New York Post’s «Why does Johnny Depp still have a career?» or as it was previously titled «Johnny Depp will soon be as reviled as Bill Cosby» is going to be my today tear-it-down-and-loving-it-piece of the day.
«SINKING TO NEW DEPPS» is the printed version title. (unless an opinion piece has three titles you’re doing it wrong)
It is an opinion article. So I’m just going to share my opinion on it.
Which title do you think is worse? The first or second?
I don’t know much about the Bill Cosby case, only that many women accused him of drugging them and sexually assaulting them. Recently, his case ended in a mistrial.
I won’t go searching for what happened in that case. For one reason and one reason alone: it is a different case than Johnny Depp’s. Regardless if Cosby is guilty or not (he wasn’t found guilty), there were more than one woman accusing him for sexual assault.
In Johnny Depp’s case, which didn’t go to trial, it was one woman who accused him of domestic violence. The whole case was his ex wife asking for a restraining order and the hearing never took place because she withdrew her request.
Two totally different cases put in one title because… apparently it saddles «the rich and the famous men of show business together as the big bad men who abuse women» in one go. Both the men and the women become «the face of» a social problem instead of individuals of certain cases. We don’t research, criticise each case individually (oh no no no! that’s «victim blaming, victim shaming & abuse apologism»)
First title had no happy end and changed into «Why does Johnny Depp still have a career?» And if your reaction to it is «Why shouldn’t he have a career?» the author educates us on the subject matter.
To be quite honest, you could read my «Trial by media/social media» entry & be done with it as Ms. Wright managed to add everything I describe there in her article.
So let’s dissect it, shall we?
The author mentions Johnny Depp’s joke about the President’s assassination just because ‘it’s led many to wonder if this will end his career.’
By «many» the author means Trump supporters.
- Johnny Depp apologised for his joke. Not many people do that nowadays. Most importantly the President of the United States doesn’t do it today. And boy, does he have many things to apologise for! Sure he has, just look in his twitter if not his political actions.
- Does the author care about Trump supporters? Unless, she’s one of them I doubt it.
«Why does Johnny Depp still has a career?»
«Johnny Depp is an increasingly incompetent actor who probably, in my view, beat his ex wife.»
Why Johnny Depp shouldn’t have a career? Because of two reasons:
See how she phrases this? She mentions two things:
a. Johnny Depp is an increasingly incompetent actor, which we should take as fact because of
b. in her view, beat his ex wife.
one is stated as fact (let’s be clear here) one is stated as opinion (in my view).
The author keeps herself safe from a libel lawsuit. Because she’s coward that way and no one can sue her for thinking Johnny Depp is a bad actor, but he sure as hell can sue her for stating as fact he beat his wife. But, let’s be clear here, she does take it as fact.
And we continue with the same old, fairy tale that showed no dragon, no Wicked Witch of the West and definitely no Dorothy either.
«I’ll get you, my pretty- and your little dog too! HAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA»
She continues with the recent (May 2017) court docs, in which Mr. Depp’s ex managers claim “the actor had gotten physical with Heard and violently kicked her”.
I never wrote an entry about the recent legal docs because I never thought anyone would or could take them seriously. They come from the people Mr. Depp sued for mismanaging his money and fraud. But people/media did take them seriously. The exact same people never considered to write about Mr. Depp’s side/legal docs in the PRO case and take them as seriously. I wonder why…. I know why.
In this case, and while the trial is still on, when journalists take anything his former managers say as granted are…. that’s right, they «victim-shame» Johnny Depp.
Amber Heard’s legal documents from a year ago where she claimed she was abused are also brought to present and we continue with the tale of the strong heroine who fell victim of the vile man’s antics, but by the female power of hers she kept proof of the abuse (used to blackmail him), and then, transforming herself into a heavenly being donated the money she took from big bad villain to poor children…. (as far as we know she hasn’t yet).
But that was not the end, because in this fairy tale there was no happy ending & the big bad society still called our lovely heroine a gold digger who tried to blackmail big bad Depp.
According to the author of the article the extortion letter our heroine’s lawyer sent to our villain’s lawyer is a figment of our imagination. Yep, we imagined it. Never happened.
The worst part in this?
«If you ever wonder why women in abusive relationships are reluctant to come forward, this is why. They get defamed even when they have documented proof.»
This is where my blood starts boiling. If any victim did what Amber Heard did (extort while still living in his house with no Temporary Restraining Order, sell her proof, ridicule him, call the police when he sent his people to get his stuff from his place & openly lying about his charitie’s interests* among other things) and there was an abuser in her life, things wouldn’t have ended well for her. Amber Heard had some questionable (because she sold them to tabloids) texts, photographs and a heavily edited video never examined by any court expert circulating the internet and earning money of it. And her BFFs claiming they saw the aftermath of the abuse. Police, impartial witnesses were on his side. But, but, but…. big bad Depp. He probably paid them to lie. No wait, his ex managers also claim he’s broke. So he had to follow a different method and he had «pressured and berated his assistant to falsely challenge» her claims. Say the ex managers. Upcoming citizens that they are, we believe them. Same as we believed the ear piece little thing and heroised the other heroine, Ms. Chastain. And was proven it was a lie. Alas, who cares?
