The Truth About Johnny and Amber
And all other social media outrage controversies
Welcome to The Embassy!
We hope to be an Island of Faith, Humanity and Grace For Understanding Our Strange World. I'm Mike Sherman and I’ll look at culture and faith and their intersections and how that informs our stance in the world.
This week - Johnny and Amber:
A View -
I’m not a People Magazine sort of person. No offense if you are, I know people who are into that sort of thing as a minor diversion - I’m just not one of them. I don’t know who is or was or isn’t married or dating or breaking up with whom. Most of the people in my circle aren’t either, but most are a little more tuned in to that world than I am. Except for Johnny and Amber. I can’t avoid that conversation - it is everywhere, even among younger friends who never talk about this sort of stuff. (Johnny Depp aka Captain Jack Sparrow from The Pirates of the Caribbean and Amber Heard from honestly I don’t know where - in case you have been able to avoid this conversation.)
What is a little interesting is that most people who are following it, even via social media - which, again, isn’t really me - including most of the younger people I know, seem to be on the ‘side’ of Johnny Depp. You can find any number of articles examining the Tik Tok (a social media platform very popular among people a little younger than me) trend of supporting Depp or mocking Ms. Heard. I’m not really interested in what Tik Tok has to say about a celebrity case that I am not really that interested in regardless of venue - so I took these articles’ word for it. There has reportedly been an online campaign to limit the size Amber Heard’s part in an upcoming movie. Our popular culture has a long history of fascination with the troubles (real or imagined) of famous and/or rich couples - from Charles & Diana to Shawn Penn & Madonna from an earlier cultural moment to (pick a Kardashian) & (not sure, but one of them was a basketball player) of more recent vintage. I told you I don’t really keep up on these things. There may be many reasons for the people who take the ‘side’ of Johnny Depp in this present controversy - but one is probably that he was Captain Jack Sparrow and people like that character.
We have a different, quieter interest in the troubles (real or imagined) of couples we know. There are those who have sought my counsel and those I have just heard about. But this seems sadder, more real, a reminder that these things happen in the real world. There is a tragedy to a failed marriage that is hard to miss when it is seen from a closer or more personal vantage point. I grew up in such an everyday-but-completely-unique tragedy. Everyday because they happen all the time, completely unique because it is almost impossible to understand fully from the outside and difficult even from the inside. These things are less fun to talk about, probably because they aren’t really a diversion. Also because they are complicated. One thing I learned a long time ago from one partner in a marriage seeking my counsel was that to hear only one side in such a situation is probably to not even fully understand that side, much less the other one. The sides exist in relationship to each other and you are only hearing a version of one of them … I learned to have some humility regarding my understanding of another person’s relationship.
Except for Johnny and Amber. Just kidding - including Johnny and Amber, maybe especially because they are both professional actors. But that doesn’t stop so many of us from having an opinion. Why is it that so many people have an opinion? Need an opinion? Are so sure of their opinion?
Part of it is the polarizing cycle of internet outrage where we must have a take, we must make it exclusively, and where the other side are fools are worse. This polarizing cycle of internet outrage extends beyond People Magazine takes and into the cause of inflation, military support for Ukraine, and Kindergarten curriculum. That sincere people can, in good faith, in something less than complete understanding, put forward a nuanced opinion that doesn't match one of the competing takes ... there is no interest in that idea online. I guess I do encounter this in real life, but less than I used to. This whole cycle draws people into deeper social media interaction, which enriches these companies and distracts us from, well, living. Of course, that these are rich and famous people plays into it for some - schadenfreude is fun - these rich and famous people ... who has sympathy for them? But shouldn’t we have sympathy? Do we have to hold people blameless before we extend sympathy to them?
The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit
(Proverbs 18:21)
Before I land this plane, a point about these companies being enriched through this particular form of internet outrage (alongside all the other forms of internet outrage). All of this was true to some extent when all we had was People Magazine and Us Weekly and The National Enquirer in the grocery aisle, social media has just accelerated and magnified the trend. In any case, we are the pawns here - no matter what is at the center of the outrage cycle - if we choose to play. Just to be clear, I am not blaming the social media companies - they may shoulder some blame, I like to think I wouldn’t make the choices they are making - but we are to blame. The social media outrage cycle might appeal to our baser instincts, but they don’t create them. We can move in another direction. That is our choice. If everyone who plays loses, then don’t play - and if you lose, don’t blame others. Of course, I am no longer just talking about Johnny and Amber.
My opinion on Johnny and Amber is similar to my opinion on the guardianship of Brittany Spears (see the link below) or on a number of other items of social controversy. I don’t really know. It is difficult and complicated and sad and there may not always be an obvious right side or wrong side that fits all cases. I might have an opinion, but I hold it loosely because I know how difficult it is to really have an informed opinion and I am not willing, nor do I think I should be willing, to commit that much time to have an informed opinion. Basically, it is none of my business. It is, in any event, a tragedy. A source of sadness that should leave no one celebrating. I don't have a take, really. I shouldn't have a take. (Not that I consistently and prudently withdraw from all such conversations, I don’t always live up to my principles.) I hope justice is done and the truth wins out and restoration is the order of the day - but I don't know what that looks like here. Just like I don't know what it looks like in so many situations - most public situations. It is hard enough to know how to move toward these things in situations I am actually in - in my own life.
In the end, that is one of the reasons, I think, for the (fake) moral clarity for or against Johnny or Amber (or Charles or Diana or Madonna or Sean or any of the Kardashians). It is a distraction from our own difficult and unclear life situations - or, worse, it is a false lens that we use to create (fake) moral clarity in our own life, when we have no right to such clarity. Sometimes we don't know. Sometimes it isn't any of our business. There may be fewer vicarious thrills but more happiness, contentment, and joy down that road.
The apostle Paul, speaking to Christians in Rome concerning their relationship with one another and with those around them, known or unknown, who may oppose their message and lifestyle -Â
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone
(Romans 12:18)
That we have trouble living in peace with people we don’t know and never will isn’t a social media phenomenon. This reality appears to be at least a couple thousand years old.
Here is the thing I do believe - that one day, all will come to light and all the injustices will be put to right. When that happens, I may regret (if regret is still a thing then) having given too much of my precious bandwidth for a fake moral clarity in a situation that isn't really my responsibility and for which I may be shown to be completely wrong. Again, fake moral clarity in a situation that isn’t really my responsibility and for which I may be shown to be completely wrong isn’t a social media thing. It is an effective delivery vehicle - but the fault in such situations is all mine.
Link(s)
This week’s link deals with another complicated family controversy -
Brittney Spears Conservatorship
If you’d like to support my work, access more content, and engage with me and other subscribers here, you can subscribe to The Embassy using the button below.
You will have access to essays, conversation threads, Q & A, and all the archives. If you have a question about anything, ask it by sending me an email at theembassy@substack.com
(I believe in paying for content where I can in order to encourage more of it. I have paid subscriptions to some publications in order to encourage them and more like them in this difficult media landscape we are in. But I also know that some people want to do that and can’t. This is why The Embassy offers free subscriptions to those who want all the content and want to engage with me and other subscribers, but can’t afford it (at least right now). If that is you, please email theembassy@substack.com for a free subscription to The Embassy)Â