The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Joni
JDZ Global Moderator
Posts: 25264
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:08 pm
Location: Canada, eh?
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Joni » Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:08 pm

Theresa wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:44 pm
myfave wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:21 pm
Link doesn’t work magpie
It seems to be a subscriber-only article. I've copied it here
Spoiler! :
Johnny Depp Through the Looking Glass
Rhonda Garelick 6/16/2022
MY Times
Dr. Garelick is the dean of the School of Art and Design History and Theory at Parsons/The New School.

June 16, 2022

Examining the madness that male beauty elicits.

We know, of course, that men can be beautiful, but rarely do we acknowledge, let alone analyze, the powerful influence male beauty wields.

That power was a central, yet singularly unacknowledged, element in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial, which wrapped up this month. Mr. Depp, like many Hollywood megastars, has long benefited from his striking good looks, which clearly played a role in the enormous social media support he garnered during the trial (of which it seems hard to imagine that the unsequestered jury was unaware).

But Mr. Depp is not your standard American handsome actor. He is “a man who still carries the reputation for being one of the most beautiful men in Hollywood,” as Katie Edwards wrote in The Independent. Instagram and Twitter accounts devoted to the trial amassed followers in the tens of thousands and routinely posted hundreds of close-up photographs of him.

One Instagram site, with nearly 40,000 followers, was called “Depp-perfection.” Another, “Johnny.deep.fan,” had more than 30,000 followers and used the tagline “He’s just like a dream.”

It’s hard to tell the origin of accounts such as these two — if and how they may be connected to Mr. Depp’s defense and public relations teams — but it seems clear that for many of Mr. Depp’s fans, the actor’s physical appeal offered an external manifestation of inner worth. On Twitter, hundreds of accounts, many with names like “Justice Served for Johnny Depp” (with 40,800 followers), focused on Mr. Depp’s physical beauty, assuring us, for example, that Mr. Depp “is just as beautiful in real life,” or calling him a “king,” or a “god.”

It’s rare to see male beauty inspiring such moral conclusions. Beauty remains a subject reserved largely for and about women. It’s typically women whose appearances are dissected into countless parts to be assessed or embellished — eyes, lips, skin, hair. It’s mostly women whose beauty is scrutinized constantly for signs of perceived decay or mishap, attributed to aging, weight gain, inadequate (or even excessive) maintenance or other potential crimes.

Women, metaphorically, occupy the realm of faces and bodies. Men are presumed to live in the realm of ideas and action. So, according to conventional thinking, to focus on a man’s beauty (as opposed to, say, his virility), or use it to adjudge his character, risks emasculating him, depriving him of his inner value, his spirit, strength or accomplishments. And so we shy away from mentioning male beauty very much.

Mr. Depp proves an exception to this rule. In his middle age, he still possesses an unusual, arresting facial beauty. A beauty that exceeds conventional handsomeness, and — especially in his youth — wandered into a kind of feline, even feminine territory: a symmetrical face with large, dark, almond-shaped eyes; a small chiseled nose; the highest, sharpest cheekbones imaginable; abundant, wavy hair.

Even fans who no longer found Mr. Depp the great beauty he once was were readily able to summon the images of him as a younger man. That close-up-worthy face helped make Mr. Depp a star, and it has been lavishly praised for decades. “You have to understand, Johnny Depp, 1989 Johnny Depp, so beautiful,” the actress Jennifer Grey said on Drew Barrymore’s talk show. Ms. Grey, who was briefly engaged to Mr. Depp, added: “It’s almost inhuman.”

Consider, too, the iconic roles for which Mr. Depp became famous, created for films directed by his longtime collaborator Tim Burton: Edward Scissorhands, Willy Wonka in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” Ichabod Crane in “Sleepy Hollow,” Sweeney Todd and the Mad Hatter in “Alice in Wonderland.” Later, of course, he’d go on to great acclaim and wealth for his role as Captain Jack Sparrow, from the five-part “Pirates of the Caribbean” series.

These cartoonlike characters are all heavy-makeup roles, requiring elaborate cosmetic transformation — rings of black eyeliner, heavy eye shadow, wild wigs in crazy colors, lipstick, top hats — all of which draw exceptional attention to the face beneath. To withstand this much scrutiny, an actor needs uncommon cinematic facial beauty, expressiveness and delicacy. And even trickier, he needs to look good wearing all this paint while remaining a male heartthrob. It’s a tall order, demanding a kind of gender flexibility — but not too much.

Mr. Depp has such a face. He knows how to use it, too. On the witness stand he proved able to evince visible pleasure in his own appeal while conveying just enough self-irony to forestall accusations of smugness or vanity. Strengthening his beauty credentials still more was the supportive testimony offered by his former girlfriend, the 1990s supermodel Kate Moss.

