The last thing I would do in my life is to be a judge. It was clear to me since I was little: the weight of a destiny in my hands always gave me too much vertigo. However, if you had to choose with your eyes closed who is the bad guy in the trial facing Johnny Depp Already Amber Heard, would rule in favor of the actress. The reason is obvious: I look at the desperate tears of Amber sitting there, defenseless, and I see the girl from Igualada, Marta del Castillo, the young woman raped by the pack, Ana Orantes, and so many other women who have not denounced their criminals because they have not dared or because, for them, it has been too late. So by inertia, by subjective common sense, I would not hesitate for a minute to think that Johnny Depp is a systematic rapist, a lawless addict and a textbook abuser: because living in a system that always protects the aggressor in all its facets forces me not to think otherwise. The words of Simone deBeauvoiras a creed: “the oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed themselves”.
And here the first typo of all this theater made in Hollywood: believing that personal opinions are immutable truths. Rereading me, it could be deduced that an attempt is made to clarify whether or not there was mistreatment by Depp towards Heard, but this is not the case, and these confusions happen when a judicial process is mediated ad nauseam: that in the end neither the followers, nor the journalists Not even the court knows what they are evaluating. During the last few weeks, Depp’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife —that is— it has become a race to the bottom that pushes public opinion to position itself on one side or the other of the balance. Either you’re against Johnny or you’re against Amber. Either he is a potential abuser or she suffers from marked bipolarity. There is no middle point. And that the judicial litigation is open to the public hinders sanity and accentuates fanaticism. It is when the viscera sprout that the forms, and the strategies, and the methods that have been followed to make them come out of the meat no longer matter, and that should be the focus: because when the end hooks so much, it is no longer that we justify the means no matter how mean and reprehensible they may be, but unconsciously we don’t even realize that they are.
When the viscera sprout, the forms, and the strategies, and the methods that have been followed to make them come out of the meat do not matter: that should be the focus
I put an example. May 18 session. Johnny Depp’s lawyer Camille Vasquez, makes a court official come out with a large knife, a gift from Amber to her ex-husband made in 2012, with a phrase recorded in Spanish: “Hasta la muerte”. Supposedly, in that year the actress confirmed that she had already been attacked by Depp, and the lawyer took advantage of the moment: “Is that the knife that she gave to the man who was beating her and whom she was afraid of?” Personally, this question sounds too much like “Is that the skirt she was wearing when she was with the man who raped her?”, as if giving someone a knife would inevitably push them to use it as a violent weapon. And that is where I want to get to: that beyond trying to clarify whether the actor was defamed by the actress —according to Depp, because of an article that Heard published in the Washington Posthis career as an actor was harmed— or to extrajudicially convince who of the two is right in their versions, these types of questions continue to reproduce the patriarchal dynamics that structurally blame women and question their voice in parliament, and that is indeed a truth that we can prove.
Furthermore, the obvious cannot be overlooked: that Johnny Depp doesn’t need any introduction, but Amber Heard, Yes. He does not enjoy the same recognition, and the actor – and his lawyers – know it. Those who stay away from Hollywood gossip probably hadn’t even heard that name before the trial covered (just a few) screens, and others would still today not recognize her in any photo. Meanwhile, the surrogate for Jack Sparrow arrives at the court cheered and Heard is booed for the masses. In social networks, there are already tens of thousands of her embarrassing comments against her, especially after she publicly testified that her ex-partner had raped her with a bottle. Even tik tok He had to intervene to censor some audios made by the followers of the most famous pirate in cinema and who had the intention of ridiculing the actress’s testimony. And this is also a problem that, again, takes a man’s honesty for granted just because he is a successful public figure with fame and money. Nothing new under the sun.
I don’t know if Amber Heard is a victim of sexist violence or not, but what is clear is that the film industry and the system will do everything possible to undermine her credibility to the limit, so that, in any case, the great loser is her, with fewer films on her horizon or supporting the infallible label of crazy woman. If it is ruled that she was a victim, she will remain subject to social judgment for life; if she lied and manipulated, she will carry the cross for life. The same will not happen to Johnny Depp, no matter what happens, whatever they say. She plays with advantage. She doesn’t care what the tabloids, the prosecutors or even the sentence say; Amber Heard has already lost. That should be the headline.