Someone Pull Me Away From Gwyneth Paltrow’s Ski Trial Drama

Insouciance. Stabbing derision. Justice meets the fury of a rich white lady scorned.

Rick Bowmer/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Some three months after New York published its exhaustive guide on the meritocracy-bending phenomenon, nepo babies roared back into the discourse last week with the unexpected arrival of Romy Mars. But some two thousand miles west from where the teenage daughter of Sofia Coppola and Thomas Mars was prepping pasta alla vodka, another offspring of a famous Hollywood family was taking flight inside a Park City, Utah courtroom.

“Oh, I have studiously avoided learning about this,” a colleague remarked when I mentioned my sudden interest in the Utah civil trial involving Gwyneth Paltrow. 

Fair enough. I too had once been ignorant of the details surrounding Paltrow’s role in a 2016 ski crash that allegedly left a now-76-year-old man injured. But the glimpses of Paltrow’s testimony that have emerged on social media, in which the actress and Goop founder emphatically denied accusations that she was responsible for the collision, have held a soft grip on my addled brain—and I’m far from alone. The scenes have been captivating: There’s the moment Paltrow, with the insouciance and stabbing derision only the richest and whitest among us is capable of deploying, asks to be reminded of an attorney’s name. When Paltrow is asked whether the crash had caused her to lose out during a “very expensive” ski vacation, Paltrow responds, “Well, I lost half a day of skiing, yes,” making it clear to the rest of us that her wallet hadn’t noticed the ordeal in the slightest. Then we have Kristin Van Orman, the attorney representing Paltrow’s accuser, Terry Sanderson, who at various turns, could barely contain an obsequious squeal at questioning a real-life Oscar-winning actress.

Even Paltrow’s clothes, predictably impeccable, have drawn considerable interest, producing shopping guides should you ever need to look like a woman defending herself in a civil suit. Except, of course, you and I could never, ever, look like that. Personally, I’m more apt to faux pax myself with a giant purse you could slide across the floor after a bank job. 

“This entire Gwyneth Paltrow ski trial was written by Mike White,” a Twitter user wrote referring to the White Lotus creator who is reportedly in Thailand scouting locations for the next season of the soap-series. Indeed, it was easy, even fun, to imagine White taking caustic notes on the same clips, building a character wrapped in the same luxe neutrals as Paltrow. “Gwyneth Paltrow is dressing for where she’d rather be,” read a Washington Post headline on Paltrow’s courtroom fashion. But I beg to differ. It seems as though the witness stand inside a drab Utah courtroom is exactly where Paltrow wants to be. Consider that Sanderson is suing her for $300,000—a significant adjustment from his initial $3.1 million for injuries he claims include brain damage. One can reasonably assume that Paltrow could simply settle and avoid the public drama. But clearly convinced she’s being extorted for her celebrity, you’ve got to almost relate to—even admire—that Paltrow is choosing to take the stand to defend herself. 

This week, the trial is expected to see Paltrow’s family, including her two teenage kids, take the stand to testify against Sanderson’s claims. Though vastly different scenarios, I couldn’t help but draw a contrast to Sofia Coppola. The two women hail from some of Hollywood’s most exclusive corners and are effectively dowagers of the same nepo baby empire. They seem nothing alike, neither in personality nor approaches to their kids in the spotlight. (It’s worth noting that Apple Martin, the daughter of Paltrow and Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, recently made her debut as a Chanel girl.) Yet both cases have struck me for their strange concoction of relatability, hateable privilege, and simple hilarity. Parenthood is a funny thing, I thought. That absurd moment of relatability was fleeting, of course, delimited by the boundaries of their extreme wealth.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate