WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.140 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today, we are 00:00:02.140 --> 00:00:05.980 taking a run at one of the most publicly complex 00:00:05.980 --> 00:00:09.619 figures of modern Hollywood. Definitely. This 00:00:09.619 --> 00:00:12.119 is an individual whose life and career have been 00:00:12.119 --> 00:00:15.640 consistently scrutinized across multiple, very 00:00:15.640 --> 00:00:18.300 different spheres. Right. From indie films to 00:00:18.300 --> 00:00:21.780 billion -dollar franchises and, you know, simultaneously 00:00:21.780 --> 00:00:24.899 across two international courtrooms. We are, 00:00:24.940 --> 00:00:27.120 of course, talking about Amber Laura Hurd. Born 00:00:27.120 --> 00:00:30.760 April 22, 1986 in Austin, Texas. And the thing 00:00:30.760 --> 00:00:32.539 is, it's not just a large amount of material 00:00:32.539 --> 00:00:34.500 we're working with here. It's a conflicting one. 00:00:34.659 --> 00:00:36.539 I mean, we're dealing with sources that cover 00:00:36.539 --> 00:00:39.100 everything from high impact humanitarian work 00:00:39.100 --> 00:00:42.640 to the microscopic details of. Well, corporate 00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:44.960 litigation and personal lawsuits. Absolutely. 00:00:45.240 --> 00:00:47.740 So our mission here isn't just to summarize, 00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:50.659 but to really extract the most important nuggets 00:00:50.659 --> 00:00:53.179 from this mountain of information. We're conducting 00:00:53.179 --> 00:00:55.460 a thorough deep dive into the source material. 00:00:55.640 --> 00:00:57.960 The full career arc, her surprisingly extensive 00:00:57.960 --> 00:01:00.820 activism, that complex personal history. And 00:01:00.820 --> 00:01:03.060 of course, the high profile legal battles that 00:01:03.060 --> 00:01:05.180 have completely reshaped her public image over 00:01:05.180 --> 00:01:07.659 the last decade. And we should acknowledge right 00:01:07.659 --> 00:01:10.459 up front that this material is often politically 00:01:10.459 --> 00:01:14.099 or personally charged. Very much so. Therefore, 00:01:14.359 --> 00:01:18.260 our primary goal for you, the listener, is structural 00:01:18.260 --> 00:01:21.060 understanding. We're here to provide a clear, 00:01:21.099 --> 00:01:23.829 structured view of the facts. as they're presented 00:01:23.829 --> 00:01:26.409 in these sources highlighting multiple perspectives 00:01:26.409 --> 00:01:29.170 all the nuanced details but without taking sides 00:01:29.170 --> 00:01:32.230 exactly we want you to walk away well informed 00:01:32.230 --> 00:01:34.750 about the timeline the professional milestones 00:01:34.750 --> 00:01:37.709 and all the legal intricacies okay let's unpack 00:01:37.709 --> 00:01:40.049 this before we get into the bright lights of 00:01:40.049 --> 00:01:42.230 hollywood and the courtrooms let's establish 00:01:42.230 --> 00:01:44.569 some foundational context you know the beginnings 00:01:44.569 --> 00:01:47.269 that set the stage for her life What's fascinating 00:01:47.269 --> 00:01:50.510 here is the early indication of someone who actively 00:01:50.510 --> 00:01:53.609 chose to challenge the expectations of her immediate 00:01:53.609 --> 00:01:56.349 environment. How so? Well, Heard was the middle 00:01:56.349 --> 00:01:58.670 child of three daughters, born to Patricia Page, 00:01:58.870 --> 00:02:01.290 an internet researcher, and David Clinton Heard, 00:02:01.349 --> 00:02:03.450 who owned a construction company. And her upbringing 00:02:03.450 --> 00:02:06.290 sounds quintessentially Texan. Oh, completely. 00:02:06.629 --> 00:02:09.030 The sources detail it. And she spent her time 00:02:09.030 --> 00:02:12.349 outside Austin riding horses, hunting and fishing 00:02:12.349 --> 00:02:14.789 with her father. So a deeply conservative traditional 00:02:14.789 --> 00:02:17.639 backdrop. How did she move away from that? That 00:02:17.639 --> 00:02:19.639 traditional structure just didn't hold. I mean, 00:02:19.659 --> 00:02:21.840 she was raised Catholic. But by the age of 16, 00:02:22.099 --> 00:02:24.400 after a friend tragically died in a car crash, 00:02:24.620 --> 00:02:27.419 she began identifying as an atheist. Wow. At 00:02:27.419 --> 00:02:31.060 16, that's a profound shift. It is. And this 00:02:31.060 --> 00:02:33.699 realization, coupled with feeling increasingly 00:02:33.699 --> 00:02:36.060 uncomfortable in what she herself described as 00:02:36.060 --> 00:02:38.680 that conservative, God -fearing Texas environment, 00:02:39.039 --> 00:02:41.900 led to a really swift and definitive choice. 00:02:42.400 --> 00:02:44.280 Which was? She dropped out of Catholic high school 00:02:44.280 --> 00:02:46.919 at 17 to immediately move to Los Angeles and 00:02:46.919 --> 00:02:49.819 pursue acting. She only later earned her diploma 00:02:49.819 --> 00:02:53.240 through a home study course. That's a bold early 00:02:53.240 --> 00:02:56.159 move, choosing a highly volatile career path 00:02:56.159 --> 00:02:58.360 and a completely different world at such a young 00:02:58.360 --> 00:03:00.500 age. It really is. That early shift away from 00:03:00.500 --> 00:03:03.719 established religious and geographic roots seems 00:03:03.719 --> 00:03:07.340 to sort of foreshadow her later pattern of challenging 00:03:07.340 --> 00:03:09.939 the status quo, even if it brings conflict. OK, 00:03:10.020 --> 00:03:12.780 so let's move into her professional life. We 00:03:12.780 --> 00:03:15.280 see the expected trajectory of a young actor 00:03:15.280 --> 00:03:18.060 trying to find a footing in the early 2000s. 00:03:18.080 --> 00:03:21.419 Her career began in 2003 with small appearances, 00:03:21.539 --> 00:03:23.039 the kind of things you do to build a resume. 00:03:23.370 --> 00:03:25.509 And those early steps included music videos, 00:03:25.629 --> 00:03:27.629 which was, you know, a pretty common path at 00:03:27.629 --> 00:03:30.110 the time for up and coming talent. Exactly. She 00:03:30.110 --> 00:03:32.050 was featured in Kenny Chesney's There Goes My 00:03:32.050 --> 00:03:34.530 Life and Isley's I Wasn't Prepared. At the same 00:03:34.530 --> 00:03:36.629 time, she started landing small supporting roles 00:03:36.629 --> 00:03:38.909 in television. Yeah, shows like Jack and Bobby, 00:03:39.069 --> 00:03:42.030 The Mountain and The O .C. Her film debut came 00:03:42.030 --> 00:03:45.229 just a year later. in 2004 with a minor role 00:03:45.229 --> 00:03:47.689 in the highly regarded sports drama Friday Night 00:03:47.689 --> 00:03:49.789 Lights. But the breakthrough moment, the first 00:03:49.789 --> 00:03:52.150 time she really carried a film, was with All 00:03:52.150 --> 00:03:55.229 the Boys Love Mandy Lane. Ah, yes. A project 00:03:55.229 --> 00:03:58.689 that became notorious for its distribution challenges. 00:03:58.969 --> 00:04:01.469 It's such a strange story because the film itself 00:04:01.469 --> 00:04:03.729 was critically well -received, but its commercial 00:04:03.729 --> 00:04:06.750 life was almost non -existent for years. It really 00:04:06.750 --> 00:04:09.189 was. It's a slasher film where she played the 00:04:09.189 --> 00:04:11.330 title character. It premiered to a lot of buzz 00:04:11.330 --> 00:04:14.449 at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival, 00:04:14.569 --> 00:04:18.389 but then nothing. Nothing. Well, due to distribution 00:04:18.389 --> 00:04:20.649 rights issues and just, you know, legal limbo, 00:04:20.670 --> 00:04:23.350 it wasn't released in Europe until 2008 and, 00:04:23.389 --> 00:04:26.389 shockingly, in the U .S. until 2013. A seven 00:04:26.389 --> 00:04:29.209 -year delay. A massive seven -year delay. Seven 00:04:29.209 --> 00:04:31.889 years is an eternity in Hollywood, especially 00:04:31.889 --> 00:04:34.430 for a young actor trying to capitalize on momentum. 00:04:35.339 --> 00:04:38.079 When it did finally reach U .S. audiences, what 00:04:38.079 --> 00:04:40.300 did critics say about her actual performance? 00:04:40.699 --> 00:04:43.319 The reviews really confirmed that the delay was 00:04:43.319 --> 00:04:45.879 a loss for her career trajectory at that time. 00:04:46.339 --> 00:04:48.800 Critics recognized her potential. The Los Angeles 00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:51.120 Times called it her most definitive to date, 00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:53.500 suggesting it was the best showcase of her talents 00:04:53.500 --> 00:04:55.100 up to that point. And the Washington Post had 00:04:55.100 --> 00:04:57.639 good things to say, too, right? They did. They 00:04:57.639 --> 00:04:59.740 noted that the film was psychologically interesting. 