Netflix’s “Depp v Heard” Documentary Flops In Its Revisionist Take On The Trial

It’s really a series of clips of the trial and random social media commentators haphazardly strewn together in a nonsequential order with a vague “Amber Heard did nothing wrong” slant. Oh, and then they leave you with the “everyone who commented and reported on this case is bad because they stood to get views and money from it, unlike us, the good guys! We would never do such a thing. Trust the experts!” We’ll pass, thanks.

The Emma Cooper-directed Netflix documentary sets the tone by establishing that there was a huge media circus surrounding this case, which initially began with social media commentators looking to gain close proximity to the court proceedings. While undoubtedly there were countless social media figures and fans looking for the inside scoop, there’s an unmistakable slant presented here: Johnny Depp’s supporters and fans were callous opportunists desperate for clicks and revenue. It couldn’t possibly be that supporters who have spent years overlooking the overwhelming evidence in Depp’s favor were eagerly awaiting his opportunity to speak his side of the story. No way, José, these are just money-hungry, attention-starved people treating a serious case as entertainment. 

Depp Supporters As Opportunists Rather Than Truth Seekers

The documentary splices in clips of one such commentator openly in support of Depp, known as DARTHNEWS, who wears a Deadpool costume in all of his videos as he provides updates on the trial, to establish that Depp fans weren’t treating the case with the utmost seriousness it “deserved.” Don’t they know this is serious? Don’t they know you can’t make light of a situation when our side is losing!? That’s essentially what this entire “documentary” is. A giant woe-is-me sob story about how the public was too hard on Amber Heard for no apparent reason, certainly not because the overwhelming evidence presented (as well as that evidence not presented but publicly available online) did not support her account of events but was in direct contradiction to them.

These people are painted as tone-deaf misogynist villains rather than reasonable spectators weighing up and interpreting the evidence as it’s presented. Heard did not present a believable story, nor did she have any evidence to back up her claims. We see clips from genuine legal experts such as Christopher Melcher, Andrea Burkhart, Emily D. Baker, and RekietaLaw, just to name a few, carefully intermixed within the silliness taking place on TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube. That’s no accident. They want you to believe that the opinions of actively practicing defense attorneys and prosecutors with trial experience on the evidence, court proceedings, and strategies are on par with random fans and TikTokers.

The Relentless White-Knighting for Amber Heard

The documentary repeatedly tries to make excuses for Heard’s biggest blunders throughout the trial. Milani Cosmetics, the company that made the compact kit Heard’s lawyer insisted she kept in her purse at all times to cover up her various injuries, made a statement that the compact kit was not even released until Heard and Depp’s relationship was over. Kat Tenbarge, an avid and vocal supporter of Amber Heard who has written countless op-eds disparaging Depp supporters, insists that this was merely an example of a kit she would use, but not the literal makeup kit. How convenient! 

The bias only ramps up from there, throwing shade at a Depp supporter who tried to submit this evidence from Milani Cosmetics to Depp’s team in the hopes they could use it in their case. The documentary implies that Depp supporters were interfering with the legal process. Of course, there’s not even a peep about Heard’s best friend, Eve Barlow, who was literally kicked out of the courtroom for violating the rules by texting during court sessions and allegedly trying to give information to Heard’s lawyers. 

Even the most disastrous of Heard’s blunders were excused by Cooper and her filmmakers.

Even the most disastrous of Heard’s blunders were excused by Cooper and her filmmakers, who edited in clips and tweets white-knighting for Heard, insisting that “pledge” and “donate” are regularly used synonymously. They aren’t. When celebrities pledge a donation, they tend to, you know, actually pay them, especially within the six years they’ve been claiming they donated the full amount.

Clips Taken Out-of-Context To Fit Their Narrative

The infamous TMZ video recorded by Heard of Depp losing his cool, slamming a bunch of cabinets, and breaking some glasses is immediately followed up with out-of-context clips from renowned celebrity divorce attorney Christopher Melcher. Melcher says, “When somebody breaks something in anger in your presence, that is legally an act of abuse.” 

Depp v Heard repeatedly inserts clips of Melcher speaking about this case, which gives off a very different impression of his opinions from what he has publicly stated. In another instance, they clip him saying, “He's won already in the court of opinion, and he needed the court process to clear his name. The thing about justice is it's not about the truth, it's not about right or wrong, it's about what the judge or jury believes.” 

Melcher, who was initially skeptical of Depp but became more sympathetic to his case as the evidence rolled out, has maintained a fair and balanced commentary on the trial but has in no way been an Amber Heard apologist. In a Twitter thread about the documentary, a user informs him that they repeatedly take clips of his commentary out of context to fit their pro-Heard slant. Melcher responds, “Thank you for summarizing the ‘documentary’—I haven’t watched it because I don’t want to give them a view. Maybe I will have to watch this after all.” He also adds, “Thank you for saving me an hour of my life so I don’t have to watch the Amber Heard special. I’ve been watching the Marvel movies, in order, with my kid. I’d rather do that.”

Depp Supporters Are Out for Money, Unlike Us

The amount of moral grandstanding in this documentary is just astonishing. Heard can do no wrong, while Depp (and his supporters) can do no right. Heard is caught in a lie? We can explain that away with some convoluted answer that doesn’t even track. Heard never presented any evidence to back up her claims? That’s just because her most exculpatory evidence wasn’t admissible, or it was because of edited TikToks. The court case is being televised? You need to sit back and let the “experts” tell you what to believe and think – you plebians simply lack the necessary judgment needed to discern the truth.

The pearl-clutching by this documentary at the notion of gaining viewership and money from the back of a serious legal dispute is just shameless.

But wait, these commentators and TikTokers and lawyers are earning clicks and followers and money from covering the trial! The pearl-clutching by the news media and this documentary film crew at the notion of gaining viewership and money from the back of a serious legal dispute is just shameless. Yes, social media figures tend to monetize their videos when they have a following, especially if that’s their full-time job. I suppose Cooper and the rest of the media covering the trial stand to make nothing from this? I’m sure they’re making nothing from this Netflix series. I’m sure if Cooper receives a check, she’ll burn it. 

Depp v Heard Has an Excuse for Everything 

Depp v Heard implies that a big reason Heard lost was because of these conveniently exculpatory texts and evidence that were, for whatever reason, never admitted. One such example alluded to in the documentary is the Stephen Deuters texts, where Depp’s assistant supposedly texts Heard, “When I told him that he kicked you, he cried.” The documentary makes it seem like these texts would have validated Heard’s entire version of events of the Boston plane incident, where she claims Depp attacked her. However, Stephen Deuters is on record stating that these texts were heavily doctored and that he never witnessed any physical abuse between the two of them. Emily D. Baker brings up a motion from Depp’s team stating Depp was unable to recover the texts produced by Heard relating to the Boston plane incident and that Heard’s texts are strangely in a different format than all the other texts she produced and that the veracity of these text messages is critical and subject to serious question.

One commentator complains that the public positive reception surrounding Depp throughout the trial was the patriarchy at work. “This is why people don’t report abuse,” says Leeja Miller. Isn’t it ironic how they only apply this line of thinking to Heard but never to Depp? In reality, Heard gets all the room for charitable interpretation in the world, while Depp gets slighted as an abuser despite the evidence indicating the contrary. The documentary even reveals this mentality when one woman expresses her evolving views, “as a victim and a survivor of domestic violence, even though it’s sexist, you do want to kind of back the female, but so far, I feel like she was more the aggressor.” Another commentator remarks this trial was a “public humiliation ritual intended to put women in their place,” signaling that women cannot come forward about abuse. Sorry, who can’t come forward about abuse? This entire documentary proves that men can’t come forward about abuse. All that this trial established is that if women come forward with false allegations, there will be consequences, as there should be. 

Depp Supporters Are Misogynists, but They Also Don’t Exist

After three episodes of nonsequential trial footage and random clips from social media commentators without any narration, interviews, or expert commentary, the final 20 minutes are spent accusing Depp's overwhelming online support of being fueled by bots. Culture Reporter AJA Romano claims that hashtags for Depp were manipulated by bot farms. A pro-Heard TikToker “cracks the code” on Depp bots with groundbreaking evidence, pointing out that pro-Depp comments on TikToks get tens of thousands of likes, but when you click on their accounts, they have no content, indicating they’re likely bots. He then insists the creator of the TikTok he clicked on is likely a bot because it’s a Johnny Depp fan account. So, you can’t have a TikTok devoted to a celebrity you support, and if you have a TikTok account but don’t create your own videos, you’re not a real person. Foolproof stuff. 

Netflix Accused of Weaponizing Copyright Against Pro Depp YouTuber

The most concerning aspect of the documentary is not just how transparently dishonest and ill-intentioned it is, but how they have weaponized content they do not own. Depp v Heard used a considerable amount of clips from Andy Signore, who runs the channel Popcorned Planet, in their documentary in an attempt to make him look like a sycophantic Depp fan. After Heard gave her interview post-verdict to NBC, the documentary claims that “social media commentators analyzed the new material from Amber Heard’s NBC interview, ensuring she remained a target online for weeks to come.” They cut to various clips from Signore’s show as well as his own footage when he met Johnny Depp backstage at one of his shows. The way it’s edited, viewers get the impression that Signore was in cahoots with Depp, being invited to his show and even invited backstage. However, that’s not what happened. 

Signore and fellow Popcorned Planet commentators bought front-row tickets to Depp’s show, where Depp recognized them. One of Depp’s security guards then invited them backstage to meet Depp, where he expressed his gratitude for their unwavering support in being warriors for the truth. Not only does Netflix try to spin this footage into something it isn’t, but Signore says that they claimed copyright on Signore’s videos even though they don’t own them and have continued to claim false copyright on his recent videos that have nothing to do with footage included in the documentary. The filmmakers initially reached out to Signore to request permission to use his footage in the documentary, but when he did not respond, they sent another email to let him know they were going to be using his footage anyway but that they would give him credit. However, no such credit is attributed to Signore for his footage of the Depp concert and meeting Depp backstage. Attorney Christopher Melcher clarified that while Netflix can use Signore’s videos to provide commentary, to nefariously claim false copyright on someone else’s videos is illegal and grounds to sue. 

Closing Thoughts

The mainstream media and the figures within it have been on a crusade against alternative media and citizen journalism because they have exposed the thin veneer with which they operate – masquerading as altruistic truth seekers but who are really just hypocritical spin doctors. No wonder their views are tanking, and people are turning to YouTubers and social media for less biased takes – yes, less biased takes from YouTubers. Even the most devout Johnny Depp stan is less ideologically possessed than your average mainstream journalist. 

If there’s anything we learned from the mainstream media during this entire charade, it’s that Amber Heard is not an individual but a representative of something much bigger – women everywhere, survivors everywhere, and the very fabric of feminism itself. If that’s the case, then we'd say that all of these groups picked a pretty terrible spokeswoman. 

Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.