Depp v Heard review: Netflix docuseries is ultimately redundant & lacking

On Netflix’s three-part docuseries, Depp v Heard revisits the real-life titular trial covered and published extensively across mediums.

Story

The first episode sees the trial begin as both actors and former partners Amber Heard and Johnny Depp revisit the start of their relationship and then the abuse/violence that began to crumble the bond between them.

The second episode follows how the public response to the trial reached its zenith and then to the sessions where they address the incident that happened in Australia.

The final episode continues to splice in the footage of overwhelming responses from the online populace as the trial reaches its end.

Johnny’s team questions Amber’s credibility, bringing in a former partner of Johnny for a testimony, while Heard’s team goes after Johnny’s character. The trial concludes and the public continues to opine loudly.

Positives

Depp v Heard contends with the overwhelming misogyny, sexism, and anti-women vitriol online that, to this day, continues to inform public opinion regarding the trial.

It also battles, with a commendable determination, the several cases of embarrassing responses to the trial proceedings, which were also either factually wrong or informed by the inaccurate and incomplete context of the whole picture.

Negatives

Depp v Heard fails to bring professional expertise to the forefront and comment on the transgressions and terrible debauchery of reasoning and conduct during the coverage of the trial.

It only presents the state of matters in a fashion akin to that of a highlights reel, which can often alienate the viewers who are not as accommodated to the format and seek an educated commentary on the proceedings.

The docuseries also suffer from the pitfalls of the true crime genre. The kitschy dramatization of the whole affair with the usage of cringe-worthy background music is very off-putting.

It also glosses and skims past the actually legitimate and abundant court documents that were procured afterward, as well as the UK trial, to lend a better articulation and comprehension of the whole trial and transgression.

Verdict

Depp v Heard begins with a commendable effort but in all its runtime, fails to do better with the “neutral” representation of matters in and around the trial.

The harmful discourse is often shown and frequently in a negative light, but a better and more rigorous treatment of said discourse is nowhere to be found.

The lack of a proper examination of damning documents such as those that were made public after the trial, the comments of an expert or professional outside the footage, or a competent digging into the public response, conclude the effort with already known truths.

---

Also Read: Untold: Hall of Shame review: One of the better offerings in the series