Ms. Moss described Mr. Depp as a kind and caring partner, dispelling the persistent rumor that he had once pushed her down a flight of stairs. That this woman, famous for decades as a nearly silent icon of exceptional beauty, broke her silence to support (and strive to exculpate) Mr. Depp, only burnished the celebrity glow he was cultivating in court, reinforcing the implicit connection between remarkable external beauty and moral blamelessness.

It seems as though male beauty at Mr. Depp’s level represents a curious “X factor,” an almost magical quality that throws off even long-established gendered presumptions: In a contest between an older, wealthy, powerful man and a smaller, less powerful woman, male beauty can help make that man seem younger, weaker, more vulnerable, turning him into the helpless victim of the woman’s presumptive physical aggression (even in light of the evidence her lawyers presented that argued to the contrary). All without depriving the man of his other, more conventional male privilege.

Ms. Heard is beautiful, too, but her looks, while remarked upon, did her little good in the court of public opinion. On the contrary, Ms. Heard’s beauty was frequently held against her, offered as proof of her capacity to deceive. Despite the arguments from her lawyers that she was physically abused by Mr. Depp (accompanied by photographs of bruises, testimony of witnesses and previous British court judgments in her favor), she was perceived as the aggressor — a femme fatale whose alluring facade belied repellent evil beneath.

“Believe all women except Amber Heard,” said the comedian Chris Rock in a comedy special in Britain on May 12. Mr. Rock was making a joke about the #MeToo movement’s credo, as well as Ms. Heard’s alleged defecation in Mr. Depp’s bed.

“No inner beauty at all,” another Twitter critic declared. “You are a liar, manipulator, and abuser,” another shriek-tweeted at Ms. Heard after the verdict. Thousands of such screeds filled social media throughout the long weeks of the trial.

This odd imbalance of beauty “credit” makes sense in a way, for according to the laws of popular culture, a longstanding celebrity like Mr. Depp exists on two planes at once. The craggy 59-year-old of today is infused with the collective memory of the handsome heartthrob of yesteryear.

Ms. Heard enjoys no such status in the pop-culture imagination. And that specter of Mr. Depp’s striking earlier beauty hovered over him in that courtroom like a protective force field, impossible to dispel. “Remember when Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt were beauty treasures?” one internet fan site asked. “However, once they turned to look at Johnny Depp, everyone needed to take their cap off.”

Mr. Depp prevailed in his trial and was awarded $10 million in damages from Ms. Heard (whose lawyer said she cannot pay this and wants to appeal). But whatever defamation may have occurred, Mr. Depp’s career has surely also enjoyed a renaissance thanks to this trial. (Joining TikTok immediately after the verdict, Mr. Depp amassed several million followers the first day.)

His face has been everywhere for months now — contemplated and consumed daily by millions in tiny video snippets on TikTok and Instagram — as if in hundreds of miniature movie close-ups, accessible in pockets and purses. Dior has not dropped Mr. Depp as the ambassador for Sauvage, its popular men’s perfume. The name, French for “savage” or “wild,” connotes danger, even animal-like violence. Some Sauvage ads feature Mr. Depp among a pack of wolves.

In the end, while Johnny Depp was declared the victim of defamation, and garnered sympathy by implying he had been physically abused, he has emerged more able than ever, even at 59, to portray himself as a sexy “savage,” and a powerful, commercially viable star.

A version of this article appears in print on June 16, 2022, Section D, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Privilege of Male Beauty.
Thanks for the article magpie :daisyforyou and thanks Theresa for copying it so we can read it. :rosegirl:

User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:49 pm

This is a belated response to Inquiring Minds post from 12 June contemplating bribing a judge.
I have no experience but I don't think a secret money transfer to a judge is most likely way to influence a UK high court judgement.

I am inclined to think that the people/process that assigns judges to cases deliberately chose Nicol as someone lmore ikely to give the result wanted due to his known views or biases. We can deduce he is not anti-Murdoch as his son works for a NGN related company. I recall reading before or during trial someone expressing concern that Nicol had history of being harsh on defendants when alcohol or drugs were involved. Since the trial, I have read he doesn't like Hollywood types. His court comments and judgement, to me, seem consistent with the type of man who thinks he is helping women but doesn't research what women want. As if he is a knight saving damsels. (* below)

It also seems significant that he was about to retire. Did he want a high profile trial as his last to give him some fame? What does a retired judge want? Maybe name recognition, a book deal, speaking events, appointments to business or government boards?

If it was people higher up the process that wanted a result and chose Nicol to improve their chances, then attempts to have the result challenged are unlikely to have success. Although this could change with events.

(* An anecdote to illustrate the type of knight thinking. After a building apartment owners meeting, I was talking with another woman when we were approached by a male owner. He was annoyed that we had voted against a proposal that he supported because he said it was what women should want.)

