"... they had to don the camouflage of trust. The clothes we subliminally associate with adulthood, responsibility and reliability. In a word: suits.... In the end, this is partly a trial of image, and of how things appear on the outside versus what happens behind closed doors. Of natural prejudices — about celebrity and what it represents, of privilege, of gender roles — and the way such preconceptions can be altered via appearance and affect. Was Ms. Heard playing a role, as Mr. Depp’s lawyers suggested? Of course. So was Mr. Depp. (So were their lawyers.) Not just because they are professional actors, but because that is what testimony demands: a convincing portrayal of honesty, of believability, using all the tools available to create character. In every meaning of that word."
From "In Court, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Dress to Suggest/Honesty, respectability, sincerity — the clothes make the argument" by Vanessa Friedman (NYT).
Posts
16 comments:
Wait a Minute!
You mean to say, that All Those Times; that i went to court, and faced a the judge,
wearing a suit and acting regretful; and Ready to Change my Ways, and Live my Life Right..
That i was just acting a role? Just playing a part?
PRETENDING to BE someone that wasn't going to go Right Back Out There and commit MORE CRIME??
It's like you're Reading my soul!!!
As a former trial attorney, the point is that every juror has been jerked out of their job, retirement, etc., for an indefinite period in order to perform a civic duty. So, yeah, wear a fuckin’ suit, or whatever else it takes to show that you respect how seriously they take this process.
They're also both honor students.
I haven't watched the car wreck but did see a picture of her in the stand in drag, wearing a jacket and tie. Some others wearing men's shirts in court and on the stand. Not sure how that is intended to manipulate the jury.
I'm always impressed with the people that get charged with Public Intoxication..
WHILE they are at court to argue their DUI. They May be playing a part too;
But, it's a part they have down pat!
"Are you mocking me with that outfit?"
I was under the impression that while you should wear a suit, you didn't want to dress to well and you should wear the same suit every day. The reasoning being that the jury would be less sympathetic towards someone they perceived as being rich.
You can dress 'em up, but you can't take 'em to town
I still don't understand how this fiasco is being televised. As if we needed yet another thing for the very online people to take sides on.
Blogger Russell said...
I still don't understand how this fiasco is being televised. As if we needed yet another thing for the very online people to take sides on.
Exactly. I have avoided this story successfully so far.
Of course you dress your clients up to go in front of a jury. Almost 40 years ago, my partner lost her husband. Her attorney sued his employer and the hospital. Never got to trial, because in her deposition, she got the defense lawyers almost crying. Part of it was artful makeup, downplaying her looks a bit. Part was how he dressed her. There have been professional consultants for dressing people for court for some time. If there is enough money involved (or notoriety and fame here, which hopefully, for at least Depp, translates into money), a dress consultant is often a justifiable litigation expense. It may have been esp critical for Depp here, because he made his fame as mad Jack Sparrow.
If you go out socially with that attorney, he’s wearing an expensive Armani suit, gold Rolex, etc. he has done extremely well in those 40 years. But that suit, etc, stays in the closet when he is in front of a jury. He knows that jurors often don’t like contingency fee attorneys whose pay will depend on the jury award, and any hint that they are going to get filthy rich from that verdict cuts into how much some juries are going to award. So, I was really shocked the other day, when there was an advertisement for a class action law firm trying to capitalize off of problems with some product, showing them walking to (presumably) their private jet. It turned me off, and if I were interested in what they were selling, I would look around for a firm that didn’t gouge enough to afford their own private jet. It was subliminal, but I don’t think that they understand how many people view contingency fee lawyers. Maybe I am the one behind the times here though. The expensive suit, car, jewelry, etc in poor inner city communities seems to build trust, not distrust.
It has occurred to me, that maybe when you're Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, it just makes sense to you that the legal system should provide a venue in which you can tell the World how poorly you have been treated. They asked the attorneys, and the attorneys said "That could cost tens of millions!". And they replied, "Cool, send the bill to my accountant. How soon can we get started?"
Testifying when you are one of the parties in the suit is always going to involve some acting, but if you're just making things up then you've taken acting to a higher (or lower) level.
Semiological interpretation of clothing might have seemed profound 40 years ago, but now it's just part of the interpretation/opinion smog that complicates our lives and takes up space in our heads.
At every answer she gives she turns her head to the jury members. She's playing the game.
"...a convincing portrayal of honesty, of believability, using all the tools available to create character."
Based on the pics accompanying the article, I think they both failed.
Wearing a Mao jacket, however, is a mistake.
Post a Comment