Actor v. Non Actor. Thoughts on a celebrity trial

Trial is high drama. And never more so than when a celebrity is involved. In the latest courtroom spectacle a retired optometrist takes on an Oscar award winning actor now lifestyle guru. Is this trial about the judge - no; the lawyers - no; the witnesses - nope. It is all about Gwyneth and the Dr. And no matter which side you rooted for, there are several universal truths which are self evident.

First, a good actor will always have an edge in trial. In a venue where instant credibility is everything - mere mortals don’t stand a chance against those who have spent their entire career studying and getting into character, memorizing lines and then emoting them flawlessly for a wide ranging critical audience.

But — one may protest — the normal person is human and authentic. Bosh that idea and bosh it fast. An actor who can portray authenticity will 9 out of 10 times out-authenticize a real person who is trying to show their true selves. This is because in trial real people are scared. Real people begin to hyperventilate and cannot think under pressure. They are worried that no one will believe them. They are worried that the defense will gut them. They are worried about trying to sound articulate and not making a fool of themselves. Whereas a trained actor has learned to overcome stage fright and put on a good absurdly realistic show. Take 1. Take 2. Take 3… Cut.

Second, being emotional doesn’t always add to credibility. Actors know this. They know that overselling emotion doesn’t work. They know the power of the understated. They are trained to have that camera zoom in for the close up. They know how to show not only the big grand gestures of emotion, but the micro nuances that draw in the audience.

I’ve heard Plaintiff lawyers talk about how emotional a client’s testimony was and that they wept on the stand. But weeping in and of itself is not always good. Sometimes it can be totally the opposite. I remember one case where after her testimony the plaintiff was worried because she had not cried. Did it hurt that I didn’t cry, she asked. Jurors are wise and they know that sometimes it is harder not to cry than to cry. They appreciate that a plaintiff is trying to preserve their dignity…trying not to dump their emotion onto strangers… Sometimes the most phenomenal testimony is when a plaintiff is doing everything not to cry as they are trying to get through their story - and this you can tell when the jury is weeping for them.

Third, the concept of david and goliath usually passes the celebrity trial by. The plaintiff who in this case is not the celebrity, does not get bonus points for having the gumption to sue someone with overwhelmingly greater social power. This is because the plaintiff is smeared from the outset for being a plaintiff. This country still buys into the notion that people who sue for money damages are greedy - instead of justice seeking. The celebrity’s defense lawyer will always take advantage of this bias and craft the narrative accordingly. i.e. This isn’t a case about he said she said; It is a case about a little old guy who thought it would be cool to sue a celebrity to see how much money he could get.

Another element of this theme, is that we live in a celebrity obsessed culture. It is excusable for a celebrity to be odd, aloof, fill in the blank. Commentators have criticized Gwyneth for sucking in her cheeks and sticking her chin in the air - looking snobbish. But where that would be a problem if she was a normal client - the same rules do not apply for the celebrity. Our society celebrates the eccentricities of the celebrity. And holds them to completely different standards.

I have only watched little bits of this trial. Today is closing. And my bet is not on the plaintiff prevailing. We shall see.

Photos: clipped from one of the thousand snippets on the internet