Channel 4, UK; not yet available in the US
AS A chronic user of Twitter, I have watched plenty of social media storms unfold over the years. But, like many chasing the online zeitgeist, I kept away from Depp versus Heard.
Advertisement
In April last year, Johnny Depp brought a $50 million defamation case against his ex-wife and fellow actor, Amber Heard. He argued that Heard had damaged his reputation and career by describing herself as 鈥渁 public figure representing domestic abuse鈥� in a . She countersued for $100 million, claiming Depp and his lawyers had defamed her by claiming she had lied to damage Depp鈥檚 career.
Depp V Heard, a three-part documentary from Channel 4, sets out to present an unbiased view of the case while delving into the murky online world around it. Its unique selling point is that the two testimonies are presented side by side, allowing viewers to catch inconsistencies and contradictions. It is spliced through with shots of the couple in seemingly happier days and set to a gloomy, ominous score.
The trial was a media circus before it began, but it was Judge Penney Azcarate鈥檚 decision to allow live broadcasts, we learn, that sent the internet wild. Opinions flowed: proceedings were livestreamed with commentary from legal experts and laypeople alike. Clips were reposted and edited to make memes across YouTube, Twitter and especially TikTok. Articles about the trial generated in the US than coverage of the war in Ukraine, inflation and covid-19 combined, from 4 April to 16 May 2022.
It became clear there was money to be made and influence gained, particularly if you created pro-Depp, anti-Heard content. For example, videos with the hashtag #justiceforamberheard were viewed 21 million times on TikTok by the final days of the case, while those with #justiceforjohnnydepp received more than .
The documentary does address the flurry of misinformation about the trial. This ranges from fundamental disputes to the smallest detail 鈥� for example, we learn the true origin of the term 鈥渕ega pint鈥�, which was used by Heard鈥檚 lawyer to describe Depp鈥檚 drinking. Depp鈥檚 amusement at the phrase quickly became a meme among his supporters to mock Heard鈥檚 defence team, but it was a term during his unsuccessful lawsuit against The Sun newspaper two years earlier.
Yet Depp V Heard can鈥檛 sift through the claims, from the submitted evidence to the work of amateur sleuths. All it can do is show how social media flooded the public sphere so that it was difficult to know the truth, allowing Depp鈥檚 savvier fans to manipulate TikTok and YouTube.
It is possible the public鈥檚 desire to comment influenced the jurors, who weren鈥檛 sequestered and were simply advised to avoid media coverage of the case. One juror, however, has .
It might have been better if the documentary had ignored the proceedings to focus on those who profited from this spectacle. Yet, despite its flaws, Depp V Heard is a vital watch if you, like me, have been too cowardly to look at this case. The untamed online world it shows is ugly, with the potential to undermine our justice system.
Depp V Heard offers no answers, and that makes it the scariest TV I have watched in a long time.
Bethan also recommends鈥�
Disney+ (UK); Hulu (US)
As someone who wasn鈥檛 alive at the time, this dramatisation of the O.鈥塉. Simpson trial was a truly shocking watch for me.
Netflix
This is the story of Charlotte Laws and her allies as they take on revenge porn purveyor Hunter Moore and his website, Is Anyone Up? Warning: it makes for tough聽viewing.
Bethan Ackerley is a subeditor at New Scientist. She loves sci-fi, sitcoms and anything spooky. She is still upset about聽the ending of Game of聽Thrones. Follow her on Twitter @inkerley
