Eat the Rich: Gwyneth Paltrow’s Joke of a Recent Trial Showcases (Once Again) Her Immense Privilege
Image Courtesy: Rick Bowmer, Pool via AP Photo
A symptom of the success of reality television and courtroom dramas, audiences worldwide have had a growing fascination for celebrity legal drama for decades. Whether it involves allegations of spousal abuse or tax evasion, fans have not been able to peel their eyes away from courtroom live streams and news coverage of celebrity trials. While these trials often humanize people in the spotlight and send the message, "Celebrities, they’re just like us,” Gwyneth Paltrow’s recent proceedings regarding a 2016 ski accident couldn’t be farther from that sentiment.
Image Courtesy: Strike Magazine Tallahassee
On February 26, 2016, at the upscale, “skiers-only,” Deer Valley ski resort of Park City, Utah, an unfortunate collision occurred on the slopes between actress Gwyneth Paltrow and optometrist Terry Sanderson. Believing that Paltrow was at fault and that she had skied into him and made a false claim with the resort in a cover-up, Sanderson initially sued for a little over $3 million. Sadly, he was forced to reduce his claim to a measly $300,000 for the pain and suffering he endured as a result of the incident, according to CBS News. By contrast, Paltrow countersued for $1 (like her so-called “friendly acquaintance” Taylor Swift did in 2017) and legal fees, as she assured that Sanderson had been the one to run into her. Seven years later, the fateful day brought these two “star-crossed” enemies together for the four years following Sanderson’s filing.
Image Courtesy: Rick Bowmer, Pool via AP Photo
To sum up, the jury ruled in favor of Paltrow’s side of the story, as they did not find Sanderson’s physical ailments to be incredibly debilitating or a direct result of the accident he caused, and she was awarded the hefty dollar sum. The ski case itself was not the subject of memes, but rather the apparent ridiculousness of the situation in its entirety: two incredibly wealthy people suing one another for minor injuries from a run-in seven years ago, featuring a starstruck prosecutor, a greedy and whiny plaintiff, and a disinterested and self-aware defendant all “playing courtroom” in front of a worldwide audience.
The interactions between Paltrow and her prosecutor/big fan were comparable to sleepover gossiping, as the lawyer questioned whether Paltrow and singer Taylor Swift were friends. Quotes such as “You’re skiing into my f-ing back!” and “Well, I lost half a day of skiing,” quickly made their rounds on the internet as users highlighted that this case served as a prime example of privilege. However, the cherry on top was the Internet’s fixation on Paltrow’s well-styled outfits throughout her eight-day trial. Her final words to him, “I wish you well,” aptly sum up the irony and sarcasm that saturated this case. No one—other than Sanderson himself—showed an interest in the actual court proceedings, further proving how little sympathy the retired specialist and Paltrow garnered.
Image Courtesy: Sam Stryker & Tom Zohar via Twitter
The cultural phenomenon of normal people being invested in celebrity lives was quite evident in Internet comments and tweets throughout the legal proceedings. Our fascination with the lives of the upper class reached a peak within the trial, as mentions of luxury massages and private yoga sessions appealed to our curiosity about how we would spend our time and money if we were rich. As writer Naomi Fry mentioned to NPR, people enjoy the ability to observe without consequence; unlike stomach-churning cases for sexual assaults and murders, audiences could inconsequentially place themselves in the shoes of Paltrow without incurring any trauma. Part of the allure of celebrity voyeurism is being able to “experience” a life that is inaccessible to most, with the ability to return to our reality at any time.
Image Courtesy: Rick Bowmer, Pool for Getty Images
Since this lawsuit was treated as a source of entertainment to the general population, it begs the question, “What does this trial say about our justice system?”. Upon returning to real life and scrolling through serious headlines concerning political issues and jarring tragedies that make us question our safety, the issue within this court case seems minuscule and outlies the true cases that deserve the time, effort, and energy of a proper proceeding. It makes you wonder how easily Paltrow and Sanderson could afford lawyers and legal fees, or how privileged they were to be able to stand in front of a judge and jury and have their stories heard. By contrast, there are tons of people who deserve justice but will never get the chance to step into a courtroom and use their voices. To sit and think of the people who have lost family members due to police brutality or those victimized by an assailant not receiving their justice truly highlights the limitations of our justice system and the power that the privileged few have in receiving legal closure. Outside of an entertainment source, this trial should represent the flaws within the priorities of our legal system and forces us to consider what we can do to use our voices and privilege for good. While Gwyneth Paltrow was able to walk out of that courtroom a winner, the fact that our judicial resources were dedicated to a superfluous feud makes us the real losers.
Image Courtesy: Associated Press via Huffington Post U.K.
Strike Out,
Writer: Isabel Wilder
Editor: Jayna O
Graphic Designer: Camila Denker
Tallahassee