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
Unfair attacks on Springfield Haitians recall our disturbing past
Political rhetoric feeds a system of harm that destroys lives
By Dwayne Steward
I am equal parts amazed and baffled by how often history repeats itself in this country.
As I watched the viral popularity of the “eating cats and dogs” moment explode across the globe following the presidential debates on Sept. 10, I couldn’t help but be reminded that this isn’t the first time the American political system has unfairly and inaccurately sacrificed the Haitian community at the altar of political fodder.
In 1982, just a year after the first scientific article was published identifying the AIDS virus, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention named the “4-H’s” as the leading at-risk communities for HIV transmission: “Haitians, Hemophiliacs, Homosexuals and Heroin addicts.” Today the CDC would consider most of these terms culturally inappropriate and would definitely defy anyone labeling an entire racial demographic as a danger to the community for infectious disease transmission.
However, the damage was done. Many politicians, including President Ronald Reagan, were quoted using the “4-H’s” as a tool to perpetuate the misconception that HIV was only affecting a flawed minority. These four profiles for HIV transmission seeped deep into the American consciousness. Rampant discrimination and stigma continues to haunt immigrants of the Black Diaspora, LGBTQ communities and people who use drugs, to this day.
J.D. Vance has mentioned several times to the press that the immigrants “flooding into Springfield” are increasing HIV cases in the area, despite there being no epidemiological data from local or state public health entities to back his claims.
Now, reports of bomb threats and ongoing safety concerns for Haitian people continue to dominate headlines. This rhetoric not only creates dangerous environments for the affected communities, but it also continues to support the codifying of laws that criminalize marginalized communities.
Earlier this year, Equality Ohio released a groundbreaking report in partnership with the Ohio Modernization Movement that showed more than 200 Ohioans between 2014 and 2020 were charged under laws aimed at criminalizing people who are living with HIV or AIDS. A startling 35% of these cases were filed against people who identified as Black, and nearly 1 in 3 were Black men.
Currently there are six laws in Ohio that criminalize HIV using outdated and disproven information that hasn’t been used by the medical field since the early 1990s. Yet, these laws are still being used to over-police and incarcerate marginalized communities.
Political rhetoric doesn’t just feed viral internet entertainment, it also feeds a system of harm that destroys lives and separates families. We should expect more from our public officials. Haitians, and all immigrants, should not have to live in fear because of the old, hateful propaganda spread by the people who should be representing us. Unless or until that changes, we can fight for change in ways large and small – even by thinking twice about the next meme we share.
Dwayne Steward is executive director of Equality Ohio. He previously served as the director of Inclusive Excellence, Belonging & Accessibility at OSU Wexner Medical Center, and has been published in various publications on the topics of racial justice, sexual health, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
Commentary
To West Africa with love
Thoughts on Ghanaian tradition, queerness, and Western imperialism
You may know by now that Ghana’s parliament has just passed one of the harshest laws against its LGBTQ citizens in West Africa. Many advocates, activists, LGBTQ people, and allies are still trying to process why and how this happened.
During this announcement a person I’m closely tied to was in Juaben, Ghana.
They were celebrating the life and passing of their grandmother, who happens to be a Queen Mother (Juabenhemaa) of the Asante Kingdom in Ghana. It was an elaborate two week traditional ceremony with both private and public events and was attended by thousands as well as the who’s who in Ghana including President Nana Akufo Addo himself.
As a history major, a cultural enthusiast and Afro-futurist, I was excited to have first hand accounts with photos and videos of all the ceremonies and to see beautiful Ghanaian royalty and people in their decorated clothes, dress, dance, and tradition. While at the same time supporting my loved one virtually.
About four days into the two week ceremony, my person in Ghana texted me about a male dancer wearing traditional women’s clothes, wearing makeup with a stuffed buttocks. They found it intriguing and was eager to share with me. In this traditional space, it was normalized and the cultural dancer continued to even dance with other men at the ceremony.
They reported to me that some of the young anti-LGBTQ Ghanian Americans at the ceremony were disgusted and confused. One remarked ‘What? Is this ‘Drag Race now?’ as the colorfully dressed person continued to skillfully dance their traditional dance in honor of the Asante Queen Mother.
Four days later the anti-LGBTQ law passed through the parliament of Ghana, devastating LGBTQ Ghanians, advocates, allies, and diaspora.
The bill now awaits the president’s signature to be enacted.
As I read through the 36-page long document called Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill of 2021, the basis document for this legislation, it includes repetitive emphasis of resistance to foreign imposition and the maintenance of Ghanaian values, culture, sovereignty, and independence and rejection of homosexuality. The document is a combination of the efforts of various groups including Christian organizations, Muslim organizations, family rights organizations, and the traditional chiefs of Ghana.
I found it interesting that there was but one paragraph that mentioned the importance of protecting the lives of LGBTQ people. Can you guess which one group (Christian organizations, Muslim organizations, Family rights organizations and the traditional chiefs of Ghana) was solely appealing to protect the lives of LGBTQ people in the bill?
