The verdict in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard defamation lawsuit we talked about last month is a divisive issue. Now we know that, in the US, Johnny is not a literal womanizer while in England he is so. Which introduces a small initial cognitive dissonance in those who have faith in the judicial power.

 

(...)

 

The few skeptics are wondering why from day one a phenomenal media campaign has destroyed Amber. It can happen, given her terrible acting performance during her deposition.

 

(...)

 

BUT to restore the image of the most likeable pirate (!!) from Ushuaia to North Cape and prepare the public for an upcoming breathtaking adventure, something else was needed. Significant pro-Depp media activity. And this was there, starting even before the initial court hearing: when the news of the live TV broadcast became known.

 

(...)

 

The chosen narrative therefore takes on epic contours: a good person (an actor,) dedicated to centuries-old rituals of "self-medication" (to quote Johnny,) seduced by a sorceress Circe.

 

(...)

 

However, there remains a bitter note from this narrative that wants a half-zombie (who punches kitchen furniture, devastates furnishings and - in essence - shows no limits in the language, ways and substances with which he feeds his body) to become beloved and defended by most without any distinction.

 

(...)

 

There are also those who say that these judicial shows are, in their timing, fun distractions from that "inexorable reality" that accompanies these times. (...)

 

Others are reminded of Cat Stevens in Where Do The Children Play?, written 50 years ago!:

 

"will you make us cry?

will you make us laugh?

will you tell us when to live?

will you tell us when to die? ”

 

To distract ourselves and not get depressed, we pick up a good book on paper. Maybe it’s the physicality of the ritual, maybe it’s because it has its own smell, maybe it’s because of that slogan… throw books, not bombs.

 

Besides, in war, the first thing that goes down is the Internet. :-)