Connect with us

Opinions

Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and the deeply unsatisfying matter of re-litigating their trial

The series was panned by critics

Published

2 years ago

on

Amber Heard (Screen capture/YouTube-Netflix)

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.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Support the Blade as mainstream media bend the knee for Trump

From CBS to Washington Post, MAGA taking over messaging

Published

2 days ago

on

January 9, 2026

By

We knew it would be bad. I’m referring, of course, to 2025 and the unthinkable return of Donald Trump to the White House. 

We just didn’t know how bad. The takeover of D.C. police. ICE raids and agents shooting defenseless citizens in the face. The cruel attacks on trans Americans. A compliant and complicit right-wing Supreme Court and GOP rubberstamping all the criminality and madness.

Much of that was outlined in Project 2025 and was predictable. But what has proven surprising is the speed with which major companies, powerful billionaires, and media conglomerates have hopped on board the authoritarian train and kissed Trump’s ring. Tech giants like Apple and Meta and media companies like CBS and the Washington Post have folded like cheap tents, caving to MAGA pressure and enabling Trump’s evil agenda.

The guardrails collapsed in 2025. Congress has ceded its role as a formerly co-equal branch of government. Once trusted media outlets have betrayed their audiences’ trust and morphed into propaganda arms of the White House. As a lifelong journalist, this is perhaps the most shocking and disappointing development of the past year.

The Washington Post, which adopted the ominous tagline of “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” killed its endorsement of Kamala Harris in the final days of the 2024 campaign. Same thing at the Los Angeles Times. More recently, CBS’s vaunted “60 Minutes” spiked a story critical of Trump’s immigration policies under the direction of new editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, a Trump toady and the antithesis of a journalist. 

Concurrently, media companies large and small are fighting to survive. Government grants have been rescinded and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, responsible for funding NPR and PBS, announced plans to dissolve. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a nearly century-old Pulitzer Prize-winning institution, announced this week it will close on May 3. The Washington Post has lost scores of talented journalists, including prominent LGBTQ voices like Jonathan Capehart. The Baltimore Sun was acquired by the same family that owns right-wing Sinclair Broadcasting, ending a nearly 190-year tradition of award-winning, independent journalism.

It is not a coincidence that Trump’s attacks on democracy, traditions, and norms are happening while the media industry collapses. News deserts are everywhere now. In 2024, 127 newspapers closed, leaving 55 million Americans with limited or no access to local news, according to a report by Medill.

There’s a reason the media are called the “Fourth Estate.” Journalism was considered so critical to the health of our democracy that the Founding Fathers spelled it out in the First Amendment. Democracy and our Constitution cannot survive without a free and robust press.

That’s why I felt compelled to write this appeal directly to our readers. For nearly 57 years, the Blade has told the stories of LGBTQ Washington, documenting all the triumphs and heartbreaks and writing the first draft of our own history. Today, we remain hard at work, including inside the White House. This week, we have a reporter on the ground in Colombia, covering the stories of queer Venezuelan migrants amid the crisis there; another reporter will be inside the Supreme Court for next week’s trans-related cases; on Sunday, we have a reporter on the red carpet at the Golden Globes ready to interview the stars of “Heated Rivalry.”

We do a lot with a little. As major companies pull back on their support of the LGBTQ community, including their advertising in the Blade, we turn to our readers. We have never charged a dime to read the Blade in print or online. Our work remains a free and trusted resource. As we navigate these challenges, we ask that you join us. If you have the resources, please consider making a donation or purchasing a membership. If not, please subscribe to our free email newsletter. To join, visit washingtonblade.com and click on “Fund LGBTQ Journalism” in the top right navigation. 

Our community is known for its resilience. At the Blade, we’ve weathered the AIDS epidemic, financial crises, and a global pandemic. We are committed to our mission and will never bend to a wannabe dictator the way so many mainstream media outlets have done. The queer press is still here and with your help we will survive these unprecedented attacks on democracy and emerge stronger than before. Thank you for reading the Blade and for considering making a donation to support our work.


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Time has run out for the regime in Venezuela

American forces seized Nicolás Maduro, wife on Jan. 3

Published

2 days ago

on

January 9, 2026

By

Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in 2024. (Photo courtesy of Maduro's Instagram page)

Time has run out for the regime in Venezuela.

I am fully aware that we are living through complex and critical days, not only for my country but also for the entire region. However, the capture of Nicolás Maduro has renewed hope and strengthened my conviction that we must remain firm in our cause, with the certainty that the valid reward will be to see Venezuela free from those who continue to cling illegitimately to power.

In light of this new reality, I adopt a clear, direct, and unequivocal position:

I demand the immediate release of all political prisoners.

I demand that all persons arbitrarily detained for political reasons be returned to their families immediately, without delay or conditions.

According to Foro Penal, as of Jan. 5, 2026, there are 806 political prisoners in Venezuela, including 105 women, 175 military personnel, and one adolescent, and a total of 18,623 arbitrary arrests documented since 2014. The same report documents 17 people who have died while in State custody and 875 civilians prosecuted before military courts, clearly evidencing the use of the judicial and security apparatus as instruments of political persecution. In parallel, the humanitarian system estimates that 7.9 million people in Venezuela require urgent assistance, further aggravating the impact of repression on daily life.

Behind these figures are shattered lives, separated families, and destroyed life projects. Students, activists, human rights defenders, political leaders, and members of the armed forces remain imprisoned without judicial guarantees, without due process, and without justice.

Since the capture of Nicolás Maduro, repression has not ceased. On the contrary, more than ten journalists have been arbitrarily detained, while others have been harassed, imprisoned, or mistreated for carrying out their duty to inform. Today, journalism in Venezuela has become a heroic and high-risk act.

