In case you missed it (difficult but not impossible), here’s a rundown of what happened between the Hollywood stars. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in past years. The tumultuous legal cases of the two had actually been going on for quite some time, until that meeting in the courtroom in the state Virginia. The former couple initially ran into each other for the first time in London during a lawsuit that began after Johnny Depp’s libel complaint against a British tabloid. Sunwho called the actor a “wife beater”, wife beating; Jack Sparrow’s translator lost the case.
Sarah Ventura: “The body is an art”
It was later an editorial written and signed by Amber Heard for the newspaper. Washington Post who burst the bubble more than anything else. She never mentions Depp in an editorial, but says she “became public figure representing domestic violenceand feel compelled to speak on behalf of all other female victims as well”; this was in 2018, about a year after the exploits of the #MeToo movement.
After this publication, Johnny Depp was distanced himself from Disney and his roles in the sagas Pirates of the Caribbean AND fantastic beasts: Job and reputational damage is what prompted him to sue his ex-wife Heard for libel, and here we are in Fairfax County. One year later.
What did Depp vs. Heard want to talk about?
Documentary film maker Emma Cooper he decided to trace the patterns of what was happening, trying to generalize the development of events from both points of view at the same time; real faces Johnny Depp and Amber Heard follow each other, accompanied by their very recognizable lawyers, who in a short time have become the stars (or “clowns”) of the network. The director has more than 200 hours of video recordings of the court session, speeches of the creators of live content with comments on the process (in practice it was the Super Bowl) and other media products created by users TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The task of the director, it would seem, is to rewind the film and offer an alternative view of the process, to be able to talk about it as an event that inevitably marked our attitude to truth and reality as two hardly factual concepts, and much more.
Often perceived. The problem with a documentary divided into three episodes is that we all already knew it.
“An exercise in futility”
In accordance with Hollywood Reporter, one of the problems with this documentary is that it comes out too early; just a year of “rest” of the case, while actor Depp is gaining momentum in Hollywood, and Hurd seems to have decided to completely change his life in Spain, he finds no fertile material to thrive. On the other hand, an attempt restore eye balance as much of the world’s population has watched this case on the Internet, cannot, as Cooper attempts to do in some (empty) cases, go through the voices of the lawyers and the evidence offered by the defense that never made it to court. This is because in the first case the story is old: movies and newspapers are full of unscrupulous lawyers who do their job very well; in the second case the saying “the most important thing is invisible to the eye“. How can we evaluate evidence that has not become evidence?
And this question brings with it another (decidedly Marzullian): why should we evaluate? This was the first time that a process of this magnitude had been deployed on a global operating table, in which anyone (anyone, really) could have their say, create their own bubble of followers who follow step by step and believe in anything. they are told. Non-specialists who comment live on every step of the process, lawyers or supposed lawyers who explain to us why and how, and almost everything is completely in favor of Johnny Depp. Which isn’t a coincidence at all, given the aura that surrounds him; in the same documentary, the first major element is the waiting, adoring crowd of Depp, and the nonentity cheering Heard at the entrance to the courtroom.
Very little online content in favor of Heard, e definitely not “sexy”. They bribe and attach themselves to the stomach of the public much more, but they are opposed to the actress. TikTok is filled to the brim with tongue-in-cheek videos of Heard as a witness, with copycats mocking his ways and snubming passages. Just the idea that someone is lying to give us the green light making fun of testimonies of violence and physical and psychological abusewhat does he say he got hurt?
The main character is the audience from home
Cooper wants to show that there is no good and bad, maybe, but what the viewer needs crown each other: the discriminating factor was the popularity and capacity of the media influence reality. A point that gently comes back when we talk about the fact that the representatives of the jury in the case could not, during the 6 weeks of the trial, watch, read, listen to or talk about topics, articles, investigations or anything else. other related to the court. Mission impossible, Summing up; the fatal flaw of the documentary is also here, in that missed the opportunity to clarify worthy of testing even those who were already alive last summer.
One of the few advantages of this product is to point the camera even outside of Virginia, going out on screens users and content creators all kinds, which literally “gave inside out” last year, showing how Heard’s ill-wishers (and therefore necessarily avid Depp fans) positioned themselves even before the trial, and are also very ambiguous in their vision of the three-dimensionality of what is happening. Essentially, it is a movement related process #Me toofor one reason or another, and this is the moment that would have generated media buzz: this was the second time that the beloved actor (after Kevin Spacey) was “sued”, but this was the first time a complaint by a victim was interpreted as plausible. Here, perhaps, is the “success” of the process Amber Heard vs. Johnny Depp (but not documentary).
On the other hand, we knew that the time was too immature: but the interlude of potential profit passes quickly, so we might as well embroider something.
We await further developments and requests; if, as a member of generation Z within the framework of document, this is a case with a cultural impact similar to that of OJ Simpson, we are sure there will be some news. We decide how to take them.