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.
Commentary
BookMen DC: Still going strong at 25
Celebrating the longest-running LGBTQ literary group in the area
On May 11, 1999, what was originally known as the Potomac Gay Men’s Book Group convened for its first meeting. A lot has changed over the ensuing quarter-century, starting with our name. But our identity remains true to the description on our blog: “an informal group of men who are interested in gay literature (both fiction and non-fiction).”
Our founder, Bill Malone, worked at the Whitman-Walker Clinic and started the group using donations of remainder books from a wholesaler in New York. Soon after that, members decided to get their own books, and began purchasing them through Lambda Rising, which offered a discount for such orders until it closed in 2010. The group later renamed itself BoysnBooks, and then became BookMen DC in 2007, which is also when we started our blog.
Following Bill’s tenure, Tom Wischer, Greg Farber and Tim Walton (who set up our blog) have served as our facilitators. I succeeded Tim in that role in 2009, and am grateful to him and all my predecessors for laying such a solid foundation for our group.
Twenty-five years after our founding, we are the longest-running LGBTQ literary group in the DMV. So far, we have discussed nearly 400 books, ranging from classics like Plato’s Symposium to graphic novels, gay history and memoirs, and novels by James Baldwin, Michael Cunningham, E.M. Forster and Edmund White—to name just a few of the many authors and genres we’ve explored.
Currently, we have more than 120 names on our mailing list, of whom about a quarter attend meetings at least occasionally. (Average attendance at our meetings is about 10.) Our members variously consider themselves gay, queer, bisexual, or transgender, and those varying perspectives enhance our discussions. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that, like many LGBTQ organizations, we are not nearly as diverse as I wish we were. Although we do have young members and people of color within our ranks, we are predominantly white and middle-aged or older. We have tried various forms of outreach to further diversify our membership, and will keep working on that.
How has BookMen DC not just survived, but thrived, when so many other book clubs and LGBTQ groups have foundered? I would identify several factors.
First and foremost, we are welcoming. We have no minimum attendance requirements and charge no dues. And we expressly encourage members to join us at meetings even if they haven’t finished the selection we’re discussing.
We are also collaborative. Each fall, members nominate titles for the next year’s reading list; I then compile those suggestions into a list for members to weigh in on, and the results of that vote determine what we will read.
Finally, we are flexible and adaptable. Over the years, we have met in locations all over the District. Currently, we meet on the first Wednesday of each month at the Cleveland Park Library (3310 Connecticut Ave. NW) from 6:30-7:30 p.m. to discuss entire books; afterward, those interested go to dinner at a neighborhood restaurant.
When the pandemic struck four years ago, we took a break for a couple of months before moving operations online. (Thank God for Zoom!) Even after the venues where we’d been meeting reopened, we have continued to meet virtually on the third Wednesday of each month, from 7-8 p.m. During those Zoom sessions, we discuss sections of anthologies of poetry and short stories, as well as short standalone works (e.g., plays and novellas).
If you enjoy LGBTQ literature and would like to try us out, visit our blog: https://bookmendc.blogspot.com/ and click the link to email me. We’d love to meet you!
Steven Alan Honley, a semi-retired musician, editor, and writer, has been a member of BookMen DC since 2000 and its facilitator since 2009.
Opinions
Rosenstein: Vote for Angela Alsobrooks and April McClain-Delaney
Two strong, accomplished women for Maryland
I am endorsing two strong accomplished women for Maryland. The first is Angela Alsobrooks, for United States Senate. Second is April McClain-Delaney for Congress in Maryland’s 6th District. Both women are superbly qualified, and will fight hard for, and be a credit to, the people of Maryland.
Angela Alsobrooks is county executive of Prince George’s County. She was born and raised in Maryland. She is a graduate of Duke University, and the University of Maryland, School of Law. She was the first full-time Assistant State’s Attorney to handle domestic violence cases in Prince George’s County. She made history as the youngest, and first woman, to be elected Prince George’s County State’s Attorney where she stood up for families, taking on some of Maryland’s worst criminals, while treating victims and the accused with dignity and respect. Under her tenure, violent crime dropped by 50 percent.
Alsobrooks has said, “This year we know the rights of women to control their own bodies and healthcare, is at the top of the list of concerns for so many Marylanders, and decent people across the country, both men and women.” Because of this Maryland must elect a strong woman to ensure we win the fight on this issue. There are many reasons to support Alsobrooks. One is if we look at the United States Senate, what is clearly missing, is an African-American woman. That is a disgrace. Marylanders have the ability to make that right by voting for Angela Alsobrooks.
But there are other reasons to vote for Angela. She understands how federal policy impacts states and counties, directly impacting her constituents, because she has dealt with the issues that arise from the bills Congress passes. Angela is a pragmatic progressive, and will work across the aisle to get things done. Nothing prepares you more for negotiating with Republicans in Congress, than negotiating with a county council and community activists, and she has done both successfully for many years. She will continue to fight for LGBTQ equality having named the first LGBTQ liaison in PG County. She supports legislation to fight climate change, and supports student loan forgiveness. Maryland leaders know Alsobrooks is the right candidate. She has been endorsed by Gov. Wes Moore, Lt. Gov. Aruna Miller, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and former Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Congressmen Jaimie Raskin, Steny Hoyer and Glenn Ivey; and an overwhelming number of local legislators and leaders in PG County. They all know how good she is, and how much she will do for Maryland, and the nation. I urge a vote for Angela Alsobrooks in the Democratic Senate primary.
