By now, most of us have seen short clips or memes from the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard defamation trial. I’m not here to analyze who is the good guy and who should be put in the stocks. I had a huge crush on Johnny Depp in the 90s, so it’s easy for me to believe the media currently taking his side. But maybe he just has better lawyers…or maybe he’s just a better actor. Many also argue sexism is grossly at play, like this Opinion piece in the New York Times. What is clear is this: both parties, who happen to be professional actors, are performing roles in court, at some points better than at others.

Every courtroom is a stage. Lawyers perform speeches to the jury and the judge. Witnesses are questioned with dialogue meant to trick or lead. Sartorial choices and professional robes become costumes on the set.

And in America, the courtroom is often televised. This adds yet another layer to the real-life performance of the trial. The audience is larger and the camera’s gaze can also change the way we interpret the scene.

We could look at the OJ case…Harvey Weinstein…Bill Cosby…what they all have in common is the way television depicted a performance rather than the facts, or at least in addition to the facts, though sometimes these performances create a positive ethical result. Sometimes the possibility of performance can also poke holes in the truth before us. As the BBC tells us of the Weinstein case: “Weinstein’s high-powered defense team tried to flip the narrative and paint his accusers as the manipulators in the situation.” He also came to court looking frail with a walking frame; was this for show or had the accusations worn him down?

One could argue that we perform in various areas of our lives, such as at work or with friends we are trying to impress. But the court room seems to make it impossible not to perform. The various stages of the room with an audience and particular rules to play by increase the likelihood of either rehearsed script or improvisation being carried out before the jury.

Court as a set

Several films bring us into fictional court rooms to play out the drama through a performance within a performance (a type of mise-en-abyme). Here are a couple of clips as examples:

Philadelphia

A Few Good Men

And then of course there’s Law & Order and all its spin-offs. The series often plays with real-life court drama masked loosely as fiction.

All these court rooms on the screen make us more keenly aware of the performative nature of the setting. They are a crucible of emotions, sometimes out of truth and sometimes out of a desire for manipulation. They seem to mimic real life and, in turn, real court mimics the art of film (and drama).

As Time Magazine recounts, the OJ Simpson case created nearly all of America as a single audience to a racially charged and celebrity-enhanced trial. Vanity Fair claims this was the first reality show, likely paving the way especially for Keeping up with the Kardashians, the lineage of Simpson’s deceased defense attorney.

Oscar Wilde and epistemology

One could find a lot of parallels with the current court room focus in America on Johnny Depp and Amber Heard with the trials of Oscar Wilde. The trial on the accusation of sodomy (basically Wilde was on trial for being gay, which was then illegal in England) ultimately put him in prison for two years. He was in exile for three years after until he died at the age of 45.

The ‘boy’ with whom Wilde had a relationship was young but not underage and nothing refuted a consensual relationship. These suggestions were used against Wilde, but the fact is that the trial was about homosexuality rather than rape or pedophilia. Wilde likely died for being gay.

Although Wilde was ultimately charged with homosexuality, the original trial was one of defamation by his lover’s father who called him a sodomite publicly. This is not unlike the Depp-Heard trial where defamation is the current aspect on trial, not domestic violence. It is essentially reputation — and the ability to work and conduct a normal life — that is at stake. Wilde’s decision not to flee to France as many tried to convince him to do was perhaps in part to further uphold his reputation and his identity. Perhaps he simply didn’t want to hide it any longer, because performing in court is one thing, but performing any time you leave your hotel room is possibly too much (for Wilde’s home was also a performance of heterosexuality).

Wilde’s only grandchild, Merlin Holland, published the transcript of the Wilde vs. Queensberry trial under the title: Irish Peacock & Scarlet Marquess: The Real Trial of Oscar Wilde. While any court transcript could be read as a play, this one reads as if it were written this way originally. As if it were a piece of art by Chekhov…or Wilde himself.

Wilde dressed as a Dandy often and did so at court. His flair and beauty of dress were often noted and discussed, also by himself in a lecture from 1884: “One should either be a work of art or wear a work of art” (also discussed in Constance and Oscar Wilde’s Contributions to Fashion by

The defense (against Wilde’s accusation of defamation) also interprets a hand-written letter from Wilde to Lord Alfred (his lover) as if it were art, but uses it as evidence of the truth as well. Wilde agrees it is “an extraordinary letter…I don’t pose as being ordinary.” Later, he also states: “It is a letter expressive of love.” Wilde is not hiding his love for Lord Alfred.

They then use The Picture of Dorian Gray, one of Wilde’s most famous novels, as evidence of his homosexuality. Wilde agrees during the trial that he had given Alfred a signed copy of the book. Although it seems natural a friend or lover would want to share their art, this was portrayed as containing secret messages, even though Wilde also gave him “four or five” of his other works as well.

The defense attempts to prove that Dorian Gray is about homosexuality and that in turn proves both Wilde’s true nature and the way he treated Lord Alfred. But Wilde writes: “What Dorian Gray’s sins are no one knows.” He also discusses the purpose of a “work of art is a purely personal pleasure,” suggesting it is not accountable to facts or the law.

The trial transcript is enjoyable to read for Wilde’s wit and unmerciful clever rebuttals to questions. It is as if he is improvising literary dialogue as he speaks. (Carson: “What about was his age?” / Wilde: “It is rather vulgar to ask people their ages.” Laughter.) Sadly, though, he could not escape the outcome despite his likable nature as well as the truths he revealed about art and love. The publicity of his trials did, however, pave the way for acknowledgement of homosexuality in society and, perhaps, eventual lawful acceptance in 1967 — but only in private. It was only very recently that full legal acceptance and anti-discrimination laws were put into place in the UK.

So in the current trials, while it may seem impossible to separate the films and the media from the actors in the room, one must attempt to take away these layers of false understanding. At the same time, it appears likely that no matter what the truth, Heard and Depp are making good use of their acting skills on a daily basis, just as Wilde was able to impress with his charisma and exceptional use of the English language.

Essentially, courts are supposed to discover the truth so that the law may be applied in the way it is written. But knowledge is not always black and white. In fact, we can probably question most knowledge we have, to some extent at least.

However, using art as evidence — whether one’s fiction or films — is surely an inaccurate way to arrive at the truth. For fiction plays with reality. And at the same time, the court room can be made into an elliptical fiction, where we are playing with ideas and theories rather than truly revealing the accountability of a person’s actions. In this way, fiction helps us understand the limitations of law.

Kathleen Waller is a novelist with a PhD in Comparative Literature. She previously taught literature, cultural studies, ethics, and epistemology to high school and university students for twenty years. Sign up now for her free Substack newsletter starting in August: The Matterhorn — intersections of literature & art

Twitter / Instagram @tournerlesmots