Empty center of Johnny Depp and Amber Hard Trial

On April 25, I went to see Canadian author Shila Heti to talk about her new book. At the time, we were in the Amber Hard-Johnny Depp courtroom for two weeks (it was expected to end on May 27, God help us). In the first televised celebrity trial that felt like age, we saw Hardk look photogenically painful, and Depp firmly fixed as a description of their tumultuous five-year relationship – which included physical violence, free-flowing matter, and that free-flowing body fluids. . No one really cared if it was a defamation suit (Depp sues Hard for $ 50 million for writing an op-ed. The Washington Post About surviving an abusive marriage). There seems to be a resounding feeling around the trial from everyone I’ve talked to: Wow. A kind of sudden lament, meant for us more than them. For that reason, I did not expect the trial to break down the walls of the saloon where we were listening to the author. What should a person look like? Talk about his craft. But then Haiti was asked what he was doing in the projects. “Okay, I’ve been sick all week, so the Amber Hard-Johnny Depp trial is the only thing I’m interested in,” he said. “If only I had a better answer.” Hetty hinted at drowning in her own guesses, and even then, she had no patience for Depp, only for Hard. “She’s beautiful,” he said, “but it changes when you hear her scream.”

This seems to be the essence of justice in the consciousness of the people – the veil of scandal, the root of ambiguity. The headlines that shut down the hard-dap riots are so exciting that they are reminiscent of a bygone era, providing “bombshells” and “shocking moments”. Body language specialists have been re-hired, celebrity names have been dropped, and even a rib of the witness stand has been debated. On top of that there is a lot of moral resentment towards the army of Depp supporters who have flooded social media apps like TikTok to excite Horde. The relatively quiet media coverage around the Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein trials seems to be all that miles away from what I think. Of course, this particular trial is designed to treat the tabloids, boasting two Hollywood stars, a significant age gap between them, hints of adultery, and the type of extra wealth that not only afflicts but also humiliates. More extra. The ambiguity comes from the fact that in different ways and at different levels, here both sides seem to be both victims and criminals. Five years after MeToo, what reads as a surprisingly retrospective speech around this trial becomes less surprising when you realize that the movement doesn’t really split.

The slogan Believe All Women, from MeToo, had good intentions — that women rarely lie about abuse — but it almost immediately became a bit of a catch-22. Believe All Women has hinted that either you accept what a woman says at a premium price without any question or you don’t and thus MeToo is dead. “The real weakness of social feminism is not that it encourages women to be overly sensitive to discomfort, but that it is so pervasive,” writes Moira Donegan. The Guardian. “The call for women to unite can ignore the pain and conflict that exists between them.” This failure to create a kind of gray area means that MeToo has become particularly sensitive to feedback. The main one is the feminist rift identified by Donegan as the division between those who believe in women’s personal empowerment এটি it works well in capitalism, which is why conservatives prefer it এবং and those who believe in collective liberation, which is even more so. Threat to stability (which is why I like it).

In the case of the Heard trial and in the case of the army of its vocal Depp supporters, the reaction is driven by the realization that MeToo has sidelined men. In particular, men like Depp, whose own allegations of abuse by herds have become a symbol of the collapse of the movement. A member of Depp’s online support system told Slate: “At the end of the day, we’re so passionate about this because we don’t love Captain Jack Sparrow, but because we want to raise awareness of a very real problem that is often brushed off. Under the rug It’s easier said than done (and punctuated), especially online.

Although the online stan culture has downplayed the question of who is right and who is wrong, the mainstream media is facing a more complex dilemma: how should it conduct the kind of justice that was traditionally dismissed as mere scandal, which was used. Need to be employed in the tabloid press, knowing what we know now- that gossip has repeatedly been proven to be as realistic and reasonable as the official discourse? In other words, how do you validate gossip as evidence? Especially when it’s so turbulent? With MeToo came a better understanding of how whisper networks have historically and privately protected women from abuse, thus giving more legitimacy to gossip. You can even see its sublime effects in the provocative article of the trial. Hard himself wrote a mandatory op-ed decades ago, instead of what would have been a pile of juicy filtered filters through anonymous sources.

Depp accuses Heard of writing op-eds to further his career (he was recently fired from his campaign team), when he argues that he sued to save him (this is a man who owns an island, remember). In the golden age of Hollywood, when movie studios used gossip columns to promote, such gossip stories were in the 30’s and 40’s. Timely leaks about the actors’ personal lives keep them in the public eye and benefit the box office. It has also done the opposite – scandals (affairs, drugs, arrests) can damage the financial power of celebrities. With the advent of loose defamation laws in the 60’s – a lawsuit had to be proved that the publisher of the alleged lies did so maliciously, which is why it was so difficult to win Depp’s lawsuits And newspapers in the 90s. Then came Court TV in 1991.

Celebrity Trial, aired on television, has been granted its first major breakout by OJ Simpson, turning it into its own IP machine, turning countless stories and other showbiz opportunities. Relatively rare show trials like Michael Jackson’s have become their own tabloid ecosystem, and in their case, even non-televised celebrity court cases – from Winona Ryder’s infamous sex theft to Nicole Smith’s custody war – have been tabloidized by their most tabloid banks. Risky. Moving on to the need, blogs made gossip columnists from regular people, then social media made it free for everyone. The churning of non-stop news cycles and attendant social media where Court TV relaunched in 2019 পরে after a decade of stagnation শুধু prompted some unsuspecting A-listers to sue. Jack Sparrow has played more roles.

With fewer tabloids around, with fewer publications in general, you’d think the response to the celebrity trial aired on television in 2022 would be even less. But the constant need for online content and the constant need to respond on social media means it is even less so. All aspects of the trial are analyzed, the difference is now even analyzed (hi). Increasingly aware of interdepartmental harassment, media-conscious online is persuaded to place everything, even from one-off-one slaps of celebrities to an abusive marriage, in a systematic context. This includes an academically tinged speech, lacking depth due to lack of factual information (hence Yen-may unlock the next photo case of Depp on the floor of his hotel room for more details!) Mutual abuse “, surrounds academic terms such as smart-sounding gloss. Like the courts, like the mainstream media, neither MeToo nor social media can handle human subtlety.

Sometimes the reason why a celebrity hurts another celebrity is unclear to them, and even if it doesn’t, there’s not always much money to dig out of such incidents. It’s not the kind of gossip that has a social function. It’s schadenfreude, we’re not there to thank God for the regular people there. Which might be the point. In an aristocratic culture, they can still be brought down so low that people no longer have to admire them (which they themselves do). Perhaps this is why Hetty was willing to admit on that stage, knowing that it was embarrassing, that he saw Hard and Depp floundering – as a self-reflecting writer, he knew that the only revelation promised by this trial was about himself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.