«Women get defamed even when they have documented proof»
What do they -men or women- use this documented proof for is another matter alltogether that never comes into debate nowadays. Amber Heard’s «documented proof» was never examined by experts. I’m going to repeat this until my fingers bleed, if I have to. A woman’s safety is important. A man’s reputation, job prospects ruined over false accusations is just as important. We need to know if the accusations are true or not. The only way to know is for the «documented proof» to be examined by forensic scientists. And Ms. Heard never let (yes, she didn’t permit it) anyone to examine her «documented proof». This isn’t me defaming her. This is me expecting to treat everyone’s lives equally.
And there’s the detail of his own evidence that the court didn’t see because she dropped her PRO request.
Who cares about his proof? Who cares if he is the victim here? Who cares if the police saw no evidence of abuse? Who cares if Mr. and Mrs. Deuteurs support Mr. Depp? Who cares if Ms. Heard sold her evidence to tabloids? Who cares if she did try to blackmail Mr. Depp and only yelled abuse when he refused her demands? Who cares if she never showed any kind of fear of him but tried to control and ridicule and destroy him publicly? Who cares if she dropped her PRO request a few days before its hearing when her «documented proof» of her abuse would be examined? His evidence too? Who cares if several months later she wanted to reopen the case to get more money?
Not the author of this article, that’s for certain. There’s the heroine and there’s the big bad wolf and no one can question those roles.
«Historically, a lot of excuses were made for great artists who were also abusive toward women. (Here’s looking at you, Roman Polanski.) But Johnny Depp isn’t a great artist.»
Yes, she went there; she went to Roman Polanski’s case. Because, again if we can’t deal with this case alone we bring a lot more cases to prove our point.
Historically…. we can start from ancient Greece when Aspasia was being called names as Pericles’ partner to… well, Amber Heard.
«Maybe he was a truly great talent before he started spending $30,000 a month on wine (again, according to his former business managers). But for the last decade he’s lurched from failure to mediocrity to failure.»
VICTIM SHAMING, victim shaming, victim shaming…. like big victim shaming.
You know talent goes away when people stop watching you? With this kind of thinking people like Kim Kardashian are far more talented than Johnny Depp. What? I follow the author’s -kind of ridiculous- train of thought. Also, screw you, the Tourist was nice.
Tom Cruise and Leo DiCaprio are awful actors and I don’t want to keep seeing them in movies. I ask for them not to have a career any longer. You are not taking me seriously, are you? That’s what I expected. However, the author of the article expects to be taken seriously.
«Is it because you once loved the swashbuckling Jack Sparrow when he burst onto the high seas 14 years ago? Trust me, there’s another actor out there who can wear a ton of black eyeliner and dreadlocks who doesn’t treat women like crap. If you want him to talk like Johnny Depp, give him $30,000 of wine a month and see what happens.»
Is it? Is it? Yeah, you in the back who dared to raise your eyebrow in disbelief! Did you defame Ms. Heard, did you unquestionably, stupidly, fangirlily (sic) defend the big bad Johnny Depp because 14 years ago you fell in love with Jack Sparrow? Shame on you -and your friends and family and future kids- because that’s not a difficult thing to do. Thousands of actors could do it; just put make up on them, dreadlocks and let them drink lot’s of rum, sorry, wine, and there you have it! Johnny Depp who? Plus the thousands other actors won’t treat women like crap. Because Amber Heard, as the only woman who ever accused Johnny Depp of anything, is «women». As I said, both actors become the «face of». No longer individuals, but the face of «heroic women» and «villainous men».
Cool. I wonder how come Disney didn’t think about it. I mean, Disney pays him to play Jack Sparrow. How come if he’s so easily replaced, such a bad actor, such a failed artist movie studios still want him? And… seriously, say you’ve got a painter who sold his ten paintings for millions of dollars but then people stopped buying his paintings. Should he stop paint? Should he stop doing what he loves because of a «journalist» opinion? What the hell is wrong with media people nowadays? How far up their own bum are they to consider their opinions as unquestionable truths?
«At the very least, maybe we could try not casting miscreants as role models in kids’ movies. And it would be great if David Yates, the director of “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them,” did not defend casting Depp by saying, “you’re a star one week, people are saying odd things the next, but no one takes away your pure talent.”
Yates’ decision is not going to age well.»
Most things don’t age well, Ms. Wright. Most men over fifty are treated like dirt by our generation, in case you haven’t noticed. Even if they haven’t done anything wrong, people will dig and dig to find something.
However, this is the edited version of the article. In the original, Ms. Wright wrote:
«At the very least, maybe we could try not casting miscreants as role models in kids’ movies. The Harry Potter franchise has done just that, replacing Depp with apparent nice guy Benedict Cumberbatch in the upcoming Fantastic Beasts sequels.»