00:05:00.269 --> 00:05:02.870 So despite the whole commercial fiasco surrounding 00:05:02.870 --> 00:05:05.230 the release, it was a really solid foundation 00:05:05.230 --> 00:05:07.990 for her dramatic reputation. The momentum did 00:05:07.990 --> 00:05:10.569 seem to pick up around 2008, where she started 00:05:10.569 --> 00:05:13.310 gaining genuine mainstream visibility. That's 00:05:13.310 --> 00:05:16.009 when the transition from indie starlet to like 00:05:16.009 --> 00:05:19.410 a real Hollywood player began. She secured notable 00:05:19.410 --> 00:05:22.949 supporting roles in two very different high profile 00:05:22.949 --> 00:05:26.069 films. Pineapple Express. Right. The Seth Rogen 00:05:26.069 --> 00:05:28.310 stoner comedy, which was a huge box office hit. 00:05:28.410 --> 00:05:31.310 And then the martial arts drama never backed 00:05:31.310 --> 00:05:33.970 down. And she also appeared in the ensemble adaptation 00:05:33.970 --> 00:05:37.509 of Bret Easton Ellis's novel, The Informers. 00:05:37.750 --> 00:05:40.370 Exactly. These roles placed her firmly in the 00:05:40.370 --> 00:05:42.709 public eye and, importantly, established her 00:05:42.709 --> 00:05:44.870 capability across different genres. And some 00:05:44.870 --> 00:05:46.790 of her performances in the following years really 00:05:46.790 --> 00:05:48.990 started generating specific critical praise, 00:05:49.170 --> 00:05:51.850 suggesting she was capable of, you know, stealing 00:05:51.850 --> 00:05:55.110 scenes. Yes. Look at the Joneses in 2009. She 00:05:55.110 --> 00:05:57.569 starred opposite David Duchovny and Demi Moore. 00:05:57.769 --> 00:06:00.230 The industry trade publication Variety noted 00:06:00.230 --> 00:06:03.050 that Heard more or less steals the show from 00:06:03.050 --> 00:06:05.389 the veteran Moore. That's high praise. Very high 00:06:05.389 --> 00:06:07.449 praise. Another interesting project from that 00:06:07.449 --> 00:06:10.730 period, 2011, was Drive Angry, a commercial failure, 00:06:10.769 --> 00:06:12.889 but again, her performance was singled out by 00:06:12.889 --> 00:06:15.170 a major critic. That's where we see the power 00:06:15.170 --> 00:06:18.069 of an individual performance, sort of overriding 00:06:18.069 --> 00:06:21.769 a weak project. The great Roger Ebert, in his 00:06:21.769 --> 00:06:24.649 review of the supernatural action thriller, wrote 00:06:24.649 --> 00:06:27.769 that Heard does everything that can possibly 00:06:27.769 --> 00:06:30.629 be done with her character, a waitress named 00:06:30.629 --> 00:06:33.569 Piper. Which suggests a professional capability 00:06:33.569 --> 00:06:37.889 to elevate even, well, flawed source material. 00:06:38.189 --> 00:06:40.430 Precisely. Now, speaking of flawed projects, 00:06:40.610 --> 00:06:43.230 we have to mention the notorious television failure, 00:06:43.470 --> 00:06:46.529 The Playboy Club. That series was a truly fascinating 00:06:46.529 --> 00:06:49.649 failure in 2011, and it's a great anecdote about 00:06:49.649 --> 00:06:52.100 the cultural tension at the time. It was a crime 00:06:52.100 --> 00:06:55.680 drama set in 1960s Chicago and Heard played Bunny 00:06:55.680 --> 00:06:58.420 Maureen. And it immediately received poor reviews 00:06:58.420 --> 00:07:00.519 and terrible ratings. It was canceled after only 00:07:00.519 --> 00:07:02.759 three episodes. But the really interesting detail 00:07:02.759 --> 00:07:04.819 is the political controversy surrounding it. 00:07:04.899 --> 00:07:07.139 What made the controversy so unique? The show 00:07:07.139 --> 00:07:10.240 was met with protests from a very unusual combination 00:07:10.240 --> 00:07:13.379 of groups, feminist organizations who opposed 00:07:13.379 --> 00:07:16.399 the depiction and, you know, the perceived exploitation 00:07:16.399 --> 00:07:18.439 inherent in the premise. Yeah. And conservative 00:07:18.439 --> 00:07:21.019 groups who found the content morally objectionable. 00:07:21.319 --> 00:07:23.759 So you're saying it was attacked from both the 00:07:23.759 --> 00:07:25.939 left and the right? When you manage to unite 00:07:25.939 --> 00:07:28.420 both sides of the cultural spectrum against your 00:07:28.420 --> 00:07:31.459 show, you know you have a massive flop on your 00:07:31.459 --> 00:07:33.839 hands. It just demonstrated the difficulty of 00:07:33.839 --> 00:07:36.279 navigating sensitive cultural themes in network 00:07:36.279 --> 00:07:39.720 television. Moving into the mid -2010s, she continued 00:07:39.720 --> 00:07:42.800 to take on diverse roles. Action films like Paranoia, 00:07:42.899 --> 00:07:45.740 Machete Kills, and Three Days to Kill. And she 00:07:45.740 --> 00:07:48.319 also took supporting roles in bigger studio fare 00:07:48.319 --> 00:07:51.920 like Magic Mike XXL and a small part in Tom Hooper's 00:07:51.920 --> 00:07:54.759 The Danish Girl in 2015. But she kept pursuing 00:07:54.759 --> 00:07:57.620 roles aimed at dramatic credibility. Right, like 00:07:57.620 --> 00:08:00.139 the Adderall Diaries in 2015. And even though 00:08:00.139 --> 00:08:02.319 IndieWire critiqued the overall casting choices 00:08:02.319 --> 00:08:05.100 for the film, they specifically noted that Heard 00:08:05.639 --> 00:08:08.500 displays much potential and has succeeded in 00:08:08.500 --> 00:08:10.879 a bid to be taken more seriously. Which suggests 00:08:10.879 --> 00:08:12.980 a conscious effort to balance that commercial 00:08:12.980 --> 00:08:15.259 work with projects designed to prove her acting 00:08:15.259 --> 00:08:17.680 chops. Exactly. But the project that became the 00:08:17.680 --> 00:08:19.660 biggest legal and production headache of her 00:08:19.660 --> 00:08:22.240 early career was the adaptation of Martin Amis' 00:08:22.319 --> 00:08:25.540 novel, London Fields. Oh, this one. This one 00:08:25.540 --> 00:08:27.889 makes the Mandy Lane delay look minor. It was 00:08:27.889 --> 00:08:30.990 a monumental disaster from almost every angle. 00:08:31.149 --> 00:08:33.149 From every angle except for the initial filming, 00:08:33.250 --> 00:08:36.149 it seems. Heard played the lead, Nicholas Six, 00:08:36.389 --> 00:08:39.240 the clairvoyant femme fatale. It was shot way 00:08:39.240 --> 00:08:41.919 back in 2013, but the moment it premiered at 00:08:41.919 --> 00:08:44.200 the Toronto International Film Festival in 2015, 00:08:44.559 --> 00:08:47.259 it was pulled from release. Why? What happened? 00:08:47.460 --> 00:08:49.639 Immediate and intense litigation between the 00:08:49.639 --> 00:08:52.120 director and the producers. Just an absolute 00:08:52.120 --> 00:08:55.419 mess. And Heard was dragged into that complex 00:08:55.419 --> 00:08:58.759 legal mess herself, which is an important bit 00:08:58.759 --> 00:09:01.279 of foreshadowing for her later career. Precisely. 00:09:01.419 --> 00:09:04.059 The sources detail she was sued by the production 00:09:04.059 --> 00:09:06.940 company for $10 million. $10 million for what? 00:09:07.450 --> 00:09:09.250 They claimed she had breached her contractual 00:09:09.250 --> 00:09:12.009 performance and promotional obligations. But 00:09:12.009 --> 00:09:14.730 Hurd didn't just stand still. She countersued. 00:09:15.049 --> 00:09:17.210 On what grounds? Citing that the producers had 00:09:17.210 --> 00:09:20.090 violated a nudity rider included in her contract, 00:09:20.350 --> 00:09:22.610 she argued that certain images were used without 00:09:22.610 --> 00:09:24.850 her consent. It sounds like the entire project 00:09:24.850 --> 00:09:27.470 just imploded in a spectacular fashion that was 00:09:27.470 --> 00:09:30.210 both professional and deeply personal. It did. 00:09:30.370 --> 00:09:32.149 A settlement was finally reached in September 00:09:32.149 --> 00:09:35.710 2018, a full five years after filming, and the 00:09:35.710 --> 00:09:38.909 film saw a disastrous limited release. It was 00:09:38.909 --> 00:09:41.830 called a near -record flop. And the critics were 00:09:41.830 --> 00:09:45.389 brutal. They were, but again, some tried to separate 00:09:45.389 --> 00:09:48.350 her performance from the surrounding mess. Jane 00:09:48.350 --> 00:09:51.190 Mulkerins of the Daily Telegraph said Heard provided 00:09:51.190 --> 00:09:54.029 a decent enough turn that couldn't save the film. 00:09:54.169 --> 00:09:56.960 But others felt she was miscast. Right. Some 00:09:56.960 --> 00:09:59.820 felt she lacked the required mystery and allure 00:09:59.820 --> 00:10:02.240 for that specific role. And she ultimately received 00:10:02.240 --> 00:10:04.340 a nomination for the Golden Raspberry Award for 00:10:04.340 --> 00:10:06.519 Worst Actress for the Role in 2019. A perfect 00:10:06.519 --> 00:10:09.100 example of how complex production and legal issues 00:10:09.100 --> 00:10:12.519 can completely overshadow artistic merit, a theme 00:10:12.519 --> 00:10:14.419 that would unfortunately become pretty central 00:10:14.419 --> 00:10:16.860 to her life. That turbulent period really sets 00:10:16.860 --> 00:10:19.620 the stage for her entry into the DC Extended 00:10:19.620 --> 00:10:21.580 Universe, which is the phase that brought her 00:10:21.580 --> 00:10:23.840 immense global recognition and commercial success. 