The Problem With the Depp v Heard Docuseries Is That It Doesn't Document Enough

The new docu-series Depp v Heard explores the high-profile trial of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.

A court trial about intimate partner violence and domestic abuse was widely publicised and, predictably, ended up becoming a social media trail (or ‘TikTok’ trial as many have called it). The Amber Heard v. Johnny Depp trial led to social media commentary and disproportionate social media hate and vitriol. Many have blamed this snowballing of content for pushing domestic abuse advocacy and ‘Me Too’ conversations decades back.

Naturally, in the socio-cultural space, there is a lot to be said and discussed about the trial; whether it is morally correct is another matter entirely. So, there it was, on the heels of the verdict, the announcement of a documentary about the trial. The title: Depp v Heard.

Over the course of three episodes, the documentary uses footage from the trial and clips of people who used the trial for content; it explores how this extremely sensitive subject became fodder for clicks and views. In that specific aspect, the documentary does a decent job. By highlighting the way people behind keyboards and camera setups became judge and jury on a high-profile DV case, the documentary aims to perhaps ask us all to introspect.

To think of the consequences of believing social media rhetoric to be the gospel truth. To understand that separating the art from the artist, in this instance, isn’t just about not seeing Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow or Heard as Mera.

But does Depp v Heard bring anything new to the table?

There's obviously nothing wrong with making a documentary that just presents information as they're available but that decision falls flat in a subject like this. Almost everything that can be said about the Heard v Depp trial has already been said, in countless tweets and video essays nonetheless.

This is, however, not to argue that documentary filmmakers shouldn't present both sides of an argument. Unfortunately, we live in an extremely divisive world, one several people have labeled as 'post-truth' even. In a world like that, it is important that we trust people who decide to show both sides of a story instead of relying on sensationalism.

In that scenario, the docu-series could've done a lot more. The series brings up the disproportionate hate that one of the parties faced during and after the trial but expert opinions dissecting the intersection of gender and abuse for instance would've added weight to the episodes.

Death and rape threats against Heard on social media are flashed across screen but what do they mean for the average viewer? What does trolls' reliance on violent threats against minorities in the public space signify?

People have seen the violent tweets; they've criticised and supported them as they deemed fit (personally, the former is always the way to go). So their presence is not news. Arguably, looking into how it affected the discourse around the 'Me Too' movement and how the genuine conversations around giving male victims of abuse a voice were overshadowed by hate campaigns would have been a heftier angle to look at.

Therein lies the biggest problem with Depp v Heard'. It presents information that it doesn't look into. It only briefly mentions the 2018 trial in UK when Depp had sued a tabloid (The Sun) for libel for labeling him a 'wife beater'.

In this case, the onus of proof lay on the newspaper. The judge determined that 12 of 14 accusations were proved "on the balance of probability".

In public discourse, this case was repeatedly brought up throughout the trial and even when more than 6000 pages of evidence were unsealed after the verdict.

The docu-series brings up the unsealed documents but doesn't delve into much there either. A large number of people watched the case being streamed but how many people read through over 6000 pages of evidence?

Scrolling on Twitter for a few minutes will give you more information about these documents than the docu-series did, including the controversial text exchange between Depp's former assistant Stephen Deuters and Heard.

(If you're curious, The Cut looks into the documents in 'The Biggest Takeaways From Those Unsealed Depp v. Heard Documents')

Depp v Heard is a docu-series that highlights why interviews and expert testimonies are at the heart of a documentary format in a topic like this.

It was almost impossible to escape conversations around the trial even if you tried your absolute best to not be involved. The memory of testimonies of alleged sexual and physical violence being used as background audio for skits on TikTok is still chilling.

Why, then, do we need a docu-series about a case whose public streaming has already been criticised when it has nothing new to offer?