Yeah, yeah I know… This information was replaced when Johnny Depp’s fans pointed out the lack in researching skills the author exhibited by publishing as real an information created specifically for April 1st 2017, April Fools’ Day. That information was that «Benedict Cumberbatch replaced Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts 2«. In the end of that article it was clearly mentioned it was a joke but you can’t believe how many people took it as truth and rejoiced. Proves how much they want to understand what they read. Back to the article, the author’s prejudice and hate didn’t permit her to do any proper research on the matter. Just like she didn’t do any proper research on the abuse claims. Just like she took her personal dislike of Johnny Depp as a universal one.
At the same time, she deleted all comments from her IG account that provided the other side of the story; the reasons why her report on the abuse accusation is faulty and one sided. She didn’t like having her lies/half truths being exposed so she deleted them. That’s how it is done in today’s media. Share lies, delete those who bring to light the other side.
«Years from now, if you show your grandkids Depp’s movies — whether it’s the horrible Willy Wonka remake or the terrible fourth instalment of “Pirates of the Caribbean” — it’s going to be like your dad playing Bill Cosby tapes right now. It’s going to make people recoil. And not in that smirking, jokey, Jack Sparrow kind of way. Because no one is finding this shtick funny anymore.»
Some years back, on International Children’s Book Day I organised a tribute to Roald Dahl. As part of the events, I screened «Charlie & the Chocolate Factory». Children from the age of 6 to the age of 17 loved the movie. While the movie was subtitled and 6, 7, 8 year old kids couldn’t read as fast as to follow the subtitles, their teachers in the end told me they hadn’t seen them as entertained before. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory isn’t a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Both movies are adaptations of a book; «Charlie and the Chocolate Factory» written by Roald Dahl in 1964. But let’s be honest here, if Dahl lived today people like Ms. Wright would question his artistry as well, they might call him problematic and wonder why does he still write.
Apparently Ms. Wright thought the movie was a remake of another movie. Least of the facts she got wrong, truth be told
PotC: Dead Men Tell No Tales/Salazar’s Revenge has grossed over 700 million wordwide. But “no one is finding this shtick funny anymore”, right?
Where I am taking this? I have absolutely no trouble when someone says «I don’t like Johnny Depp.» I didn’t like Johnny Depp when the trendy thing was to adore the ground he walked on. I don’t like Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio. I don’t like Rihanna or Beyonce. Tastes are like that. No one can dictate to me or you or anyone who they should like. I also don’t care if someone believes Johnny Depp is guilty of abusing Amber Heard. What I do care about is presenting their opinion as fact while writing down only one side of the story. It’s worse when said someone has a platform to share their opinion as fact and puts in danger someone’s job and reputation. It’s even worse when the other side of the story, not lies, but facts just Ms. Heard’s actions, Mr. Depp’s evidence and witness list etc, is described «as everything bad has happened to women historically».
It is dangerous, it is scary, it is fascistic.
What I do care is hiding information to promote the idea those who don’t believe Ms. Heard’s accusations are «responsible» for other people getting hurt.
What I do care about is covering personal bias and prejudice under the pseudo-morality of how women are treated badly by society. Women are not an entity. There are good women, there are bad women. There are good men, there are bad men. We are all humans.
In final analysis, and in regards to Mr. Depp, even if big studios stop hiring Mr. Depp, he’ll still be able to find work in smaller, indie productions, in European productions. Johnny Depp’s playground was never just America. He hasn’t been working in HW -and in the movie business- for over 3 decades because he used to be pretty. He’s been regarded as one of the most versatile actors in HW for a reason – even if Ms. Wright disagrees with it. After all, it is just her opinion.
It’s not the first time people in America try to ostracise an artist. They did it in 1952 to Charlie Chaplin. He had challenged the political beliefs of the time, he was controversial in ridiculing a regime whilst it consolidated power across Europe. Chaplin challenged American industries’ working methods and stood up against political acts, which were accepted under the guise of patriotism. So USA put him on exile under the guise of «family values» and «supporting communism». I have seen many young people calling him «problematic» as is the trend today and disregarding his work.
Johnny Depp made a joke about Trump. He apologised for it.
America may do it again; the hate directed at Johnny Depp from all sides is shocking to watch and once again is veiled by moral standards and deletion of the comments that question its sincerity. Free speech applies only to some. That’s not how democracy works.
*Amber Heard openly lied about his charitie’s interests
“Amber Heard appreciates Johnny Depp’s novel interest in supporting two of her favourite charities… This is great and unexpected news,” said a spokeswoman for Heard.
versus the truth:
«Hollywood’s brightest stars will gather at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills on Saturday, Oct. 7, for the second Noche de Ninos Gala to benefit Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.
«Johnny Depp embodies the very spirit of the `Courage to Care’ Award because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» says Ms. Fernandez-Farrand.»
His «novel interest» had been awarded 10 years prior to its birth according to Ms. Heard’s spokeswoman. Spokeswoman… hm woman who lied! Is it possible?
«Anything less would be a transparent attempt by Johnny’s counsel, Laura Wasser and Patti Glaser, to reduce their client’s true payment by half under the guise of newfound concern for charities that he has never previously supported,» the statement continues.
Well, I guess women do lie occasionally.