Along with countless others around the globe, I’ve been watching the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial play out in real-time at the courthouse in Fairfax, Virginia USA via YouTube, and it has surprised, shocked and saddened me.
Because this very public spectacle needn’t have happened.
And before anyone says “oh but actors LOVE being in the limelight; any publicity is good publicity”, I personally believe both Depp and Heard are essentially two very nice people with neurodiverse personalities who got carried away on a rush of dopamine during a film-set, and because of the way their brains work, they assumed this was IT.
We’ve all been there.
When a neurodiverse brain is happy, it’s WILDLY happy. To the point it makes you feel invincible. But when it’s unhappy? my God the pain and distress is comparable only to that of childbirth. Look up Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria. It’s a comorbidity of the neurodiverse condition, so I’m not surprised that the disappointment they must’ve felt following the realisation they weren’t great for one another, led to recrimination, rage and need to vilify one another
Dopamine takes its hits wherever it can.
Neurotypical couples who are not stars of the screen will generally have rows until they can’t take any more. Then they’ll separate and bitch behind one another’s backs, but without the full force of public scrutiny cataloguing and reporting their every move.
Therefore, it’s simpler in Jo Public’s world because we don’t wake up, see our latest arguments turned into headlines, then re-live them as fans on social media then spout their opinions, making things feel a thousand times worse.
I think I’d be in a tailspin and commend both Depp and Heard on having survived this. I would be self-medicating myself to the eyeballs.
It was whilst researching the couple’s timeline to align dates and facts (many of these ‘alleged’ facts), that something started bothering me. Something which took me back to the hounding and eventual death of Princess Diana.
Because whichever way I looked at the timeline of this beautiful pair, focusing on the supposed catalyst which set this whole fiasco rolling (the op-ed in the Washington Post which Heard published in 2018 claiming she’d suffered physical abuse but not naming anyone) I kept being drawn back to an article published in The Sun (for which Johnny Depp took the newspaper to court in 2018) titled GONE POTTY : How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film after assault claim?
Which gets WAY more defamatory the further you read. Obviously. It’s British gutter press.
Now I’m not sure who Dan Wootton is. I think I’ve seen him on British TV sofas chatting about entertainment news and the like, but this article—to me—seems to be the catalyst which led to the op-ed that Ms Heard wrote, and which resulted in the US trial we’ve all been glued to.
In The Sun article, Dan Wootton disparages J.K. Rowling for allowing Johnny Depp to be a part of the screen adaptation of her Fantastic Beasts empire. He says: “…the author will need to use every trick in Harry Potter’s magic book to handle the growing outrage in Hollywood over her decision to stand by the casting of Johnny Depp in the lead role in her precious Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them franchise.” He’s clearly not a fan of Ms Rowling’s work: “precious”? Condescending, much.
He goes on to say: “Today I reveal a significant backlash from within the #MeToo and Time’s Up movement because the Scot is hellbent on backing her famous pal – despite his clearly inexcusable behaviour towards ex-wife Amber Heard.
Rowling is proving herself to be the worst type of Hollywood Hypocrite here.”
And whilst this kind of ire doubtless generates conversation for millions of Sun readers, it also casts doubts on J.K. Rowling’s professional capability, not to mention kicking Mr Depp’s career into the gutter and although I know I shouldn’t be, I’m shocked at the depths these journalists are allowed to sink; this particular stone aimed squarely at two glittering birds. The pats on the back he must’ve given himself. Blimey.
I seriously don’t know how Dan Wootton can sleep. Perhaps journos like this don’t need to. Maybe they sold their soul. They weave vitriol without any clear evidence, basing their claims on whatever will ignite public furore the most and sell more papers/elevate website traffic.
And THIS is where I believe it all went ‘Pete Tong’.
If Dan Wootton hadn’t jumped lemming-like on the J.K. Rowling bandwagon and decided to lynch her for Depp making an ideal wizard in the guise of Gellert Grindelwald, then I doubt the furore of backlash would have continued to snowball the way it did.
His piece in The Sun ends with: “While Rowling has an inability to ever admit she’s made a mistake, it’s not too late for a last-minute re-cast. It would cost millions, but Rowling has the money.” As though he is somehow counsel to Ms Rowling and she would do well to heed him. Eurgh. The audacity.
Following the UK court ruling that Mr Wootton’s piece was allowable (I’m ashamed to be a British citizen, and not because our law IS an ass… but now is not the time), the BBC continued to decry Depp’s future, with Ian Youngs, BBC News arts & entertainment reporter, asking: What next for Johnny Depp? then answering his own question with more questions: “Will film fans want to watch him play the heavy-drinking US photojournalist W. Eugene Smith in his next movie, Minamata, which is due for release in February? Will it still come out?
“Will viewers want to see him in the new Fantastic Beasts movie – or, given that it started filming relatively recently, might Warner Bros decide he should be dropped? Those are his only two new credits listed on IMDB – will there be any more?”
Surely a person who writes these things has no shame; no moral compass; no heart. After the constant hounding—to one (known) person’s death—why doesn’t the mainstream media NOW understand the duty of care they should consider? Because once incendiary queries like these are espoused and settled in the minds of readers… there they sit… the damage escalating even further as public speculation grows. Meghan Markle is another example of the media forcing their ideas on the general public. Acting as judge, jury and executioner over the lives of anybody they see as headline-grabbing. It’s as though they want every human being in the world to feel constantly riled, taking sides, screaming and tweeting obscenities at one another. Gladiatorial almost. And we all know how that ended.
The neurodiverse mind is easily affected, easily flattered. We’re incredibly trusting types. And Ms Heard, recognising her testimony in the UK trial had swayed the judge’s decision, must’ve felt a huge surge of dopamine which perhaps gave her the impetus to write the op-ed in the Washington Post later that year. She was in the right, after all; the survivor. The judge had said so. It had been ruled that her ex-husband was a wife-beater, therefore she was perfectly entitled to declare herself an ambassador for domestic violence and write the article (despite an NDA clause in their divorce agreement preventing this).
And Mr Depp might’ve simply ignored this (after all, it didn’t name him) but for the tweets from his (then) lawyer, Adam Waldman who took umbrage at what he perceived was clearly a defamatory piece aimed at his client, and tweeted his displeasure.
Giving everyone a field-day as speculation grew and anger mounted. And the rest, as they say, is history (and herstory) which has been at the heart of the trial these past few weeks.
From where I’ve been watching, these two people’s lives—who’d simply believed they might have a future together based on feelings which flamed during a film-set shower scene; who’d since realised they actually brought out the worst in one another; who’d already stated they were happy to move on without one another, who’d agreed their divorce settlement—have been entirely manipulated by the MSM, social media included.
Media orchestrated this. They conducted this, they designed the sets, they edited the scripts, sold tickets, then sat back and watched as two perfectly lovely actors played out roles they’d been cast in for our gratuitous viewing pleasure.
I don’t know who I’m angrier with: the media for their incessant blood-sucking manipulation, or the general public for being so easily and willingly manipulated.
p.s. whilst looking up Mr Wootton ‘credentials’, I came across this: “In 2015, Wootton and The Sun received widespread criticism for an article he penned for the tabloid titled “Hollywood HIV Panic”. Writing in The Independent, Tom Hayes referred to the piece as an “insidious piece of stigma-reinforcing” journalism, HIV policy adviser Lisa Power, who was quoted in the article, called it “vile” and expressed “disappointment” …..
I rest my case.
Debs J Cooper 