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1976
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:58 pm

At the time of the UK trial, her lawyer had personal connections to the judge. She was good friends with his wife, even took AH to a dinner party hosted by the wife while trial was going on and there were pics on one of their IG accounts of the three of them together (the lawyer, the judge and his wife) at an event. Her lawyer's founding partner in her law firm also co-wrote a book with the judge. They didn't need any bribes, imo, JD never had a chance at winning that case. The judge had clear conflicts and should have recused himself from the case but he didn't and let's not forget his son worked for a radio station that was owned by Murdoch, which is another conflict right there. The judge based some of his decisions having on no evidence at all, saying he had no reason to believe she was lying, including the charity donations. I wonder how he feels now knowing she never gave them the money.
:dunce: :eyebrow: :sick2:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:06 am

RumLover – I tend to agree, these days anything so obvious would come to light. I see Nicol as a buffoon rather than some shrewd player. Employing the judge’s son, in the same office as Dan Wootton, is imo, just NGN laughing at everyone.
His court comments and judgement, to me, seem consistent with the type of man who thinks he is helping women but doesn't research what women want. As if he is a knight saving damsels. (* below)
I think you summed it up very succinctly 😊

ForeverYoung - The other founding partner in Doughty Street Chambers and the one that co-wrote a book with him is Geoffrey Robertson (from Australia). Years ago, before he shifted to the UK, he had a TV show called “Hypotheticals”, done like theatre sports with a panel of people (eg politicians, lawyers, social workers etc) and he would propose scenarios and have the group discuss. Then he would tweak and re-tweak conditions to show how they would radically alter the outcomes. That was my reference to a ”hypothetical” situation where you had to bribe a judge.

Jen Robinson, AH’s lawyer (with Doughty Street) comes from Berry, Australia. The ABC, Australia’s public broadcaster featured JR on Australian Story between the UK verdict and the CoA (theme of local girl makes good). It’s a magazine style show, normally with a few people featured per hour-long show. Jen’s segment opened with AH and nary a trigger warning!!! I don’t know if AH was paid for the appearance, but suspect she was. Jen spent part of her interview saying how poor AH was being hounded on social media, as if it was a popularity contest.

I too feel that the UK judge was already predisposed against JD and presumed him guilty before the onset of the trial. He was probably quite comfortable rejecting all of JD’s evidence, confident that it was untrue and any holes in AH’s story were from her victimhood. He had been primed by everyone around him. But I think he was at least nudged, if only via his son. Knowing his exposure, as you stated, he should have recused himself.

He spent so much effort (reputedly) in ensuring his verdict was technically sound and based on his unchallengeable “considered” legal opinion, I found it reminiscent of AH and the ACLU each having had a “team of lawyers” to ensure her op-ed about JD didn’t mention JD and would be resistant to defamation proceedings. She was wrong. The ACLU was wrong. And I believe that Nicol was wrong.

Inquiring Minds
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:41 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Inquiring Minds » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:10 am

RumLover wrote:
It also seems significant that he was about to retire. Did he want a high profile trial as his last to give him some fame? What does a retired judge want? Maybe name recognition, a book deal, speaking events, appointments to business or government boards?
I agree he probably wanted to look good by going out with a dazzling, Solomon-like, precedent setting verdict in a high profile case. Something that would be quoted and referenced in other cases for decades to come. He may get his wish, but not in the manner he had hoped.

His book was on media law and he is a “champion” of freedom of the press (even to defame, it seems). He could stand as a hero to media barons and all women with a single verdict. Any flow on stuff like book deals, speaking etc would just be a bonus he could accept or not.
If it was people higher up the process that wanted a result and chose Nicol to improve their chances, then attempts to have the result challenged are unlikely to have success.


An interesting twist I hadn’t really considered, but quite compelling. If his selection had been deliberate and guided from above, things could be more problematic. I had assumed that NGN morally (or financially) corrupted Nicol. His wife’s social circle (let alone his own) would have been a major contributor to judge/verdict nullification imo.

I also thought many of the CoA statements were rather scathing towards the decision handed down by Nicol, but in this case, talk is cheap. Nicol is gone, the judge that helped him draft the verdict to be nearly impossible to break has been promoted away and the remaining bench of the High Court is left tainted with the lingering suspicion that one of their own had been bought. And remains unsanctioned.
Although this could change with events.
[and then i slip into sleep, then dreams......] Prince Charles ascends to the throne, dusts off a few cells in The Tower, sends the Beefeaters out to collect Nicol, the Doughty Street Gang and he has his military use “enhanced interrogation” to get to the bottom of it all. He could clean up the media and courts at the same time.

(any thoughts AdeleAgain (or any other UK zoners) on the likelihood of this fantasy scenario?)

