CALLAHAN: In Paltrow vs. The Little People, Gwynnie might just win

March 26, 2023

MAUREEN CALLAHAN: Oh, the pouting! the puckering! The $1,600 Celine bag and $425 wide-leg pants! But whisper it – in the case of the ice-cold actress vs. The Little People, here’s why haughty Gwynnie might just win

For a trial that could easily be called ‘Gwynnie v. The Little People,’ Friday brought an unexpected twist: Gwyneth Paltrow might be in the right here.

I know — shocking! It’s real Bizarro-world stuff, nothing anyone saw coming. Especially because what’s claimed here sounds so Gwyneth — crashing into an old man on a ski slope and swooshing off, cursing at him for daring to get in her way, leaving him unconscious, with four broken ribs and a traumatic brain injury, Paltrow so unnerved she ran off to get a massage.

This scenario, as claimed by plaintiff Terry Sanderson, seems so totally on-brand.

Recall the Vespa video? It’s a forever meme, Gwyneth cutting off a moving school bus without looking, nearly causing an accident with her then-9-year-old daughter Apple on the back of her motor scooter.

And Gwyneth has been Gwyneth to the hilt during this trial: Sipping green juice while hearing testimony about the plaintiff’s injuries. Hiding her face from non-existent paparazzi behind her $250 monogrammed Smythson notebook, which she recently raved about in a video for her luxury brand Goop.

‘What I love about it is the paper’s unlined,’ Paltrow said, ‘so it doesn’t hem me in. I can just express myself all over the page.’

And wow, has Gwyneth been expressing herself all over this courtroom: The pouting, the puckering, the wan expressions of boredom, the barely-concealed texting during testimony. Choosing to wear $1,200 Celine Triomphe leather boots, a $1,600 Celine bag, her own $595 G. Label cardigan, $425 wide-leg pants and $65,000 in jewelry to trial.

Nothing says relatable like wearing the equivalent of a down payment on a house.

Oh — and her benevolent, not-at-all-out-of-line offer to bring treats for the bailiffs, in ‘gratitude’ for their service. This isn’t a VA, honey. Bailiffs are professionals doing their jobs.

This scenario, as claimed by plaintiff Terry Sanderson (above), seems so totally on-brand.

But this is the Gwyneth we know. The Gwyneth who once said, ‘I am who I am; I can’t pretend to be somebody who makes $25,000 a year.’ The Gwyneth who said, ‘I’d rather smoke crack than eat cheese from a can.’ Whose ‘wood-burning pizza oven in the garden’ was ‘one of the best investments I’ve ever made.’

Her lead attorney Steve Owens is just as off-putting. To watch him has been a ratification of water seeking its own level, a client and her attorney perfectly matched: Owens trying repeatedly to tell the judge what to do. Joking that onlookers at the accident didn’t know Gwyneth was divorced from ‘the Coldplay guy.’

Reader, would you believe these peons didn’t know Chris Martin by name?

Owens gave his opening argument next to a large drawing of Lady Justice — I couldn’t make this up — just in case jurors couldn’t comprehend his pedantic explanation that justice should be blind and that they shouldn’t condemn a fabulous, wealthy famous person for being fabulous, wealthy and famous.

Owens is smirking condescension, open hostility and superciliousness personified. Surely only someone as bad wouldn’t see this guy as a liability.

And yet: By day four, when Gwyneth took the stand, it began, incredibly, to seem like this trial is going in her favor.

Now yes, of course — she’s an actress. She can play sad, unaware, confused and self-righteous.

But at least one other witness, the plaintiff’s daughter Shae Sanderson, was far more theatrical, far less believable and seemed far more willfully obtuse on the stand. And Shae is a woman who speaks Gwyneth’s language!

There was a lot of ‘standing in truth’ and ‘honoring another’s journey’ and evading statements given in pre-trial depositions. Such as: Her father Terry suffered hearing loss and had lost vision in one eye well before the accident. That Shae herself was shocked he first tried to sue Paltrow for $3 million, thinking that was way too much money. (A judge tossed that out and ruled he could only sue Paltrow for $300,000; Paltrow is counter suing for $1 and reimbursement of legal fees.)

That her father was gratified to Google search his name post-collision and see himself pop up on numerous links. Shae, in her depo, apparently said that after the crash, her father didn’t know who hit whom. That her father had his own history of recklessness, once driving down a freeway at 70 miles per hour, reading a book, with his small child in the vehicle.

What’s claimed here sounds so Gwyneth — crashing into an old man on a ski slope and swooshing off, cursing at him for daring to get in her way, leaving him unconscious, with four broken ribs and a traumatic brain injury, Paltrow so unnerved she ran off to get a massage.

Gwyneth has been Gwyneth to the hilt during this trial: Sipping green juice while hearing testimony about the plaintiff’s injuries. Hiding her face from non-existent paparazzi behind her $250 monogrammed Smythson notebook, which she recently raved about in a video for her luxury brand Goop.

Could public sympathy actually lay with Gwyneth Paltrow? Could she really be the victim of a frivolous lawsuit?

Would America cheer if she won?

Well, let’s not go that far. This trial is tapping into a real ‘Eat the Rich’ moment in our culture. There’s no one to root for here. Among Sanderson’s complaints is that the collision left him unable to enjoy wine tastings.

Among Gwyneth’s lamentations is the ruination of nearly $9,000 in private ski lessons for her and her then boyfriend’s children.

It’s real one-percent stuff, but it’s impossible to look away. Not as dark as Depp-Heard or as grave as Alec Baldwin’s forthcoming trial, Sanderson v. Paltrow is a celebrity trial for our shaky economic times: Two arrogant, out-of-touch people forced down to earth — or as close as they can get — in a battle for a few hundred thousand dollars and vindication.

That said, in taking the stand, Gwyneth acquitted herself well. She was calm, composed, and stuck to a highly specific story: That she panicked when she saw a pair of skis slide between her own feet, which were about 18 inches apart. That Sanderson was behind her and collided into her. And that after the collision, she got up, asked if he was okay, and when he said yes — with her ski instructor now on the scene — Paltrow went off, secure in the knowledge that said ski instructor would see to the details.

Not the greatest look — but hey, it’s Gwyneth, and details are for the little people. The help.

And she wore no discernible labels! For her appearance on the stand, Gwyneth chose a simple black blouse with a Peter Pan collar buttoned to the neck, a long black skirt, and chunky black boots. The $65,000 gold necklaces were gone. She elegantly sipped from a green glass water bottle while plaintiff’s attorney Kristin VanOrman, in an ill-fitting powder blue blazer, left a nation cringing as she fairly panted, trying so very hard to impress Gwyneth Paltrow.

The plaintiff’s daughter Shae Sanderson (above), was far more theatrical, far less believable and seemed far more willfully obtuse on the stand. And Shae is a woman who speaks Gwyneth’s language!

This was the stuff of ‘SNL.’ VanOrman gushed over Paltrow, just practically fan-girled. She raved: Gwyneth’s ski wear must have been fabulous. She and Gwyneth have children around the same ages. Of course Gwyneth would be a good tipper! Was Gwyneth friends with Taylor Swift? Would Gwyneth like to act out the accident with VanOrman, here in the courtroom?

It was amazing.

When the judge nixed VanOrman’s strange ask, she took a hand mic and put on a one-woman show — five-star-resort-ski-horror-by-way-of-Blue-Man-Group. It was amateur hour. At several points Paltrow had to suppress laughter, and you couldn’t blame her. VanOrman was, to put it kindly, a hot mess.

One exchange:

VanOrman: How tall are you?

Paltrow: Just under 5’10’.

VanOrman: I am so jealous . . . I have to wear 4-inch heels just to make it to 5’5′.

Paltrow [looking over stand]: Well, they’re very nice.

For all VanOrmen’s obsequiousness, it got her this, a few minutes later:

Paltrow: Sorry, what is your name again? Kristin?

Oh. My. God. It was pure Gwyneth: ice-cold, haughty and dismissive, all under the guise of politesse. Don’t expect her to remember your name, peasant.

As Paltrow once said, she can’t pretend to be someone she’s not. And holy crap: That might just win her this trial.

Source: Read Full Article