The National House of Chiefs, the group most steeped in Ghanaian historical and cultural tradition, made some attempt within the document to shield the lives of LGBTQ people from harm.
Time and time again, advocates have purported that it is indeed the hatred of queer people that is an imposition. Yet they are Christian and family value organizations funded by the right wing organizations that claim to protect local culture and values but instead create divisions that threaten the livelihoods of their Ghanaian queer families.
It begs the question, What is so western about LGBTQ people?
If we are being completely honest, the language, culture and framework is certainly western.
The expression of self was never demonized in many now erased cultures across the world but the idea and framework of queerness today is.
The LGBTQ movement is largely a western movement and culture. From the rainbow flag to its terminology. Today LGBTQ/queer is the language we use universally to describe people whose self and sexual expression is not mainstream.
During colonization, many cultural indigenous traditions were lost including the language we used to identify our family and communities. It was then replaced with Christianity used as a tool to control and restrict — as it continues to do so today.
Indigenous Native Americans are fortunate to have retained their language and some of their culture. Their language of two-spirit makes room culturally for those Indigenous people we would call queer today.
There are countless examples of cultures within West African traditions and culture that have celebrated and have space and language for their “two-spirit” people as described by the Native Americans or their “Dagara” people as described by people from the Ghanaian neighboring country Burkina Faso.
That said, as a result of our erased cultures today, LGBTQ/queer is the language and culture we have globally adopted – obviously to the ire of those who don’t quite understand their own culture.
Regardless of language, culture or foreign imposition, there is no excuse for the hatred, exclusion, and persecution of any group of people — period.
From Uganda in East Africa, Ghana, West Africa to St. Vincent in the Eastern Caribbean the sentiment remains the same where there seems to be a confusion around cultural identity and the clutching onto an idea of sovereignty in efforts to continue to resist years of colonial oppression, imposition, and trauma.
We haven’t even begun to discuss how Christianity, another colonial tool, has culturally divided us and has our societal progress in a chokehold.
However, as a futurist, it is not helpful to remain in a place of blame, anger and self pity — it gets us nowhere. This is the hand that we have been dealt and we must work in various ways to build up our businesses and to nurture and grow families, communities, and our people.
And so I offer this piece to the brave advocates across various post colonial landscapes — draw close to the cultures and identities from whence you came. Activists like Lady Phyll and Alex Kofi Donor have remained entrenched within their cultural tradition signifying that being queer identifying people and being African in identity and culture aren’t mutually exclusive.
We ought to be bold in addressing and working with external groups — the extremely tough and dangerous part of advocacy — entering churches, parliaments, universities, and being visible and contributing citizens not only within local queer communities but outside of the silos and enclaves of our safe spaces. That visibility puts a human face and personality to our cause. We must be our own politicians. Building real relationships with folks who we may not always agree with but who we may see eye to eye with on other issues. Start showing up for other marginalized groups besides our own.
And perhaps I’m blinded by the context of the advocacy done in little Barbados, perhaps it’s a safer place these days, an easier place to exercise this level of visibility … maybe.
What I do know is that we need to employ thoughtful strategy to our advocacy efforts because it was the strategy of the colonial powers that got us in this situation in the first place.
And it will be our understanding of our own people and the application of strategic thinking that will get us out.
Opinions
10 reminders of why we must vote for Harris
A strong LGBTQ turnout could swing election in key states
There are a million reasons to vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump but here are 10 of the best. If you’re not feeling the burn about casting your ballot, please remember just how close our last two elections were and how dire the 2016 consequences for the country. Indeed, a strong turnout by LGBTQ and allied voters could prove decisive in some key states.
So let’s review 10 reasons why it’s not only important — but essential — that all LGBTQ and allied voters show up to vote for Kamala Harris.
#10 The opportunity to make history. For the second time in 16 years, America has the exciting chance to make a historic choice for the White House. Kamala Harris would be the first woman and first woman of color to serve as president if elected. It’s not the #1 reason to vote for her but it’s a pretty damn good ancillary benefit.
#9 The chance to send Trump into oblivion. After eight long years of commanding endless mainstream media attention for his ever-expanding list of racist, sexist, xenophobic, and transphobic attacks, we have the chance to finally dispatch ourselves of the toxic Trump. He’s insulted everyone from Gold Star families and the disabled to Meryl Streep and Rosie O’Donnell. That there’s anyone left willing to vote for him is mindboggling. (I’m talking to you Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz.) Imagine how much our collective blood pressure will ease without having to endure wall-to-wall coverage of his every social media post. “Morning Joe” will be hard pressed to continue without Trump to mock but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
#8 To preserve trans military service. In his first term, Trump tweeted that trans people were barred from serving their country “in any capacity.” It was a cruel stunt that damaged careers and led to a direct uptick in hate crimes targeting the trans community. There’s no doubt he would reinstate that ban on day one. It’s ironic that Trump goes after brave members of the military given his own “bone spur” excuse to avoid Vietnam. None of his kids has served either, of course. Trump has referred to dead service members as “losers” and “suckers.” That comment alone — corroborated by his chief of staff John Kelly — should be disqualifying.
#7 To continue growing the economy. I’ve never understood all the naysayers who complain about the U.S. economy, which is envied the world over. No other country emerged from COVID as strong as we did, defying all expert predictions of recession — record stock market numbers, record employment, rapidly declining inflation and interest rates. The Democrats have never been good at messaging and it’s frustrating that they allow Trump to talk down our economy at every rally without a coherent response. The truth is our economy is strong and Harris’s plans to tax the wealthiest and invest in small businesses has been endorsed by leading economists over Trump’s ridiculous and doomed idea of starting a trade war with China over tariffs. The LGBTQ community is disproportionally entrepreneurial, so Harris’s tax benefits for small business owners will boost us tremendously.
#6 To aid Ukraine. The Blade has traveled to Poland and other Eastern European countries to cover the plight of LGBTQ migrants fleeing Ukraine after Russia’s invasion. Their stories are heartbreaking. We have an obligation to stand by Ukraine along with Western Europe to stop the murderous Putin and preserve democracy. Trump will cave to Putin’s demands that he be allowed to annex large swaths of Ukrainian territory, emboldening the Russian dictator and encouraging further incursions into other neighboring countries.
#5 To stop Project 2025 in its tracks. We have documented the anti-LGBTQ horrors that await us if Project 2025 becomes the governing blueprint for a second Trump administration. The assaults are too many to recap here so just remember these lines from the document: “The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender awareness, gender-sensitive….out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contracts, grant regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”
#4 To protect a woman’s right to control her body. Predictably, women are now dying as a result of Trump’s abortion bans, as reported by ProPublica. And it will only get worse if Trump is re-elected and his congressional allies push through a national abortion ban as they’ve promised to do. If you think this isn’t about you, consider that Roe v. Wade provided the foundation for the Obergefell marriage ruling, which Justices Alito and Thomas have already said should be revisited.
#3 Supreme Court. Speaking of the high court, there is credible speculation that if Trump wins, Alito and Thomas will be pressured to retire, giving Trump an unprecedented five picks and a MAGA majority. That’s game over for a generation and the end of Obergefell marriage equality, Lawrence privacy rights, and more.
#2 To preserve and advance LGBTQ equality. The last 20 years have brought unimaginable progress for LGBTQ rights, from marriage equality to the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to Bostock’s conferring employment protections to most of us, and so much more. There’s more to do, especially given the anti-LGBTQ state laws passed around the country giving rise to book bans, bathroom bans, and dangerous anti-trans healthcare restrictions. A Trump presidency jeopardizes all of our recent gains and puts us back on defense. A Harris presidency ensures we continue to move ahead and gives us a chance to undo some of the recent setbacks.
#1 To defend democracy. Trump and J.D. Vance whine a lot about criticism that they are undermining democracy, claiming these accusations are to blame for two recent assassination attempts. For someone who trafficks in violent rhetoric all the time, it’s a brazen and hypocritical claim. There’s an old saying about living by the sword that Trump should Google. But it’s not hyperbole to suggest that a Trump presidency would represent the end of democracy. He’s already incited an insurrection after badly losing the 2020 election. Trump and Project 2025 promise to gut the federal government, lock up critics and journalists, allow Putin to do “whatever the hell he wants,” privatize critical government functions, ban books and DEI, and even to ban pornography. The list goes on. Yes, it’s the end of American democracy if he wins.
But this election isn’t just about rejecting Trump. It’s also about embracing the promise of a Harris administration, which would bolster the economy, respect human rights, fight for equality, combat climate change, fix the border, advance gun reform, and promote many other common sense, centrist policies supported by a majority of Americans.
There you have it, a succinct reminder of what’s at stake on Nov. 5. So vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and send a message that character still matters, that America remains a trusted defender of human rights, and that we won’t let a dangerous convicted felon anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].
Blade to mark 55 years, celebrate Best Of LGBTQ DC
Upper Chesapeake Bay Pride hosts October events
A contemporary take on ‘Romeo and Juliet’ at Folger
‘Beauty, beauty, look at you!”: 50 years of ‘Female Trouble’
Unfair attacks on Springfield Haitians recall our disturbing past
Gay Episcopal minister to be reinstated 40 years after being defrocked
10 reminders of why we must vote for Harris
Trump, GOP candidates spend $65 million on anti-trans ads
Hundreds attend gay IDF soldier’s memorial service
On National Coming Out Day: No more silent compromises
-
District of Columbia5 days agoGay Episcopal minister to be reinstated 40 years after being defrocked
-
Opinions4 days ago10 reminders of why we must vote for Harris
-
Politics4 days agoTrump, GOP candidates spend $65 million on anti-trans ads
-
Israel4 days agoHundreds attend gay IDF soldier’s memorial service