00:10:24.120 --> 00:10:29.360 A huge shift. DCEU in 2017 as Mera, the princess 00:10:29.360 --> 00:10:31.639 of an Atlantean kingdom, debuting in Justice 00:10:31.639 --> 00:10:34.139 League. This was a massive step up in terms of 00:10:34.139 --> 00:10:36.679 franchise filmmaking. It was a monumental shift 00:10:36.679 --> 00:10:39.519 in scale. And then the next year... brought the 00:10:39.519 --> 00:10:42.539 tsunami of Aquaman in 2018. Which grossed over 00:10:42.539 --> 00:10:45.960 a billion dollars worldwide. A billion. Making 00:10:45.960 --> 00:10:48.879 it her first major role in a big studio film 00:10:48.879 --> 00:10:51.620 and transforming her into an undisputed global 00:10:51.620 --> 00:10:54.340 star. When she spoke about taking the role, she 00:10:54.340 --> 00:10:56.799 really emphasized the importance of the character's 00:10:56.799 --> 00:10:59.320 independence, right? Absolutely. She mentioned 00:10:59.320 --> 00:11:01.500 specifically that she was attracted to the role 00:11:01.500 --> 00:11:04.620 because Meryl was portrayed as a strong, independent, 00:11:04.940 --> 00:11:07.259 self -possessed superhero in her own right. And 00:11:07.259 --> 00:11:09.340 she made a point of noting how Mara rejects the 00:11:09.340 --> 00:11:12.220 name Aquawoman. She did. She highlighted that 00:11:12.220 --> 00:11:14.639 Mara rejects that sort of reductive traditional 00:11:14.639 --> 00:11:18.320 comic book name. This detail links back to her 00:11:18.320 --> 00:11:21.559 established advocacy for gender issues and rejecting 00:11:21.559 --> 00:11:23.860 the status quo. And the critics responded positively 00:11:23.860 --> 00:11:25.799 to her handling of the massive genre material. 00:11:26.159 --> 00:11:28.840 They did. Reviews generally noted that she embraced 00:11:28.840 --> 00:11:31.639 the necessary high camp tone. The Independent 00:11:31.639 --> 00:11:33.960 observed that she camps it up entertainingly, 00:11:34.080 --> 00:11:36.399 as Mara. And the Chicago Tribune Review noted 00:11:36.399 --> 00:11:39.720 she lends a blasé air of early 50s B -movie cheese. 00:11:40.120 --> 00:11:43.659 Which suggests a knowing, fun performance that 00:11:43.659 --> 00:11:45.759 fit the bombastic tone of the film perfectly. 00:11:46.019 --> 00:11:48.539 She reprised the role, of course, in the director's 00:11:48.539 --> 00:11:51.679 cut, Zack Snyder's Justice League in 2021, and 00:11:51.679 --> 00:11:54.220 also appeared in other projects like the miniseries 00:11:54.220 --> 00:11:57.259 The Stand. But the planned sequel... Aquaman 00:11:57.259 --> 00:11:59.840 and the Lost Kingdom became perhaps the central 00:11:59.840 --> 00:12:01.820 flashpoint for the public scrutiny surrounding 00:12:01.820 --> 00:12:04.539 her legal battles. This is where public sentiment 00:12:04.539 --> 00:12:07.480 and franchise decision -making collide dramatically. 00:12:07.960 --> 00:12:10.139 The sources detail a timeline starting in late 00:12:10.139 --> 00:12:12.919 2020, following her ex -husband's loss in his 00:12:12.919 --> 00:12:16.139 U .K. libel case. An intense online petition 00:12:16.139 --> 00:12:18.580 campaign to remove her from the sequel began. 00:12:18.919 --> 00:12:21.600 And that petition gained massive traction. Surpassing 00:12:21.600 --> 00:12:23.480 two million signatures by the time the U .S. 00:12:23.500 --> 00:12:26.759 trial started in 2022. That kind of public pressure 00:12:26.759 --> 00:12:29.220 is almost unprecedented in terms of a digital 00:12:29.220 --> 00:12:32.279 effort to remove a core cast member. So how did 00:12:32.279 --> 00:12:34.000 the narrative surrounding her role reduction 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:36.539 play out? We have several conflicting accounts 00:12:36.539 --> 00:12:38.580 here. We have three key perspectives from the 00:12:38.580 --> 00:12:41.440 source material. First, Heard's own claim. What 00:12:41.440 --> 00:12:44.639 did she say? She testified that she fought really 00:12:44.639 --> 00:12:47.740 hard to stay in the movie, but believed they 00:12:47.740 --> 00:12:50.100 didn't want to include me in the film and that 00:12:50.100 --> 00:12:52.299 she ended up shooting a very pared down version 00:12:52.299 --> 00:12:55.529 of her part. She suggested her involvement was 00:12:55.529 --> 00:12:58.350 significantly minimized. And what was the studio's 00:12:58.350 --> 00:13:01.350 explanation for that reduction? The studio offered 00:13:01.350 --> 00:13:04.669 a distinct counter -narrative. Walter Hamada, 00:13:04.830 --> 00:13:07.850 the former DC Studios president, and James Wan, 00:13:08.070 --> 00:13:10.370 the director, suggested that the decision was 00:13:10.370 --> 00:13:12.730 purely narrative. Not related to the legal battles. 00:13:12.889 --> 00:13:15.129 That was their claim. Their account stated that 00:13:15.129 --> 00:13:17.350 the sequel was intentionally going to focus much 00:13:17.350 --> 00:13:19.909 more heavily on the relationship and buddy cop 00:13:19.909 --> 00:13:23.750 dynamic between Jason Momoa, Aquaman, and Patrick 00:13:23.750 --> 00:13:26.490 Wilson's character Orm. Making Mera's role naturally 00:13:26.490 --> 00:13:28.970 less central. Right. So we have the actress claiming 00:13:28.970 --> 00:13:31.330 she was cut due to controversy and the studio 00:13:31.330 --> 00:13:33.210 claiming it was purely a story choice. That's 00:13:33.210 --> 00:13:36.250 the core tension. It is. However, the third perspective 00:13:36.250 --> 00:13:39.129 comes from external evidence. The critics and 00:13:39.129 --> 00:13:41.889 her co -stars after the release in 2023. And 00:13:41.889 --> 00:13:43.860 what did they observe? Critics who watched the 00:13:43.860 --> 00:13:46.659 final product widely observed that her scenes 00:13:46.659 --> 00:13:51.600 appeared disjointed and heavily edited. One consensus 00:13:51.600 --> 00:13:54.080 suggested her scenes were sloppy and awkward. 00:13:54.279 --> 00:13:56.399 And that she feels as though her scenes were 00:13:56.399 --> 00:13:58.480 all added in post. Which gave credence to the 00:13:58.480 --> 00:14:00.820 idea that her role had been dramatically altered. 00:14:01.039 --> 00:14:03.019 And the most compelling support for her claim 00:14:03.019 --> 00:14:05.460 actually came from within the cast. That's right. 00:14:05.840 --> 00:14:09.000 Dolph Lundgren, who plays King Nereus, confirmed 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:11.870 these observations. He noted that the original 00:14:11.870 --> 00:14:14.970 script they had was great and that both his and 00:14:14.970 --> 00:14:17.990 Hurd's roles were bigger before the studio decided 00:14:17.990 --> 00:14:20.750 to reshoot a bunch of footage to try to rebuild 00:14:20.750 --> 00:14:22.789 a slightly different storyline. That statement 00:14:22.789 --> 00:14:25.090 from a colleague really supports the idea that 00:14:25.090 --> 00:14:27.450 the creative vision shifted dramatically and 00:14:27.450 --> 00:14:30.009 her involvement was indeed minimized from the 00:14:30.009 --> 00:14:32.210 initial plans. It certainly does. That brings 00:14:32.210 --> 00:14:34.570 us to her post -trial career, which is defined 00:14:34.570 --> 00:14:36.889 by a distinct move away from the Hollywood machine 00:14:36.889 --> 00:14:39.509 and a major geographical shift. Here's where 00:14:39.509 --> 00:14:42.080 it gets. It's really interesting. Examining a 00:14:42.080 --> 00:14:44.100 career that transitioned from billion -dollar 00:14:44.100 --> 00:14:47.440 blockbusters and massive public scrutiny to independent, 00:14:47.820 --> 00:14:50.419 artistically -driven roles. So what does that 00:14:50.419 --> 00:14:53.299 shift look like professionally? It signals a 00:14:53.299 --> 00:14:55.799 move toward creative control and smaller projects. 