In 2014, a delightful movie written and directed by Rajat Kapoor, Ankhon Dekhi, introduced the world to Raje Bauji. The movie opens with Bauji, played with endearing honesty by Sanjay Mishra, recounting a recurring dream where he’s flying. Coasting through the sky like a bird, the breeze brushing his face and the wind whistling in his ear, an ineffable feeling permeates his being. Is it joy? Contentment? Whatever name you assign to it, to him, it feels real. Bauji links this feeling to a monumental decision that would change his life: he will only believe the things he can see, hear, or feel as being real. Reality, or at least Bauji’s notion of it, is thus defined by what he can empirically verify, leading to bizarre results. The movie artfully explores the consequences of a life led with such a seemingly absurd, but staunch, conviction and I would urge you to watch it to discover where Bauji’s journey leads him.
Over the past few days, the onslaught of memes and reels about the Johnny Depp - Amber Heard defamation trial reminded me of this movie and I wondered: What would Bauji make of this?
Anyone who has access to the internet would have been exposed to content related to the Johnny Depp - Amber Heard trial. Axios reported that the trial is getting more online attention in the US than the war waging in Ukraine and the US Supreme Court’s leaked (and ludicrous) decision which is expected to subvert abortion laws. But this is by no means a US-centric phenomenon. Some reports suggest that 65% of those viewing the live-streamed court proceedings are logging in from outside the US.
Memes, gifs and videos (Reels and re-purposed TikToks) starring Johnny Depp and the disembodied voice of Amber Heard’s lawyer bungling his way through a cross-examination, have flooded social media. And there is a wealth of similar material doing the rounds. Johnny Depp helping people out of a vehicle (what an angel!), Johnny Depp smiling beatifically, Johnny Depp oozing innocence. You get the drift1.
A great deal has been written about the unprecedented manner in which this defamation trial is being played out on social media. The trial being live-streamed to spectators worldwide is certainly a factor in the attention it is garnering. Both social media influencers and normal human beings have access to footage of the court proceedings, the cross-examinations, the testimonies, and the oral arguments, on a real-time basis. News reports about sordid trials have always been enormously popular, but they were second-hand narratives being peddled to us with some added spice and glamour. (The ‘WAGatha Christie’ trial occurring simultaneously in the UK is a good example of traditional media attention, through op-eds, caricature cartoons and tabloids, being lavished on a celebrity spat, with a sprinkling of live-blogging of court proceedings thrown in.2)
Now, the world has a window into the real thing; you can get a first-hand experience of what transpires in the courtroom by simply tuning into a YouTube channel. Surely, Bauji would have approved of this development? If seeing is believing, what better way to form an opinion about a legal battle than watching videos of the trial, right? Well, not quite.
That the online discourse is overwhelmingly in support of Johnny Depp would not surprise anyone (even casually) following this saga. But the extent of such support, evidenced by data, is eye-opening. According to a CNN Business article from earlier this week:
One hashtag, #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, has garnered more than 11 billion views globally, while just the actor's name has more than 19 billion, and #JohnnyDeppisInnocent has garnered more than 3 billion…... By contrast, #JusticeForAmberHeard has 41 million views. Heard's name has garnered more than 9 billion views and #AmberTurd has 1.6 billion (a hashtag fueled by trial testimony concerning fecal matter.) Meanwhile, the #AmberHeardIsALiar had drawn more than 2 billion views when CNN Business reviewed it Friday afternoon, but the hashtag no longer appeared viewable in the app as of Friday evening.
These are crazy numbers! Especially when you consider that Johnny Depp has lost a libel case in the UK (against The Sun) where the court “found 12 of the 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence had occurred.” Are billions of people diligently watching every minute of the court proceedings, studiously weighing the evidence being placed on record and independently arriving at their assessment that #JohnnyDeppisInnocent? I find that hard to believe.
We live in a time where our offline, real lives are incontrovertibly linked to our virtual lives. The content we see when we are online inevitably influences the opinions we form, particularly on trending topics. In addition, we must also account for the rapid decline in our attention span. With so many distractions around us, it is no wonder we can barely focus on a single object or idea for more than half a minute (the ideal TikTok or Reel runtime). In the not-so-distant past, opinions would have been based on articles or news reports one may have read (perhaps discussing different perspectives) and intellectually engaged with, if only for a few minutes. Now, an opinion is likely based on an Instagram post, a Twitter thread, or a TikTok, that took a few seconds to consume.
I, at least, am certainly guilty of this.
Let me take a beat here and clarify that I do not mean to vilify social media. It can do tremendous good and can offer a platform to the disenfranchised. It can help convey complex concepts in the simplest forms and democratise knowledge. However, it can also be misused to shape public opinion in quite dangerous ways.
A trial about alleged domestic violence and abuse can be triggering for the victims of such crimes and must be handled with respect and sensitivity. It is worthwhile to remember that what may seem to us as fodder for new memes and gifs, are the lived experiences of not only the people involved in the trial but others who may have faced similar situations. Regardless of the final court ruling in this matter, it has to be said that the mid-trial, and very public, mocking and haranguing of someone who has (allegedly) suffered domestic abuse can have no justification; particularly so, when the public outrage appears to be purely based on (and fed by) partisan content being shared on social media.
We are unlikely to reverse course on the live-streaming and live-blogging of trials, and will probably see more such instances playing out in the future. This trial could set the stage for how we choose to engage with social media content related to those cases. A society which amuses itself with TikToks about potentially traumatic incidents, would be guilty of making the wrong choice.
Okay, I’ll admit it. I don’t like the guy. Also, I find it difficult to trust people who wear sunglasses when they’re indoors.
The trial (Rooney v. Vardy), featuring wives of English footballers, combines the best that Britain has to offer to the world: Premier League football, amateur sleuthing (à la Agatha Christie) and tabloid journalism. You can read Marina Hyde’s excellent article if you want to know more.
Great article Rohan