I also join a hero of mine, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressmen Steny Hoyer and Dutch Ruppersberger, along with a host of Maryland legislators and office holders, who have endorsed April McClain-Delaney. She has more than 30 years’ experience in communications law, regulatory affairs, and advocacy, across a broad spectrum of government, private sector, and non-profit engagements. She has served as the Washington director and a board member of Common-Sense Media, a leading non-profit dedicated to how media impacts kids health and wellbeing. Her policy and advocacy efforts have spanned digital citizenship, bridging the digital divide, and tech equity issues, privacy matters, spectrum, and internet governance. She has served as assistant general counsel and regulatory affairs director at Orion Satellite where she oversaw domestic and international regulatory efforts in approximately 20 countries, and served as one the founding board members of the International Satellite Association.
In addition to her professional endeavors, she has served on numerous boards and councils. These include the Meridian Women’s Leadership Council; Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security; Georgetown Law Center (past chair); Northwestern University Board of Trustees; the International Center for Research on Women; Innocents at Risk; and the Sun Valley Community School. She is a graduate of Northwestern University and has her JD from Georgetown Law Center. Delaney is the best candidate to win the 6th District for Democrats. Delaney understands rural Maryland having grown up on a farm in Iowa. She understands government today, serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Biden administration.
When it comes to the issue of protecting a woman’s right to control her own body and healthcare, no one will match April in her vigilance. She is a mother fighting for the rights for her four daughters. She is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, and will support policies to fight climate change, support debt relief for students, and will work to protect our national security. She understands what it means to work across the aisle without giving up any of her principles. She is the kind of person we need in Congress. I urge a vote for April McClain-Delaney in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District, Democratic primary.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
Opinions
Unique financial planning challenges for trans community
Overcoming roadblocks in journey to living an authentic life
Approximately 2.6 million Americans identify as transgender, according to the U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey in 2023. This community faces many financial, legal, and estate planning challenges, resulting in higher rates of financial instability compared to the general population. However, these challenges are not generally understood or even discussed.
At JPMorgan Chase, we’re dedicated to providing awareness and education to help all communities — including members of the LGBTQ+ community — reach their financial goals. Our team at J.P. Morgan Wealth Management recently published a new white paper to offer actionable tips for transgender adults to help them overcome some of the specific obstacles they face with planning.
Here are some key takeaways:
Inaccurate identity documents create a foundational problem
Hundreds of thousands of transgender people in the U.S. do not have a single piece of identification that correctly identifies their gender or chosen name. Many people, including those in the broader LGBTQ+ population, have never thought about what their lives would be like if they lacked accurate identity documents.
Having accurate identity documents is essential for so many aspects of everyday life – applying for school or a job, finding a place to live, exercising the right to vote and boarding a plane. Presenting inaccurate identification in these situations can subject transgender individuals to unfair discrimination and harassment. But correcting name and gender markers on identity documents can be complicated, expensive, time-consuming, and in some cases, impossible.
The U.S. State Department has adopted one of the most simple and progressive policies for correcting gender markers in the world. Since June 2021, medical certification is not required to change the gender marker in one’s passport. Transgender people should consider updating their U.S. Passport book or card immediately and use that document as primary identification. Passport books and cards are valid for 10 years, even if policies change during that time.
Credit issues are common for trans community
Transgender individuals who are able to successfully obtain new identity documents still frequently face credit issues. Unlike changes to one’s last name after a marriage or divorce, informing banks or other creditors of a change to one’s first name on accounts does not automatically cause credit reporting agencies to update that person’s credit file. The credit reporting system can often be problematic for transgender people after a name change, with many reporting that credit files are never updated or that their credit scores decline.
This can create a cascading effect in numerous areas of one’s financial life, and it goes beyond borrowing. Credit files are frequently checked in employment decisions, pricing insurance, establishing utility and phone service and applying to rent a home.
Until policies change, transgender individuals should directly contact each creditor and credit reporting agency and follow each organization’s specific procedures and documentation requests. And they should carefully monitor that the changes are actually made and do not result in a credit score change.
Emergency and end-of-life documents should be carefully reviewed
Transgender people often have special health care needs and face unique forms of disparate treatment in accessing care, and cannot speak for themselves in these circumstances. End-of-life planning is often difficult to think about, but it’s especially critical that this community works with their attorneys and trusted advisors to create customized emergency and end-of-life legal documents.
The people named in these documents who could become decision-makers – typically trusted friends or supportive family members – should be empowered to direct health care providers to meet the patient’s wishes and preserve their chosen name and gender identity, as well as service providers, such as funeral home employees, to honor the deceased’s wishes about their appearance during memorial services.
The laws for these documents are complicated, and they vary depending on the state or territory. If possible, these documents should be prepared by experienced attorneys who routinely work with members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The bottom line
Transgender individuals in the United States face unique financial, legal and estate planning challenges that create roadblocks in their journey to living an authentic life. Careful planning can help mitigate some, but not all, of these obstacles.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., its affiliates, and employees do not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. You should consult your own tax, legal and accounting advisors before engaging in any financial transaction. J.P. Morgan Wealth Management is a business of JPMorgan Chase & Co., which offers investment products and services through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS), a registered broker-dealer and investment adviser, member FINRA and SIPC.
Joseph Hahn is executive director of Wealth Planning & Advice at J.P. Morgan Wealth Management.
Journalists are not the enemy
BookMen DC: Still going strong at 25
Deliciously queer ‘Dead Boy Detectives’ a case worth taking on
Prominent Ugandan activist asks for asylum in Canada
From LGBTQ book bans to internet bans: A bipartisan attack on knowledge
EXCLUSIVE: White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on speaking out and showing up
PHOTOS: Gay Day at the Zoo
Tel Aviv authorities cancel Pride parade
Trone discusses transgender niece