00:14:56.120 --> 00:14:59.500 Her first film released after the trial was In 00:14:59.500 --> 00:15:03.580 the Fire in 2023. It's a supernatural thriller 00:15:03.580 --> 00:15:06.539 where she not only starred but also served as 00:15:06.539 --> 00:15:08.690 an executive producer. And premiering at the 00:15:08.690 --> 00:15:11.330 Tora Mina Film Fest, that immediately shows a 00:15:11.330 --> 00:15:13.850 pivot back to independent cinema. Exactly. A 00:15:13.850 --> 00:15:16.190 space where she can exert greater influence over 00:15:16.190 --> 00:15:18.220 the production. And she's embracing the stage, 00:15:18.320 --> 00:15:20.580 which is a significant move for a film actor. 00:15:20.759 --> 00:15:23.799 A huge move. She's been cast in Jeremy O. Harris's 00:15:23.799 --> 00:15:27.600 play Spirit of the People, slated for 2025. Theater 00:15:27.600 --> 00:15:30.980 work requires absolute presence. And, you know, 00:15:30.980 --> 00:15:32.919 it offers artistic credibility outside of the 00:15:32.919 --> 00:15:35.080 metrics of box office or streaming numbers. It 00:15:35.080 --> 00:15:37.960 suggests prioritizing the craft of acting over 00:15:37.960 --> 00:15:40.059 the mechanics of celebrity. That's a good way 00:15:40.059 --> 00:15:42.700 to put it. And crucially, she made the physical 00:15:42.700 --> 00:15:47.379 move as well. Yes. As of June 2023, the sources 00:15:47.379 --> 00:15:50.399 confirmed she resides in Madrid, Spain, and she 00:15:50.399 --> 00:15:54.480 stated publicly, I love living here. This major 00:15:54.480 --> 00:15:57.299 relocation is a definitive physical and professional 00:15:57.299 --> 00:16:00.139 shift away from the epicenter of the U .S. entertainment 00:16:00.139 --> 00:16:02.700 and media environment where her legal battles 00:16:02.700 --> 00:16:05.059 were fought. It suggests seeking an environment 00:16:05.059 --> 00:16:07.639 less defined by the Hollywood studio machine 00:16:07.639 --> 00:16:10.019 and intense American celebrity culture. That 00:16:10.019 --> 00:16:11.919 seems to be the case. You know, before the legal 00:16:11.919 --> 00:16:14.279 conflicts completely took over her public narrative, 00:16:14.580 --> 00:16:17.240 Heard had an extensive and high profile history 00:16:17.240 --> 00:16:20.679 of activism and ambassadorship. Let's dedicate 00:16:20.679 --> 00:16:22.860 some time to truly understanding the scope of 00:16:22.860 --> 00:16:25.120 this work, starting with her international and 00:16:25.120 --> 00:16:27.519 humanitarian roles. Her global involvement is 00:16:27.519 --> 00:16:29.799 genuinely extensive. She served as a human rights 00:16:29.799 --> 00:16:31.679 ambassador for the Office of the United Nations 00:16:31.679 --> 00:16:35.929 High Commissioner for Human Rights. Right. It's 00:16:35.929 --> 00:16:38.250 centered around supporting campaigns like Stand 00:16:38.250 --> 00:16:40.649 Up for Human Rights. It demonstrates a real commitment 00:16:40.649 --> 00:16:43.129 to foundational international law and advocacy. 00:16:43.450 --> 00:16:46.269 And she actively used her visibility for speaking 00:16:46.269 --> 00:16:49.470 engagements directly related to this work. That's 00:16:49.470 --> 00:16:52.309 critical. She wasn't just lending her name. She 00:16:52.309 --> 00:16:55.090 spoke at the UN's 9th Annual Social Goods Summit 00:16:55.090 --> 00:16:58.429 in 2018. And her speech focused on the Universal 00:16:58.429 --> 00:17:01.590 Declaration of Human Rights. It did, emphasizing 00:17:01.590 --> 00:17:04.609 the centrality of humans, fairness, and justice. 00:17:04.930 --> 00:17:07.730 She later gave a speech at Hague Talks, an event 00:17:07.730 --> 00:17:10.410 focused on global change, advocating for the 00:17:10.410 --> 00:17:13.539 Declaration's 70th anniversary. We also see her 00:17:13.539 --> 00:17:15.980 involvement in humanitarian crises closer to 00:17:15.980 --> 00:17:18.200 home, specifically concerning the U .S.-Mexico 00:17:18.200 --> 00:17:20.720 border. Right. With Amnesty International, she 00:17:20.720 --> 00:17:22.519 traveled to the border and participated in a 00:17:22.519 --> 00:17:24.980 bilingual campaign designed to raise awareness 00:17:24.980 --> 00:17:27.519 about U .S. immigration policies and the treatment 00:17:27.519 --> 00:17:29.740 of those seeking asylum or entry. Which shows 00:17:29.740 --> 00:17:31.980 a dedication to issues of movement and displacement, 00:17:32.099 --> 00:17:34.299 both internationally and domestically. But perhaps 00:17:34.299 --> 00:17:36.420 the most detailed and consistent humanitarian 00:17:36.420 --> 00:17:39.319 work listed in the sources involved her partnership 00:17:39.319 --> 00:17:42.000 with the Syrian American Medical Society. or 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:44.599 SAMHAS. The SAMHAS partnership highlights a sustained 00:17:44.599 --> 00:17:47.079 commitment over multiple years, moving beyond 00:17:47.079 --> 00:17:50.319 just fundraising. Absolutely. It began in April 00:17:50.319 --> 00:17:53.519 2018 when she joined a multi -specialty medical 00:17:53.519 --> 00:17:56.619 mission to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, 00:17:56.779 --> 00:17:59.619 serving as a goodwill ambassador. And these missions 00:17:59.619 --> 00:18:02.019 involve hands -on work in extremely challenging 00:18:02.019 --> 00:18:05.160 environments. They do. This isn't just a brief 00:18:05.160 --> 00:18:07.839 visit for a photo op. And she helped address 00:18:07.839 --> 00:18:11.150 a specific complex medical need there. What was 00:18:11.150 --> 00:18:13.589 that? Following that initial mission, she partnered 00:18:13.589 --> 00:18:16.109 with SAMS to help finance treatment for children 00:18:16.109 --> 00:18:18.869 in the camp suffering from thalassemia, a serious 00:18:18.869 --> 00:18:21.750 blood disorder. Which requires consistent, specialized 00:18:21.750 --> 00:18:24.589 care that is often unavailable in refugee settings. 00:18:24.809 --> 00:18:27.089 Exactly. And that wasn't the end of her involvement 00:18:27.089 --> 00:18:29.609 with SAMS. She went on another mission. In February 00:18:29.609 --> 00:18:32.289 2019, she joined a second SAMS mission, this 00:18:32.289 --> 00:18:35.250 time to Lebanon. specifically to help Syrian 00:18:35.250 --> 00:18:38.309 refugees who are living in poverty in informal 00:18:38.309 --> 00:18:40.490 settlements within the Bekaa Valley. And her 00:18:40.490 --> 00:18:42.809 work there was focused on what? Raising funds 00:18:42.809 --> 00:18:45.930 for psychosocial, educational programs, and vocational 00:18:45.930 --> 00:18:48.309 training designed specifically for women and 00:18:48.309 --> 00:18:50.769 children who had been displaced. This depth of 00:18:50.769 --> 00:18:52.829 commitment involving multiple physical trips 00:18:52.829 --> 00:18:55.509 and focused fundraising is significant. Beyond 00:18:55.509 --> 00:18:57.890 international and refugee work, she also served 00:18:57.890 --> 00:19:00.170 as a visible advocate for women's rights and 00:19:00.170 --> 00:19:03.950 LGBTQ plus issues domestically. She began volunteering 00:19:03.950 --> 00:19:05.710 with the American Civil Liberties Union, the 00:19:05.710 --> 00:19:09.589 ACLU, in 2016 as an artist ambassador. A role 00:19:09.589 --> 00:19:11.490 reserved for individuals who actively support 00:19:11.490 --> 00:19:15.109 civil rights advocacy. Right. By 2018, she became 00:19:15.109 --> 00:19:18.210 a full ambassador, primarily aiding the organization's 00:19:18.210 --> 00:19:20.950 advocacy for justice in gender issues, which 00:19:20.950 --> 00:19:23.250 is a cornerstone of the ACLU's mission. Part 00:19:23.250 --> 00:19:25.670 of this advocacy included a very public service 00:19:25.670 --> 00:19:27.690 announcement regarding domestic violence. Yes. 00:19:27.789 --> 00:19:31.630 In November 2016, she appeared in a PSA for the 00:19:31.630 --> 00:19:34.200 Hashtag Girl Gaze project. The central message 00:19:34.200 --> 00:19:36.799 was the importance of making it easier for survivors 00:19:36.799 --> 00:19:40.519 of violence against women, or VAW, to feel safe 00:19:40.519 --> 00:19:42.339 coming forward. She also stressed that society 00:19:42.339 --> 00:19:44.779 needs to take collective responsibility for how 00:19:44.779 --> 00:19:47.480 VAW is handled and discussed. And that December, 00:19:47.720 --> 00:19:50.000 she also published a powerful letter in Porter 00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:52.380 Magazine addressed to every woman who is suffering 00:19:52.380 --> 00:19:54.480 in silence, ensuring them they were not alone. 