early fight for recognition of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, there was an event staged by the group ACT UP, called ‘hands around the White House.’ It is time to stage something like that again.
With all the attacks on the trans community, and as threats to the entire LGBTQ community continue, we need to stand together, and stay strong. We need to join with everyone else who is fighting back against the felon, and his Nazi sympathizing co-president, in the White House. To join in the demonstrations, fight back, and not fall for the distractions meant to take us from our goals. Those goals must include defeating every Republican in elections in 2025, and taking back Congress in 2026. I say every Republican, only because today there is no longer a rational Republican Party. That party has become a MAGA Party, or ‘Cult of Trump.’ That is sad, but it’s true. It is not up to Democrats, or independents, to change the Republican Party; it is up to us to ensure their defeat until they change themselves.
Until then we must work hard to elect Democrats across the nation. From school board, to county council, from statehouse to Congress. For the LGBTQ community that is the only way we will move forward on equality. It is the only way we can defeat those who want to ban books about our lives, and try to force us back in the closet. We must say a resounding NO to that.
We must vote for Democrats because history shows us, any other vote, a vote for a third party, helps Republicans win. The reality, like it or not, is today there are only two parties that can win a general election. Yes, in a few rare districts, a third party has won. But this is rare and let’s not take the chance of that happening if there isn’t a history in your state, or district, or community, where it happened in the past. Be smart! While you may not like everything the Democratic Party stands for, it has proven, its members stand for the rights of the LGBTQ community. The incredible progress since Stonewall has been because the Democratic Party has worked with the activists in our midst, to make that progress. Let’s not give up now and move backwards with the MAGA Party. Together, let’s retake our government, and continue to move forward until we have full equality. That must be the goal we join hands for, and pledge to work toward.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
PHOTOS: Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
Potential Pope Francis successor views homosexuality as an ‘abomination’
Jacob Elordi rides high in ‘On Swift Horses’
Liberal Party wins Canadian election
