Publications that aggregate social media reactions from preview screenings of upcoming movies are a relatively new trend. While these roundups offer little depth, they provide a glimpse into the initial audience response before formal reviews and analyses are released. However, it would be pointless to run an aggregation of these initial social media responses weeks after the movie has been released. Readers would expect a more nuanced and in-depth conversation by that point.
One example of this kind of aggregated content is Emma Cooper’s three-part Netflix series, Depp v. Heard, which focuses on Johnny Depp’s defamation trial against Amber Heard. Released over a year after the trial concluded, this documentary follows the format of aggregated “first reactions” articles. It includes social media responses from the trial and courtroom footage to provide an overview of the trial’s proceedings and online sentiment. However, it doesn’t offer any new insights to those who followed the original trial closely.
For viewers who have been out of touch with the case, Depp v. Heard may provide some enlightenment and disappointment. However, it’s challenging to identify the ideal audience for this documentary. It may appeal to vocal supporters of Johnny Depp who want to see their views represented without pushback. In that sense, it could serve as a time capsule for them. Yet, as someone familiar with the trial’s details, the documentary feels redundant.
Depp v. Heard focuses solely on the Virginia trial without the benefit of hindsight or interest in other legal aspects. It presents Depp’s and Heard’s testimonies side by side but fails to offer any new context or connections. The inclusion of online pundits, some with legal expertise and others just passionate fans of Depp, doesn’t contribute much to the documentary’s overall narrative. Cooper doesn’t approach this project as a journalist, so it doesn’t explore the financial motivations or the authority of these content providers.
Related Post
Rather than providing analysis or presenting new information, Depp v. Heard seeks to highlight the court of public opinion surrounding the trial. It acknowledges the toxicity of the online conversation but doesn’t delve further into the subject. The documentary falls short in offering meaningful insights or asking thought-provoking questions. It perpetuates the imbalance in the discourse by presenting the anti-Heard side through eccentric personalities and the pro-Heard side through isolated tweets or panel show appearances.
Cooper’s choice of an observational documentary format, rather than an analytical one, might be valid if she didn’t cheat the format repeatedly. The inclusion of distracting re-enactments and somewhat pro-Heard text seem out of place and detract from the overall narrative. It’s unclear whether these re-enactments reflect the captivation of ordinary people with the trial or if they indict the viewers themselves.
Depp v. Heard falls short of being a comprehensive and insightful documentary about the trial, the online circus around it, and the larger cultural conversation it represents. With more introspection and distance from the events, a future documentary might offer a more critical examination of the trial and its impact on online spaces and cultural discourse. Unfortunately, Depp v. Heard doesn’t fulfill that role.