00:19:54.720 --> 00:19:56.980 She also utilized her platform to address LGBTQ 00:19:56.980 --> 00:19:59.519 plus representation within her own industry. 00:19:59.880 --> 00:20:02.579 Having publicly come out in 2010, she was able 00:20:02.579 --> 00:20:04.380 to able to speak with authority at The Economist's 00:20:04.380 --> 00:20:07.779 Pride and Prejudice event in March 2017. And 00:20:07.779 --> 00:20:10.119 she used that stage to highlight the persistent 00:20:10.119 --> 00:20:14.039 underrepresentation of LGBTQ characters in mainstream 00:20:14.039 --> 00:20:17.039 Hollywood film. She did. She specifically praised 00:20:17.039 --> 00:20:19.359 actresses who were candid about their own sexuality 00:20:19.359 --> 00:20:22.039 and actively encouraged influential men in the 00:20:22.039 --> 00:20:25.319 industry to help challenge the status quo by 00:20:25.319 --> 00:20:27.490 supporting diverse storytelling. And she connected 00:20:27.490 --> 00:20:29.890 that to broader issues of gender parity in Hollywood. 00:20:30.150 --> 00:20:32.509 Later that year, she produced a short video for 00:20:32.509 --> 00:20:35.210 The Economist that specifically addressed the 00:20:35.210 --> 00:20:37.710 gender pay gap and the general underrepresentation 00:20:37.710 --> 00:20:40.430 of women in the entertainment industry, making 00:20:40.430 --> 00:20:42.630 the point that visibility and financial equity 00:20:42.630 --> 00:20:45.000 go hand in hand. Finally, we need to cover one 00:20:45.000 --> 00:20:48.039 of her most focused legislative efforts, advocacy 00:20:48.039 --> 00:20:50.839 against revenge porn, an effort rooted in her 00:20:50.839 --> 00:20:53.500 own traumatic experience. This specific advocacy 00:20:53.500 --> 00:20:56.359 stems from being a victim of the massive 2014 00:20:56.359 --> 00:20:59.640 celebrity nude photo leak, where more than 50 00:20:59.640 --> 00:21:01.599 of her personal photos were stolen and released 00:21:01.599 --> 00:21:04.089 to the public. A severe breach of privacy. A 00:21:04.089 --> 00:21:06.769 horrific one. And she has consistently argued 00:21:06.769 --> 00:21:09.269 against it. She took those personal experiences 00:21:09.269 --> 00:21:12.029 to Capitol Hill to push for legislative change. 00:21:12.269 --> 00:21:14.710 She became a key advocate for the Shield Act. 00:21:15.230 --> 00:21:18.470 In May 2019, she gave a speech on Capitol Hill 00:21:18.470 --> 00:21:21.130 supporting the legislation which aimed to create 00:21:21.130 --> 00:21:23.950 federal protections regarding the nonconsensual 00:21:23.950 --> 00:21:26.670 disclosure of private images. She followed this 00:21:26.670 --> 00:21:28.829 up with a highly visible op -ed in The New York 00:21:28.829 --> 00:21:32.029 Times. In 2019, she used that op -ed to argue 00:21:32.029 --> 00:21:34.349 that revenge porn is actually an inappropriate 00:21:34.349 --> 00:21:37.819 label. Why? She pointed out that the label implies 00:21:37.819 --> 00:21:41.180 a motive revenge when the central criminal issue 00:21:41.180 --> 00:21:43.839 is the fundamental lack of consent and the privacy 00:21:43.839 --> 00:21:46.880 violation itself. She emphasized the critical 00:21:46.880 --> 00:21:49.039 need for comprehensive congressional legislation 00:21:49.039 --> 00:21:52.000 to protect digital's privacy, arguing that state 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:54.700 laws were proving ineffective and patchy in this 00:21:54.700 --> 00:21:57.269 area. OK, so now we have to address the complex 00:21:57.269 --> 00:22:00.009 personal life and the highly publicized relationships 00:22:00.009 --> 00:22:02.650 that led directly to years of intensive litigation. 00:22:02.849 --> 00:22:05.089 We can start with her public coming out and her 00:22:05.089 --> 00:22:07.170 early commitment to transparency regarding her 00:22:07.170 --> 00:22:09.630 sexuality. She has always been quite clear that 00:22:09.630 --> 00:22:11.970 she rejects traditional labels. That's right. 00:22:12.190 --> 00:22:15.190 She publicly came out in 2010, but explicitly 00:22:15.190 --> 00:22:17.930 stated that she doesn't label herself. She's 00:22:17.930 --> 00:22:19.950 had successful relationships with both men and 00:22:19.950 --> 00:22:23.019 women. Her core philosophy, which she has reiterated 00:22:23.019 --> 00:22:25.920 often, is that I love who I love. It's the person 00:22:25.920 --> 00:22:28.900 that matters. And her first major public relationship 00:22:28.900 --> 00:22:31.539 detailed in the sources was with photographer 00:22:31.539 --> 00:22:34.480 Tassia Van Rie. They were together from 2008 00:22:34.480 --> 00:22:37.880 to 2012. It was a serious relationship. Very. 00:22:38.279 --> 00:22:40.720 Heard legally changed her last name to Van Rie, 00:22:40.779 --> 00:22:44.670 only reverting to Heard in 2014. And this relationship 00:22:44.670 --> 00:22:47.509 later became a subject of controversy when details 00:22:47.509 --> 00:22:50.230 of the 2009 incident were made public. During 00:22:50.230 --> 00:22:52.730 the later divorce proceedings, that incident 00:22:52.730 --> 00:22:54.730 involved an arrest at the airport in Seattle, 00:22:54.869 --> 00:22:57.329 Washington. Yes. In 2009, Heard was arrested 00:22:57.329 --> 00:22:59.170 for misdemeanor domestic violence at Seattle 00:22:59.170 --> 00:23:01.569 -Tacoma International Airport after allegedly 00:23:01.569 --> 00:23:03.859 hitting Van Rie. She appeared in court the next 00:23:03.859 --> 00:23:05.920 day, but notably, no charges were ever filed 00:23:05.920 --> 00:23:07.900 by the prosecutor. And the details of this arrest 00:23:07.900 --> 00:23:10.259 were generally unknown until they surfaced publicly 00:23:10.259 --> 00:23:13.339 in 2016. Right. And when that information became 00:23:13.339 --> 00:23:15.220 public during the height of her divorce from 00:23:15.220 --> 00:23:17.640 Depp, Van Rie released a statement to address 00:23:17.640 --> 00:23:20.039 the context of the arrest. What did she say? 00:23:20.279 --> 00:23:23.900 She did. In 2016, Van Rie issued a statement 00:23:23.900 --> 00:23:27.019 claiming Heard was wrongfully accused and that 00:23:27.019 --> 00:23:29.740 the incident had been misinterpreted and over 00:23:29.740 --> 00:23:35.490 -sensationalized. And crucially... She recalled 00:23:35.490 --> 00:23:39.109 hints of misogynistic attitudes toward us, which 00:23:39.109 --> 00:23:41.390 later appeared to be homophobic when they found 00:23:41.390 --> 00:23:43.849 out we were domestic partners and not just friends. 00:23:44.230 --> 00:23:46.970 But the sources also contain a direct counterpoint 00:23:46.970 --> 00:23:49.089 to that claim of prejudice from an eyewitness. 00:23:49.329 --> 00:23:52.650 This is a critical nuance to report. It is. The 00:23:52.650 --> 00:23:54.630 arresting officer, who was later identified and 00:23:54.630 --> 00:23:57.309 who is herself a lesbian, subsequently posted 00:23:57.309 --> 00:23:59.630 on social media that the claim of homophobia 00:23:59.630 --> 00:24:02.539 and wrongful accusation was simply untrue. What 00:24:02.539 --> 00:24:05.200 was her account? She stated clearly and publicly 00:24:05.200 --> 00:24:07.740 that the arrest was made because an assault occurred. 00:24:07.940 --> 00:24:10.539 I witnessed it, which directly contradicts Van 00:24:10.539 --> 00:24:12.839 Rie's narrative that the incident was merely 00:24:12.839 --> 00:24:15.119 misinterpreted. Following her divorce from Depp, 00:24:15.119 --> 00:24:17.579 the sources track a few other high profile relationships. 00:24:18.039 --> 00:24:20.900 She dated tech entrepreneur and Tesla CEO Elon 00:24:20.900 --> 00:24:24.539 Musk for about a year until early 2018. Later, 00:24:24.640 --> 00:24:26.839 she had a relationship with actress and cinematographer 00:24:26.839 --> 00:24:30.119 Bianca Budi from January 2020 to December 2021. 00:24:30.539 --> 00:24:32.400 And regarding her family life, she has since 00:24:32.400 --> 00:24:34.460 become a mother. She welcomed her first child, 00:24:34.619 --> 00:24:38.380 a daughter, via surrogacy in April 2021. The 00:24:38.380 --> 00:24:40.140 source material further notes that she announced 00:24:40.140 --> 00:24:42.839 the arrival of twins, a daughter and son, in 00:24:42.839 --> 00:24:46.339 May 2025. Let's pivot now to the most visible 00:24:46.339 --> 00:24:48.339 relationship, the one that led to the global 00:24:48.339 --> 00:24:51.799 legal scrutiny, Johnny Depp. They met in 2009 00:24:51.799 --> 00:24:54.670 on the set of The Rum Diary. started dating in 00:24:54.670 --> 00:24:58.450 2012, and married civilly in February 2015. But 00:24:58.450 --> 00:25:00.430 before the divorce proceedings began, there was 00:25:00.430 --> 00:25:03.430 that strange, highly publicized incident in Australia 00:25:03.430 --> 00:25:07.250 in April 2015. The famous Australian dog incident. 