This situation is further aggravated by a new attack on fundamental freedoms: an illegitimate decree of “external state of emergency”, whose purpose is to legalize state terrorism, expand the scope of repression, and deepen the criminalization of dissent and freedom of expression.

The destruction of freedoms cannot and must not be normalized, either by society or by the international community.

I do not forget the atrocities committed against people deprived of their liberty: systematic violations of due process, torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, denial of medical care, and prolonged isolation.

These practices have been widely documented and denounced and are currently under investigation by international justice mechanisms.

In this regard, the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela has repeatedly expressed grave concern over the persistence of serious human rights violations, including the use of torture, enforced isolation, and the responsibility of State security forces in systematic abuses, as reflected in its statements and reports issued on Jan. 3, 2026, and throughout 2025.

From my unwavering commitment to human rights, I issue a firm and urgent call to Venezuelan citizens and to all people in the free and democratic world to stand together in defense of human dignity.

All political prisoners must be released now.

All torture and detention centers must be closed.

I am convinced that there can be no genuine democratic transition without the immediate release of political prisoners, the submission to justice of those responsible for arbitrary detentions, and the establishment of accountability mechanisms, guarantees of non-repetition, and full reparation for victims and their families. This is the only viable path toward a proper transition to democracy in Venezuela.

Today, more than ever, I stand in solidarity, inside and outside Venezuela, with the victims and their families.

This is a moment of definition, not of silence or hesitation.

I assume, together with millions of Venezuelans, that we are co-responsible for our collective reality and for the new Venezuela that we are called to rebuild.

Dignity, freedom, and justice cannot wait.

Freedom for Venezuela.

Juan Carlos Viloria Doria is president of the Global Alliance for Human Rights and vice president of Venezolanos en Barranquilla, an NGO based in Barranquilla, Colombia.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Just say no to the felon in the White House

Democrats, media must do more to oppose Trump’s agenda

Published

3 days ago

on

January 8, 2026

By

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

We have a clearly deranged, sick, felon as president, who can’t even remember if he had an MRI, or a CT. He says he takes enough aspirin to keep his blood running thin in his veins. He fakes health reports, and lies every time he opens his mouth. His brain appears foggier than Joe Biden’s ever was.

The felon arranged to get a fake Peace Prize from the soccer federation, while taking military actions around the world. He sanctioned American attacks on Nigeria, Iran, Syria, and now on the government, and people, of Venezuela. He has our military attacking boats, claiming they are carrying drugs, with no proof. He interferes in foreign elections, making the United States less safe. He obviously supports Putin in his war against Ukraine, and supports Netanyahu’s destruction of Gaza, and his starvation of the Palestinian people there. Because of all this it’s understandable why he calls his Secretary of Defense, his Secretary of War. That individual being unqualified with no competence, or decency — the perfect toady for the fascists surrounding Trump. He has a Secretary of State in Marco Rubio who clearly has no principles at all. Rubio previously said, “Donald Trump – a con artist – will never get control of this party…We cannot allow a con artist to get access to the nuclear codes of the United States of America.” He compared Trump to a “third-world strong man.” Now as Secretary of State he justifies all the illegal actions the felon takes.

I, and many others, question “Where is Congress in all this?” Do no Republicans in Congress have any cojones? Two Republican woman have criticized Trump — Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Both on the Epstein files, one on screwing the American people with regard to their health insurance. Both are now out of Congress, still MAGA, but found if you disagree with the felon, he sics his cult on you. 

My other question is: When will any in the media really stand up to him? When do mainstream media call out every one of his lies, as he makes them? When do they show any guts, and repeat each day he is deranged? When do they have daily headlines, calling him out on things from his health reports, to lies about the economy? Where are the daily headlines calling out the Republican Congress for its lack of action? Why is there no representative clock on every TV network, ticking off the time Congress doesn’t take back their rightful place as an equal branch of government? When will they call out the Supreme Court, reminding people what Trump’s picks said during their confirmations, versus what they are doing now? When will they actually reclaim ‘The freedom of the press?’ 

Democrats must continue to speak out. I am aware they have little power in this Congress, but they must not remain silent. We have seen, when they do speak up, we win elections. They help the people to wake up, as they did in recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia. In races as distinct as the mayoralty of Miami, where a Democrat won for the first time in 30 years, and did so in a landslide; and Democrats won two special elections for State Senate in Mississippi. In Georgia, Democrats won two seats on the Georgia Public Service Commission, the first time in 20 years they won a statewide seat. And they won a State Senate seat in Iowa, and the redistricting vote in California. 

To continue winning Democrats must remind people every day what the felon, and his fascist cohorts, are doing to destroy their lives. Latinos and Hispanics need a daily reminder, it is the felon who once said he supports them, whose government is now deporting them. Young people must be reminded every day, the felon is destroying the country they will inherit, their future, by denying climate change. Everyone needs daily reminders how he is destroying the health of the country. Ending research grants looking for cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and HIV/AIDS. Ending research grants into curing childhood diseases, development of mRNA vaccines, and other potential progress to protect Americans, and the world, when the next pandemic occurs, and it will. He is literally killing children by having his government speak out against vaccinations for illnesses like measles, considered eradicated before he came into office. 

All of this needs to be headlined each day in our newspapers, and on TV, by the people who still can, and are willing, to do it. Those not bought off by, or afraid of, the felon, and his fascist cohorts. Those who don’t sit with him at Mar-a-Lago, and have become his enablers. We the people need to take to the streets and every time there is an election, use our vote to say to the sick, deranged, felon, and his fascist cohorts, ‘NO MORE’. 


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular