Depp v. hearing | Johnny and Amber, we don’t know anything more!

In the section “I watched a very bad series so you don’t have to”, here is the sad chapter devoted to Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard.

Netflix relays the three-hour documentary miniseries Depp v. hearing (Johnny Depp v. Amber Heardin French version), which reveals nothing new about this spectacular trial that fascinated and inflamed the whole world, I am not exaggerating, in the spring of 2022. A pure waste of viewing time, in my opinion.

The three episodes unfold in chronological order and juxtapose versions of the two Hollywood actors, who washed their dirty laundry – and their poop-stained sheets – live on the web for weeks on end.

Johnny alleges this, Amber responds that. Amber claims such a thing, Johnny refutes everything. In the end, the viewer never disentangles the true from the false and replays the myriad of gags – some very funny – generated by this dizzying confrontation, commented on in real time on TikTok and Twitch.

You’ll see the “megapint” of red wine Johnny Depp, 60, poured himself for breakfast, you’ll dive back into the saga of the make-up bag that Amber Heard, 37, used to hide her bruises, but you won’t know not what really happened between the two ex-spouses in their Los Angeles penthouse or inside a villa they rented in Australia, where the star of Pirates of the Caribbean lost a fingertip in a violent altercation involving a bottle of vodka.

The miniseries insists, like a British tabloid, on the juiciest elements of the affair, namely the videos where Depp and Heard are violently inveighing against each other, the compromising text messages about one and the other, the photos of their swollen faces, the testimony of Kate Moss which demolishes the rumor that Depp pushed her down a staircase in the mid-1990s, in short, we always remain in the superficial, the anecdote, without pushing the reflection further away on domestic violence. It’s disappointing and annoying.

And as if this resounding legal battle hadn’t caused enough noise, director Emma Cooper adds to it by interspersing the court excerpts with comments from unknown and aggressive youtubers and podcasters (hello Deadpool nickname), who have no credibility. Already cacophonous, this long summary of the 50 million trial becomes unbearable.

The neutral approach of Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard contributes nothing to the public debate. It’s up to you whether Johnny or Amber is lying, Netflix tells us. The problem is that we played this little game during the six weeks that the trial lasted, between April and June 2022. And the result of this great media unpacking was disastrous, even dangerous.

Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard after an open letter was published in December 2018, in the washington postwhere the actressAquaman said to itself the face of domestic violence. The jury finally agreed with Depp, who will receive 1 million out of the 50 he claimed.

Thunderous and flamboyant, Depp’s supporters crushed Heard’s on social media. Did someone pay them to tear down the so-called victim in such a hateful way? This is a promising track that was not explored by the Netflix documentary.

What emerges from these three hours of TV is that the jury in Fairfax, Virginia, did not believe Amber Heard, who lied several times before the judge. Which turns out to be deadly for a cause that relies entirely on the reliability of the witnesses.

After her divorce from Depp in January 2017, Amber Heard promised to donate the seven million she obtained to charities, including the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. Six years later, the money still hasn’t been transferred.

If Amber Heard cheated on this, who can assure us that she didn’t tamper with other parts of her story? And who beat who in this toxic and explosive couple, in which no one seems balanced? Netflix offers no answers, alas.

No more red carpets at Radio-Canada

Radio-Canada unplugs all its red carpet-type programs, which precede the broadcast of the Gémeaux, ADISQ and Les Olivier galas. The teams assigned to these productions, which were often co-hosted by Isabelle Racicot, Claudine Prévost or Nicolas Ouellet, were notified of their disappearance this week, I am told.

Before the Gémeaux and ADISQ ceremonies, scheduled for September 17 and November 5, Radio-Canada will present a 30-minute version of a special edition of the magazine Back to culture from ARTV. Nothing is planned before the Gala Les Olivier.

The public broadcaster wants to “do something different” and thinks that “using one of the programs popular with viewers will highlight the artists and artisans of these industries thanks to an interesting and different formula”.