Is The Influx Of Britney Spears Documentaries Just More Exploitation?

It’s clear that today, more than ever before, we have less in common with one another. But there seems to be one movement that unifies everyone from pop culture enthusiasts and journalists to your average joe: #FreeBritney.

What began as a grassroots movement to free Britney Spears from her conservatorship has become a global phenomenon. Since its inception in 2009, the Free Britney movement has grown substantially over the years, becoming an enduring and omnipresent force with digital rallies, protests outside of Los Angeles courts and now, as a significant part of the conversation.

And it was the movement’s growing presence that warranted wider mainstream culture to ask: what the hell is going on? It began with The New York Times Presents: Framing Britney Spears, a 74-minute film released in February this year. The documentary neatly laid out the icon’s rise to fame, starting from the time she first appeared on Star Search as a 10-year-old to her achieving global stardom. At the centre of the documentary was the events that led up to the conservatorship, as well as an examination of how the media treated her, with a broad focus on the hypersexualisation of Britney dispersed in between gut-wrenching footage of paparazzi swarming her like rabid wasps.

For some, it was the first time they felt the palpably overbearing weight of fame that Britney endured. But for many, it sparked a conversation about how the media failed to protect a young woman in the throes of a demise orchestrated by the people around her.

Since then, more documentaries have followed. Now there’s a new instalment from the New York Times, Controlling Britney Spears; CNN’s Toxic: Britney Spears’ Battle for Freedom; The Battle for Britney: Fans, Cash and a Conservatorship, which premiered on the BBC; and finally Britney vs. Spears which was released on Netflix last week.

This barrage of documentaries has arrived at a pertinent time as the legal proceedings about her conservatorship came to a head. On September 29 at around 3pm Los Angeles time, it was announced that Jamie Spears — Britney’s father — had been suspended as conservator of her estimated $60 million dollar estate. For Britney and everyone else, this was an unbelievable win, one that’s been over a decade in the making.

But just a few days before this, Britney seemingly shared her own thoughts about the wave of new documentaries about her, dismissing them as “hypocritical.”

In an Instagram post from May 3, Britney lamented: “These documentaries are so hypocritical…they criticise the media and then do the same thing? Why highlight the most negative and traumatising times in my life from forever ago?” She also added a dig at the BBC documentary, stating that one of sources, makeup artist Billy Brasfield, who claimed to remain in contact with her was lying. “I don’t actually talk to Billy B AT ALL so I’m honestly very confused.”

Gut-Wrenching, Exploitative

“It feels so gross that all of Britney Spear’s fans have no problem watching documentaries such as #ControllingBritneySpears which are exploitative [sic],” Isabelle, 22, shared on Twitter. “#FreeBritney but maybe in less exploitative ways?”

Isabelle is a student located in Boston, Massachusetts and they admit that while they’re more of a casual fan, they’ve been following what’s been happening with Britney quite closely. They watched Framing Britney, admitting that it “was really important to raise awareness of what’s been happening all of these years. While her fans know and understand what’s been going on, I think the documentary opened Britney’s story and her truth to the world.”

Isabelle tells me they wish that there was a way that Britney could have been involved, but since that was impossible, it felt like the best thing to do in a bad situation. But like many — and seemingly, Britney too — they think the subsequent films are exploitative. “Any documentary that has come after Framing Britney has been absolutely unnecessary…and I think parts of that one were exploitative as well.”

“All these years later documentaries are doing the same thing. We’re focusing on the incidents and not the person.”

In most of these documentaries, there are flashes of the infamous “breakdown” where Britney was photographed shaving her hair. The footage is enough to make your skin crawl, as you bear witness to paparazzi clamouring against her car, or later pressing up against an ambulance with Britney inside.

“You look at this person who’s been violated so much by the press, by a lack of privacy and a lack of control over her life,” Isabelle explains. “Then, all these years later documentaries are doing the same thing. We’re focusing on the incidents and not the person. Britney is a human and she deserves to tell her story — if she even ever wants to — about those years.”

They admit that rehashing these moments are intrinsic to the story these documentaries are telling but it’s in the way in which it’s told that has led Isabelle to make a concerted effort not to watch anymore films; not unless Britney consents.

While we like to think that society has evolved to be more empathetic and have better conversations about fame, mental health and privacy, evidence suggests otherwise.

Now abuse is hurled through comments on social media, which has bridged the gap between public figures and their fans, sometimes to their detriment. Then there are moments like when in 2015, Kim Kardashian was almost trampled by paparazzi and fans during Paris Fashion Week. Then the following year, when she was robbed at gunpoint in 2016, Kardashian wasn’t just accused of orchestrating the event as a marketing ploy for Keeping Up With The Kardashians, but companies started selling costumes mocking the horrific incident.

That same year, Kehlani shared that she had attempted suicide after fans online accused her of cheating on her boyfriend. In 2017, Kanye West’s mental health became the focus of an inflatable prop at Splendour In The Grass. And just this year, Justin Bieber was spotted begging fans camped outside of his New York City apartment building to leave, to no avail.