00:25:07.529 --> 00:25:09.410 It provided early evidence of their relationship 00:25:09.410 --> 00:25:11.869 being intensely scrutinized by legal and governmental 00:25:11.869 --> 00:25:14.809 bodies. It really did. Heard and Depp flew into 00:25:14.809 --> 00:25:16.630 Queensland, Australia, where Depp was filming, 00:25:16.769 --> 00:25:19.289 but failed to declare their two dogs, Boo and 00:25:19.289 --> 00:25:21.700 Pistol. The serious breach of Australia's strict 00:25:21.700 --> 00:25:24.299 biosecurity laws. They had to fly the dogs out 00:25:24.299 --> 00:25:26.480 hours before a mandated euthanasia deadline. 00:25:26.900 --> 00:25:29.539 And Heard was later charged by Australian authorities 00:25:29.539 --> 00:25:32.019 for the breach. What was the outcome of that 00:25:32.019 --> 00:25:35.000 case? Heard ultimately pleaded guilty in April 00:25:35.000 --> 00:25:38.039 2016 to the lesser charge of falsifying quarantine 00:25:38.039 --> 00:25:40.900 documents, explaining she made a mistake due 00:25:40.900 --> 00:25:43.980 to sleep deprivation. The more serious criminal 00:25:43.980 --> 00:25:46.420 charges were dropped? Correct. She was given 00:25:46.420 --> 00:25:49.079 a one -month good behavior bond for $1 ,000 Australian 00:25:49.079 --> 00:25:52.539 dollars. And famously, she and Depp released 00:25:52.539 --> 00:25:56.160 that bizarre video apology urging others to adhere 00:25:56.160 --> 00:25:58.940 to biosecurity laws. The incident just highlighted 00:25:58.940 --> 00:26:01.779 the intensely public nature of their lives even 00:26:01.779 --> 00:26:04.180 before the abuse allegations surfaced. And the 00:26:04.180 --> 00:26:07.519 divorce came shortly after, in May 2016. Heard 00:26:07.519 --> 00:26:10.079 filed for divorce and immediately sought a temporary 00:26:10.079 --> 00:26:12.359 restraining order. She alleged verbal and physical 00:26:12.359 --> 00:26:15.950 abuse in her statement. detailing angry, hostile, 00:26:16.170 --> 00:26:18.509 humiliating, and threatening assaults that occurred 00:26:18.509 --> 00:26:21.109 when she challenged his authority. She also filed 00:26:21.109 --> 00:26:24.529 for $50 ,000 monthly spousal support, which was 00:26:24.529 --> 00:26:26.829 denied by the court. And Depp's counsel immediately 00:26:26.829 --> 00:26:29.269 responded, alleging that the claims were financially 00:26:29.269 --> 00:26:32.170 motivated. Their initial response was that Heard 00:26:32.170 --> 00:26:34.910 was attempting to secure a premature financial 00:26:34.910 --> 00:26:39.220 resolution by alleging abuse. However, Depp's 00:26:39.220 --> 00:26:41.819 counsel did agree to the request for the restraining 00:26:41.819 --> 00:26:44.839 order, stating that Depp nonetheless has every 00:26:44.839 --> 00:26:47.019 intention of staying away from Amber. The $7 00:26:47.019 --> 00:26:49.480 million settlement was reached in August 2016. 00:26:50.119 --> 00:26:52.640 This is a crucial pivot point given all the later 00:26:52.640 --> 00:26:55.440 scrutiny. It is. She dropped the request for 00:26:55.440 --> 00:26:57.680 a continued restraining order, and the settlement 00:26:57.680 --> 00:27:00.359 was finalized at $7 million. And they released 00:27:00.359 --> 00:27:02.740 a joint statement. And this joint statement is 00:27:02.740 --> 00:27:05.180 a key source document. It stated that their relationship 00:27:05.180 --> 00:27:07.940 was intensely passionate and at times volatile. 00:27:08.410 --> 00:27:11.369 but always bound by love. Neither party has made 00:27:11.369 --> 00:27:14.009 false accusations for financial gain. There was 00:27:14.009 --> 00:27:16.750 never any intent of physical or emotional harm. 00:27:16.930 --> 00:27:18.910 That joint statement is fascinating because it 00:27:18.910 --> 00:27:21.069 seems to explicitly rule out the very things 00:27:21.069 --> 00:27:23.210 that became the subject of two separate international 00:27:23.210 --> 00:27:25.890 lawsuits. Well, it functions more as a legal 00:27:25.890 --> 00:27:28.569 mechanism to conclude the divorce than a statement 00:27:28.569 --> 00:27:31.150 of lasting truth, especially given the rapid 00:27:31.150 --> 00:27:34.519 escalation of claims later on. The final terms 00:27:34.519 --> 00:27:37.859 were agreed upon in January 2017, with Depp paying 00:27:37.859 --> 00:27:40.839 the $7 million by February 2018. And a highly 00:27:40.839 --> 00:27:42.880 relevant financial detail from the sources is 00:27:42.880 --> 00:27:45.319 that she could have pursued a much larger sum. 00:27:45.519 --> 00:27:48.720 Yes. She testified during the 2022 U .S. trial 00:27:48.720 --> 00:27:51.259 that because they lacked a prenuptial agreement, 00:27:51.539 --> 00:27:53.779 she would have legally been entitled to half 00:27:53.779 --> 00:27:55.519 of Depp's earnings during the marriage. Which 00:27:55.519 --> 00:27:58.599 was an estimated $65 million. Right. So settling 00:27:58.599 --> 00:28:00.960 for $7 million was significantly less than her 00:28:00.960 --> 00:28:03.180 potential legal entitlement at the time. Now 00:28:03.180 --> 00:28:05.200 we must unpack the charity pledge controversy, 00:28:05.559 --> 00:28:07.599 which became a centerpiece of the defamation 00:28:07.599 --> 00:28:10.339 trials and a major point of public debate. This 00:28:10.339 --> 00:28:12.960 is a complex timeline that requires careful explanation. 00:28:13.440 --> 00:28:16.059 Heard publicly pledged the entire $7 million 00:28:16.059 --> 00:28:18.519 settlement, splitting it equally between the 00:28:18.519 --> 00:28:21.960 ACLU and Children's Hospital Los Angeles CHLA. 00:28:22.339 --> 00:28:24.720 Initially, she stated publicly that the donation 00:28:24.720 --> 00:28:27.519 was complete. Correct. In an interview on Dutch 00:28:27.519 --> 00:28:31.369 TV in October 2018. She stated that $7 million 00:28:31.369 --> 00:28:34.910 in total was donated. And in 2020, during her 00:28:34.910 --> 00:28:38.049 testimony in the UK trial, she stated under oath 00:28:38.049 --> 00:28:40.809 that the entire amount of my divorce settlement 00:28:40.809 --> 00:28:43.789 was donated to charity. But this was contradicted 00:28:43.789 --> 00:28:45.930 by her former husband's lawyers and later by 00:28:45.930 --> 00:28:47.990 the charities themselves, leading to a complex 00:28:47.990 --> 00:28:51.289 picture of partial fulfillment. Yes. By January 00:28:51.289 --> 00:28:53.869 2021, Depp's lawyers claimed the donations were 00:28:53.869 --> 00:28:56.609 not complete. Hurd's lawyer countered by explaining 00:28:56.609 --> 00:28:58.950 the donations were delayed because Hurd had been 00:28:58.950 --> 00:29:01.109 forced to spend millions of dollars on legal 00:29:01.109 --> 00:29:03.569 fees stemming from Depp's initial lawsuit in 00:29:03.569 --> 00:29:05.490 the U .S. Which made the money she expected for 00:29:05.490 --> 00:29:07.769 future donations unavailable. That was the argument. 00:29:07.930 --> 00:29:10.230 And let's break down the actual amounts testified 00:29:10.230 --> 00:29:12.869 to during the 2022 trial. The testimony was key. 00:29:13.089 --> 00:29:15.509 The corporate design dean of CHLA testified that 00:29:15.509 --> 00:29:18.410 as of 2021, Hurd had given that organization 00:29:18.410 --> 00:29:22.519 $250 ,000. And the ACLU. The ACLU's chief operating 00:29:22.519 --> 00:29:24.519 officer testified that they expected the full 00:29:24.519 --> 00:29:27.160 amount over a 10 -year period, so planned installments, 00:29:27.259 --> 00:29:30.180 and that $1 .3 million had been donated in her 00:29:30.180 --> 00:29:33.299 name up to that point. So roughly $1 .55 million 00:29:33.299 --> 00:29:36.259 had been paid, with the rest expected over a 00:29:36.259 --> 00:29:39.180 long period, a period which was then interrupted 00:29:39.180 --> 00:29:42.200 by the spiraling legal costs. That's the critical 00:29:42.200 --> 00:29:45.299 takeaway. Heard testified in 2022 that defending 00:29:45.299 --> 00:29:48.180 the case had cost her over $6 million in legal 00:29:48.180 --> 00:29:50.799 fees and that she planned to resume the donations 00:29:50.799 --> 00:29:53.039 when she was financially able to afford it. So 00:29:53.039 --> 00:29:55.420 the sources confirm that the initial pledge model 00:29:55.420 --> 00:29:57.920 was based on long -term installment payments, 00:29:57.980 --> 00:30:00.880 not a single lump sum. Exactly. And that her 00:30:00.880 --> 00:30:03.480 ability to meet those future installments was 00:30:03.480 --> 00:30:06.079 undermined by the sudden massive legal expenses 00:30:06.079 --> 00:30:09.059 she incurred defending herself in the U .S. trial. 00:30:09.420 --> 00:30:11.779 Now we arrive at the two separate high -profile 00:30:11.779 --> 00:30:14.319 defamation trials, starting with the UK libel 00:30:14.319 --> 00:30:18.000 case, Dep V News Group Newspapers Ltd. This is 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:20.200 where the legal divergence begins, and it's essential 00:30:20.200 --> 00:30:23.750 we explain the legal context. The UK case, which 00:30:23.750 --> 00:30:27.089 began in June 2018, was initiated by Depp against 00:30:27.089 --> 00:30:29.470 NGN, the publisher of The Sun, for labeling him 00:30:29.470 --> 00:30:32.650 a wife -beater in an April 2018 article. Hurd 00:30:32.650 --> 00:30:34.869 served as the key witness for the defense. The 00:30:34.869 --> 00:30:36.569 crucial point here is the burden of proof in 00:30:36.569 --> 00:30:40.210 the UK system for a libel defense. Exactly. To 00:30:40.210 --> 00:30:43.369 successfully defend the libel suit, NGN only 00:30:43.369 --> 00:30:45.750 had to prove that the statement was substantially 00:30:45.750 --> 00:30:49.170 true. And in the U .K., this is assessed using 00:30:49.170 --> 00:30:51.750 the civil standard or the balance of probabilities. 00:30:52.210 --> 00:30:54.309 Meaning they had to show it was more likely than 00:30:54.309 --> 00:30:56.529 not that the alleged assault occurred, a much 00:30:56.529 --> 00:30:59.250 lower bar than in the U .S. The verdict was delivered 00:30:59.250 --> 00:31:01.950 in November 2020, and the judge found in favor 00:31:01.950 --> 00:31:05.089 of NGN, meaning Depp lost his claim. The judge 00:31:05.089 --> 00:31:07.769 concluded that NGN had met the burden of proof. 00:31:08.190 --> 00:31:11.089 He found that the great majority of alleged assault 00:31:11.089 --> 00:31:14.109 of Ms. Hurd by Mr. Depp, specifically 12 out 00:31:14.109 --> 00:31:16.450 of the 14, had been proved to the civil standard. 00:31:16.759 --> 00:31:19.200 Furthermore, the court explicitly rejected Depp's 00:31:19.200 --> 00:31:21.500 claim that Heard's allegations were a hoax. And 00:31:21.500 --> 00:31:23.660 accepted that her career in activism had suffered 00:31:23.660 --> 00:31:25.980 due to the ongoing public scrutiny caused by 00:31:25.980 --> 00:31:28.220 the allegations. Depp's appeal was subsequently 00:31:28.220 --> 00:31:31.359 rejected in March 2021. If we connect this to 00:31:31.359 --> 00:31:33.480 the bigger picture, this outcome allowed The 00:31:33.480 --> 00:31:35.819 Sun to maintain the label of wife -beater as 00:31:35.819 --> 00:31:38.640 substantially true based on the evidence presented 00:31:38.640 --> 00:31:41.420 in the UK civil court. It provided a very clear 00:31:41.420 --> 00:31:44.000 legal finding of fact in that jurisdiction. That 00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:46.559 ruling stands in stark contrast to the outcome 00:31:46.559 --> 00:31:48.740 in the U .S. The difference is fundamentally 00:31:48.740 --> 00:31:51.059 rooted in the First Amendment and the standard 00:31:51.059 --> 00:31:53.960 of proof required in U .S. defamation law, particularly 00:31:53.960 --> 00:31:56.299 for public figures. Let's move across the Atlantic 00:31:56.299 --> 00:31:59.599 to the U .S. defamation trial Depp v. Hurd, which 00:31:59.599 --> 00:32:02.420 took place in Virginia. Depp filed this lawsuit 00:32:02.420 --> 00:32:06.799 in February 2019, seeking $50 million over Hurd's 00:32:06.799 --> 00:32:09.559 December 2018 op -ed in The Washington Post. 00:32:10.109 --> 00:32:13.210 The op -ed was titled Amber Heard. I spoke up 00:32:13.210 --> 00:32:15.309 against sexual violence and faced our culture's 00:32:15.309 --> 00:32:18.029 wrath. That has to change. While the piece never 00:32:18.029 --> 00:32:20.390 explicitly named Depp, he alleged that three 00:32:20.390 --> 00:32:22.549 specific statements within it were defamatory. 00:32:22.789 --> 00:32:25.029 What were those three key statements? The three 00:32:25.029 --> 00:32:27.640 statements cited were. The headline itself, the 00:32:27.640 --> 00:32:30.079 line about her becoming a public figure representing 00:32:30.079 --> 00:32:32.680 domestic abuse and her assertion that she had 00:32:32.680 --> 00:32:34.859 the rare vantage point of seeing in real time 00:32:34.859 --> 00:32:37.940 how institutions protect men accused of abuse. 00:32:38.140 --> 00:32:40.880 Because Deb is a public figure, he had to prove 00:32:40.880 --> 00:32:43.019 not just that the statements were false, but 00:32:43.019 --> 00:32:45.480 that Heard made them with actual malice. And 00:32:45.480 --> 00:32:48.359 what does actual malice mean in this legal context? 00:32:48.420 --> 00:32:50.319 This is critical for understanding the U .S. 00:32:50.319 --> 00:32:52.900 verdict. It's a much higher legal standard to 00:32:52.900 --> 00:32:55.380 meet than the UK civil standard. Much higher. 00:32:55.700 --> 00:32:58.460 Unlike the UK's more likely than not standard. 00:32:59.160 --> 00:33:02.140 Actual malice means the person making the statement 00:33:02.140 --> 00:33:04.500 either knew the statement was false when they 00:33:04.500 --> 00:33:07.000 said it or they acted with reckless disregard 00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:08.940 for whether the statement was true or false. 00:33:09.099 --> 00:33:11.200 And Heard countered this with her own lawsuit 00:33:11.200 --> 00:33:13.880 based on statements made by Depp's lawyer. That's 00:33:13.880 --> 00:33:16.440 right. Heard filed a counterclaim, but the version 00:33:16.440 --> 00:33:19.000 that went to trial focused specifically on three 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:21.759 statements made by Depp's then -lawyer, Adam 00:33:21.759 --> 00:33:24.089 Waldman. which were published in the Daily Mail. 00:33:24.250 --> 00:33:27.089 Let's detail Waldman's three statements, as they 00:33:27.089 --> 00:33:29.369 were the focus of the jury's findings against 00:33:29.369 --> 00:33:32.150 Depp. First, Waldman stated that Heard and her 00:33:32.150 --> 00:33:35.230 friends used fake sexual violence allegations 00:33:35.230 --> 00:33:38.410 as both sword and shield, publicizing a sexual 00:33:38.410 --> 00:33:41.670 violence hoax. Second, he addressed a specific 00:33:41.670 --> 00:33:44.589 incident at a penthouse, describing it as an 00:33:44.589 --> 00:33:47.869 ambush, a hoax, and claiming Heard and her friends 00:33:47.869 --> 00:33:50.150 spilled a little wine and roughed the place up. 00:33:50.440 --> 00:33:52.559 before calling 911. And the third statement. 00:33:52.740 --> 00:33:55.119 Third, he referred generally to an abuse hoax 00:33:55.119 --> 00:33:57.299 by Heard. The trial took place between April 00:33:57.299 --> 00:34:00.460 and June 2022, and the jury's verdict was famously 00:34:00.460 --> 00:34:03.599 complex, with partial wins for both sides. Let's 00:34:03.599 --> 00:34:06.150 look at Depp's suit first. The jury found that 00:34:06.150 --> 00:34:08.090 all three statements from Heard's op -ed were 00:34:08.090 --> 00:34:11.429 false, defamed Depp, and were made with actual 00:34:11.429 --> 00:34:14.190 malice. And they awarded Depp $10 million in 00:34:14.190 --> 00:34:17.070 compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive. 00:34:17.130 --> 00:34:20.090 Which Virginia state law quickly reduced. The 00:34:20.090 --> 00:34:24.389 punitive damages cap of $350 ,000, bringing Depp's 00:34:24.389 --> 00:34:28.309 total award to $10 .35 million. Now, for Heard's 00:34:28.309 --> 00:34:30.610 counterclaim against Depp focusing on Waldman's 00:34:30.610 --> 00:34:33.469 statements, the jury did not find Waldman's general 00:34:33.469 --> 00:34:36.579 claims of a hoax. Right, but they singled out 00:34:36.579 --> 00:34:38.539 the very specific statement about the penthouse 00:34:38.539 --> 00:34:40.820 incident. This is the crucial nuance that often 00:34:40.820 --> 00:34:43.519 gets lost. The jury found that Waldman's first 00:34:43.519 --> 00:34:46.219 and third statements, the general fake sexual 00:34:46.219 --> 00:34:48.940 violence allegations and abuse hoax claims, were 00:34:48.940 --> 00:34:51.179 not proven to be defamatory. But why did the 00:34:51.179 --> 00:34:53.139 jury distinguish the second statement, the one 00:34:53.139 --> 00:34:55.519 about the penthouse, as defamatory? Because the 00:34:55.519 --> 00:34:57.739 second statement was highly specific and easily 00:34:57.739 --> 00:35:00.579 verifiable. Waldman claimed the incident was 00:35:00.579 --> 00:35:03.750 an ambush. A hoax and detailed that Heard and 00:35:03.750 --> 00:35:06.030 her friends spilled a little wine and roughed 00:35:06.030 --> 00:35:08.329 the place up before calling 911. So the jury 00:35:08.329 --> 00:35:11.010 found that this specific factual claim about 00:35:11.010 --> 00:35:12.909 the penthouse event that she and her friends 00:35:12.909 --> 00:35:16.599 vandalized it to stage an attack was false. defamatory, 00:35:16.800 --> 00:35:19.880 and made with actual malice by Waldman, acting 00:35:19.880 --> 00:35:23.139 as Depp's agent. And Heard won $2 million in 00:35:23.139 --> 00:35:25.880 compensatory damages based on that single statement. 00:35:26.179 --> 00:35:28.800 Correct. She was awarded $2 million in compensatory 00:35:28.800 --> 00:35:31.699 damages and zero in punitive damages from Depp. 00:35:32.010 --> 00:35:33.949 So the verdict essentially affirmed that while 00:35:33.949 --> 00:35:36.150 the jury found Heard acted with malice in her 00:35:36.150 --> 00:35:38.829 op -ed, Depp's legal team had also defanged her 00:35:38.829 --> 00:35:41.050 by making a false, malicious statement about 00:35:41.050 --> 00:35:44.130 a specific staged incident. A very complex result. 00:35:44.690 --> 00:35:46.849 Following the verdict, the online public reaction 00:35:46.849 --> 00:35:49.469 was overwhelmingly negative toward Heard, which 00:35:49.469 --> 00:35:51.650 she addressed directly. She described the online 00:35:51.650 --> 00:35:55.150 criticism of her testimony as agonizing. Saying 00:35:55.150 --> 00:35:58.809 she was harassed, humiliated, threatened every 00:35:58.809 --> 00:36:02.130 single day. She questioned how the jury could 00:36:02.130 --> 00:36:04.010 have believed her when they had already listened 00:36:04.010 --> 00:36:06.230 to three and a half weeks of testimony about 00:36:06.230 --> 00:36:09.429 how I was a non -credible person due to the overwhelming 00:36:09.429 --> 00:36:12.190 negative media and social media narrative. And 00:36:12.190 --> 00:36:14.949 the immediate financial fallout was severe, leading 00:36:14.949 --> 00:36:17.389 to further litigation. Her lawyer stated that 00:36:17.389 --> 00:36:19.889 she could not afford the over $10 million owed 00:36:19.889 --> 00:36:23.369 to Depp and would appeal the verdict. Then a 00:36:23.369 --> 00:36:25.789 month later, the complexity deepened when one 00:36:25.789 --> 00:36:28.670 of Heard's insurance providers, New York Marine, 00:36:29.119 --> 00:36:32.099 sued her in federal court. Why would the insurers 00:36:32.099 --> 00:36:34.800 sue her? They were seeking to avoid paying up 00:36:34.800 --> 00:36:38.309 to $1 million for her legal defense fees. Their 00:36:38.309 --> 00:36:40.349 argument was based on the jury's findings that 00:36:40.349 --> 00:36:43.510 she had acted with actual malice. Ah, so they 00:36:43.510 --> 00:36:45.489 argued that the findings established Heard's 00:36:45.489 --> 00:36:48.630 liability was caused by her willful acts. Exactly. 00:36:48.769 --> 00:36:51.269 Which, according to their policy terms, would 00:36:51.269 --> 00:36:53.829 negate their liability to cover her legal costs. 00:36:54.050 --> 00:36:56.429 It's just an incredible detail showing the persistent 00:36:56.429 --> 00:36:59.070 legal and financial pressure she faced. Ultimately, 00:36:59.070 --> 00:37:02.050 the case was settled in December 2022 while appeals 00:37:02.050 --> 00:37:04.510 were pending. Heard publicly stated that she 00:37:04.510 --> 00:37:07.170 simply cannot go through a retrial. though she 00:37:07.170 --> 00:37:09.030 maintained that the settlement was not an act 00:37:09.030 --> 00:37:12.329 of concession. And Depp's lawyers, in turn, stated 00:37:12.329 --> 00:37:14.449 that the original jury verdict remained fully 00:37:14.449 --> 00:37:16.969 in place. The settlement resulted in a payment 00:37:16.969 --> 00:37:19.889 of $1 million being made to Depp by Heard's insurer, 00:37:20.070 --> 00:37:22.889 a sum which Depp then pledged to donate to charities. 00:37:23.250 --> 00:37:26.010 This has been a deep dive into an extraordinary 00:37:26.010 --> 00:37:29.469 public career marked by massive success, immense 00:37:29.469 --> 00:37:32.530 legal conflict, and relentless humanitarian commitment. 00:37:33.369 --> 00:37:35.150 Let's try to summarize the contrasts we've covered. 00:37:35.329 --> 00:37:37.769 We charted her path from a young actress who 00:37:37.769 --> 00:37:39.989 quickly gained critical attention in indie and 00:37:39.989 --> 00:37:42.750 genre films like Mandy Lane and Pineapple Express 00:37:42.750 --> 00:37:46.429 to achieving true global stardom in the DCEU. 00:37:46.469 --> 00:37:48.949 And concurrently, she became a powerful, visible 00:37:48.949 --> 00:37:51.750 advocate for human rights via the U .N., for 00:37:51.750 --> 00:37:54.190 refugees with SAMs across Jordan and Lebanon. 00:37:54.449 --> 00:37:57.050 For domestic violence survivors through the ACLU 00:37:57.050 --> 00:37:59.800 and for digital privacy via the SHIELD Act. But 00:37:59.800 --> 00:38:02.320 the public narrative is rendered profoundly complex 00:38:02.320 --> 00:38:05.639 by the legal outcomes. On one hand, the UK court 00:38:05.639 --> 00:38:07.559 found that the majority of her abuse allegations 00:38:07.559 --> 00:38:10.159 against Depp were proven to the civil standard. 00:38:10.300 --> 00:38:12.519 And on the other hand, the US court found that 00:38:12.519 --> 00:38:15.940 she had defamed Depp with actual malice, resulting 00:38:15.940 --> 00:38:18.239 in a judgment against her, which she ultimately 00:38:18.239 --> 00:38:21.219 settled. This complex result just highlights 00:38:21.219 --> 00:38:23.579 the enormous difference between the UK civil 00:38:23.579 --> 00:38:26.820 standard, a lower bar of proof, and the US standard 00:38:26.820 --> 00:38:29.260 of actual malice, which protects speech unless 00:38:29.260 --> 00:38:31.780 the speaker knew it was false. It also reinforces 00:38:31.780 --> 00:38:34.539 the theme of constant public scrutiny, especially 00:38:34.539 --> 00:38:37.019 regarding the status of her $7 million charity 00:38:37.019 --> 00:38:39.440 pledge, which we now know was interrupted by 00:38:39.440 --> 00:38:41.699 more than $6 million in unexpected legal fees. 00:38:41.880 --> 00:38:44.139 And the impact on her career was undeniable, 00:38:44.239 --> 00:38:46.500 with the confirmed reduction of her role in Aquaman 00:38:46.500 --> 00:38:49.840 2 confirmed by both co -stars and critics. And 00:38:49.840 --> 00:38:52.780 yet, despite testifying to facing severe legal 00:38:52.780 --> 00:38:55.579 and financial strain, the sources confirm her 00:38:55.579 --> 00:38:58.159 continued commitment to activism, suggesting 00:38:58.159 --> 00:39:00.989 that work remains central to her identity. This 00:39:00.989 --> 00:39:03.650 raises an important question. Given the fundamental 00:39:03.650 --> 00:39:06.590 landscape change moving from massive Hollywood 00:39:06.590 --> 00:39:08.929 films to independent executive producer roles 00:39:08.929 --> 00:39:12.130 and now professional theater in Spain, does this 00:39:12.130 --> 00:39:14.449 indicate a strategic pivot to an environment 00:39:14.449 --> 00:39:16.909 less defined by the pressures of the Hollywood 00:39:16.909 --> 00:39:20.650 studio machine? Or is this move a direct consequence 00:39:20.650 --> 00:39:23.269 of the legal vortex that fundamentally changed 00:39:23.269 --> 00:39:25.989 the nature of her celebrity? What potential does 00:39:25.989 --> 00:39:28.550 a move into the theater and independent producing 00:39:28.550 --> 00:39:31.260 offer her moving forward? Well, these environments 00:39:31.260 --> 00:39:33.739 often value artistic credibility and sustained 00:39:33.739 --> 00:39:37.500 performance over pure box office draw or tabloid 00:39:37.500 --> 00:39:40.360 celebrity. It suggests a possible path forward 00:39:40.360 --> 00:39:43.199 that prioritizes her craft over the requirements 00:39:43.199 --> 00:39:45.099 of the franchise machine. And that's something 00:39:45.099 --> 00:39:47.500 for you to mull or explore on your own. A fascinating 00:39:47.500 --> 00:39:49.500 and nuanced question to close on, looking at 00:39:49.500 --> 00:39:51.800 the possibilities that open up after such monumental 00:39:51.800 --> 00:39:54.159 closure. Thank you for joining us for this deep 00:39:54.159 --> 00:39:56.159 dive into the sources on Amber Heard's career, 00:39:56.420 --> 00:39:58.960 activism, and legal landscape. We'll see you 00:39:58.960 --> 00:39:59.300 next time.