User avatar
bringmethathorizon
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by bringmethathorizon » Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:21 am

Ok enough is enough !!! Camille and Ben need to shut AH up!!!!! The week long bullshit of AH on NBC is done and I actually fear for Johnny’s safety 🙁 She is not only a narcissist, BP, manipulative, vengeful, evil bitch, she’s bordering on adding psychopath to her list of craziness 😱 i know and love that Johnny is laying low and ignoring her and trying to move on, but how can he totally move on with all that AH is doing !!!
"This is the one I'll be remembered for"
Edward D. Wood, Jr.

User avatar
Jackslady
Posts: 4403
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: The Captain's Cabin
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Jackslady » Sat Jun 18, 2022 9:14 am

I watched the Dateline “special” via Popcorned Planet this morning. There was little additional on it. The main slant seems to be her trying to hawk the psychiatric notes that were deemed inadmissible. A lot of it was filler, repetition of clips shown earlier this week and mawkish music playing in the background to try and sell AH as the tragic victim bravely speaking out for other women. No need for anyone who hasn’t seen it to waste time watching it.

Some of the YouTube lawyers say they think JD needs to obtain an injunction, others have said they think that could make it worse, citing her desire to keep Johnny under her control, their thinking being he could be trapped in litigation for years if he gives her the attention she craves. I don’t know, I have no knowledge in this area, I can only assume his lawyers will be watching it closely and will act if and when appropriate. They’ve done a great job for him so far so we can maybe take heart from that.

She really is making an absolute fool of herself and has been majorly castigated across social media. Saying she still loves Johnny and never wanted to ruin his career makes her look frankly unhinged. She has no right to accuse the jurors of looking at social media, there is no evidence any of them had any bias either way and they are placed in a position of trust which most decent people would choose to honour. I think a lot of people are growing bored with her tripe and hopefully will move on even though she probably never will. The mainstream media will keep going with it for as long as it creates business for them. They will never admit they backed the wrong horse.

She claimed she is now going to be a full time mother, which suggests to me she has her hooks into another wealthy man who is bankrolling her idiocy.

Bringmethathorizon, I’ve been really angry over a lot of this, I must admit, so am not in any way dismissing your reaction, but oddly I did feel calmer after watching Dateline. She is just so obviously lying and maybe we should have hope that most people will see that.
"Easy on the goods darlin!"
"Tis not an easy thing to be entirely happy, but to be kind is very easy, and that is the greatest measure of happiness"-John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester

*Special thanks to es for help with my lovely avatar*

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1976
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Jun 18, 2022 9:21 am

bringmethathorizon wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:21 am
Ok enough is enough !!! Camille and Ben need to shut AH up!!!!! The week long bullshit of AH on NBC is done and I actually fear for Johnny’s safety 🙁 She is not only a narcissist, BP, manipulative, vengeful, evil bitch, she’s bordering on adding psychopath to her list of craziness 😱 i know and love that Johnny is laying low and ignoring her and trying to move on, but how can he totally move on with all that AH is doing
AH made a huge and really bad decision doing that interview. She is getting ruined all over that DM tabloid site where, at times, some people would stick up for her or blame both of them but lately it's all people saying how sick they are of her and her lies. She didn't do herself any favors with this interview and if anything, she only made matters worse for herself and committed career suicide. Trying this now in a court of public opinion is useless. Bringing out therapist's notes that she couldn't use in trial because of hearsay is just stupid, because that is exactly what they are, hearsay. :dunce: :facepalm: :smh:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1976
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:05 pm

“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

AdeleAgain
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by AdeleAgain » Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:59 am

Looks like the TV channel also made a mistake - low ratings - well done everyone for not giving them the views.

I think the clips were deliberately designed to lure JD fans in.

This has got to be driving her crazy - can you imagine the ratings if Johnny did an interview?


User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1976
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sun Jun 19, 2022 9:57 am

:biglaugh: :harhar: :lol: :lolsign: :rotflmao: :giddy:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

Yaya
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 3:23 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Yaya » Sun Jun 19, 2022 11:40 am

:lolsign: :applause2: :yahoo: Thank you AdeleAgain

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:57 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:03 pm
There is a boycott on social media against the show which airs tonight. I suggest we all do the same.
Seeing and listening to her on the stand was bad enough for me to tolerate. No way am I going to do watch her try and convince the court of public opinion that the trial was not fair. :no2: :dunce: :hypnotic:
It has been reported to be their lowest ratings/viewership since November 2021. https://tvline.com/2022/06/18/tv-rating ... epp-trial/

BTW. I started a new YouTube channel. I don't want to constantly post here and get people mad. But this video in particular shows the updated Claim Rocky has filed against Johnny. MSM isn't reporting on this.

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 55553
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:54 pm

:thankyou: LBock! :hug:

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Sun Jun 19, 2022 9:10 pm

SnoopyDances wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:54 pm
:thankyou: LBock! :hug:
Right back at ya!❤️