So is this influx of documentaries just a cash cow poorly wrapped in the promise of empathy?

Darker Issues Left Uninvestigated

For some, these documentaries deserve the criticism they’re getting — but whether those critical words really came out of Britney’s mouth or not is up for debate.

“Britney does not own access to her social media accounts,” Ivo Rovis, a Britney fan based in New York tells me. She’s been a fan since she first heard ...Baby One More Time in 1999 and is a passionate crusader of the Free Britney moment. “Her social media accounts are managed by Cassie Petrey from Crowd Surf who is hired by team Con. Even though they claim Britney creates and writes her own posts, I have my doubts.”

This isn’t information you’d learn from any of the documentaries that have recently been released, but other Britney fans share Rovis’ doubts. BreatheHeavy, Exhale is a forum and a space for Britney fans to discuss anything and everything that’s been going on. Posters on the forum are also suspicious of her social media managers.

Speculation about who exactly runs Britney’s social media accounts has been a point of contention, especially with more eyes on it than ever before. Fans have discovered discrepancies in posts and raised their eyebrows at strange montages that don’t seem to reflect the singer’s personality. Meanwhile, on TikTok, the yellow top theory emerged after a fan commented, “if you need help, wear yellow in your next video.” And in her next video, Britney turned up in a yellow top.

Then in a now-deleted post following the release of Framing Britney, the singer posted that she was so embarrassed by the documentary that she “cried for two weeks.”

“These quotes (like calling the documentaries “hypocritical”) come from captions under completely unrelated photos (mostly one in the series of Britney having fun in her garden), so it’s hard to know whether those are her actual words or desperate attempts of damage control by her management,” Rovis said. “Once I hear her say it in a video, I will believe it.”

Britney herself has refuted these claims, but as we’ve heard in court, she’s also lied to the public in order to placate her conservators. “I’ve lied and told the whole world I’m OK, I’m happy. …I’ve been in shock. I am traumatised,” she said in an address to the court in June. “You know, fake it till you make it. But now I’m telling you the truth. OK, I’m not happy. I can’t sleep.”

While Rovis admits that the slew of new documentaries provide a good overview for people new to the conservatorship, the Netflix iteration — Britney vs. Spears — introduced the darker underbelly of the operation, Lou Taylor. As the documentary explains, Taylor first appeared in the Spears camp as a spokesperson for the family on The Today Show in 2008 following the announcement of the temporary conservatorship. She then went on to become Britney’s business manager and, according to the documentary, even requested a sum totalling $500,000 for lost wages after Britney didn’t perform for a year.

“Even though they claim Britney creates and writes her own posts, I have my doubts.”

“There are much more important questions that could have been asked,” Rovis tells me, pointing specifically to Taylor. “Why is everyone in Hollywood scared to go after Lou Taylor? What is Taylor’s obsession with women dealing with personal struggles in the public eye?”

Admittedly, it was a question I was left asking myself as the documentary faded to black. Allegedly, Taylor once attempted to convince Dina Lohan to get Lindsay under a conservatorship. Meanwhile, Courtney Love previously spoke out about Taylor trying to get her under a conservatorship shortly after the death of Kurt Cobain. And then there’s another celebrity who’s gone forgotten: Amanda Bynes who’s also under a conservatorship.

Another curious facet of Britney’s conservatorship is the estate. “Where is Britney’s money?” Rovis asks. “The court documents report a $58M estate, a shockingly low number for a star of her calibre. Forbes estimated her fortune to be over $600M. Where is over half a billion dollars?”

So while these documentaries reiterate ad nauseam the events of 2007, there’is a seemingly far more sinister enterprise operating behind the scenes, one just begging to be exposed.

Pocketing From Her Life And Tragedy

Rovis along with other Britney fans have done more than use their voices to enact change, they’ve also gone as far as donating money to help people willing to break their NDAs speak out about their experiences working with Britney during the conservatorship.

But she laments that while a grassroots movement like Free Britney has been central to moving the conversation — and the legal proceedings — forward, these documentaries don’t seem to share that goal.

“The media is once again pocketing from her life and tragedy.”

“These production houses aren’t using the profits made from the documentaries to help the cause, whether that’s lobbying to change conservatorship laws or donating money to the legal funds for families of victims of conservatorship abuse. The media is once again pocketing from her life and tragedy.”

It’s difficult to face the fact that history may be repeating itself. While filmmakers clamour to achieve something positive, maybe even something life-changing, the final results have so far felt superficial and voyeuristic. Who needs a flock of paparazzi to follow Britney when we can just stare at her on our phone instead?

But there is some hope. With the suspension of Jamie Spears, there is time to investigate what really went on in the last 13 years, and bring the players behind Britney’s darkest 13 years to justice. Then we can perhaps lay the groundwork and precedent to prevent this from happening again.

Ultimately, we all want the same thing. “I just want her to be free,” says Isabelle. “She deserves to live a life free of abuse and control. Everyone does.”

---

Kish Lal is a writer and critic based in New York City. She is on Twitter.

Photo Credit: Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images