While many have been simply “agog” over a new episode–entitled “Framing Britney Spears”–of a show that no one previously watched before called The New York Times Presents, the Samantha Stark-directed documentary seeks to do what everything about Britney has done already: shock. But no, anyone who has been watching her career unfold should not be surprised by the idea that she was essentially pimped out for profit starting from an early age and treated with a disgusting amount of male chauvinism… the likes of which were allowed to flourish most particularly during the teen girl pop star wave of the late 90s and early 00s (a time period that converged in a manner that made ‘98 and ‘99 feel like an inherent part of the 00s).
Spears essentially ran so every other female pop star of the moment could walk. Control their own narrative. This, too, is also thanks to the current wonders of social media and the irrelevance of tabloid journalism and internet blogs (à la Perez Hilton) in the present era. While the timing of Britney’s arrival “onto the scene” was fortunate in many ways (touching on a zeitgeist, as it were), it was also unfortunate that she had to come up during a period when many misogynistic institutions were still permitted to thrive unchecked. What’s more, the fact that she came to prominence during the conservative Bush years (a presidency people seem to have amnesia about in terms of how terrible it was thanks to Trumpio one-upping Dubya) further added to the “scandalization” that went with every outfit, every lyric, every public appearance.
Framing Britney Spears commences in 2020, highlighting the grassroots movement that is #FreeBritney (which, at times, feels like QAnon, but obviously with a more well-intentioned purpose). Thus, we hear, “What do we want?” “Free Britney!” “When do we want it?” “Now!” This is at a protest outside of the West Hollywood City Hall where fans join to show their support for a woman they feel is being subjugated for no reason other than the patriarchal prejudices of the 00s.
Babs and Tess of the popular podcast Britney’s Gram are, naturally, interview subjects, with Tess positing, “I have always viewed the situation as something I don’t ever think would happen to a man in America.” It is then that we’re given the title card of the definitions for conservator, the first being, “one that preservers from injury or violation; protector” and the second, “a person, official, or institution designated to take over and protect the interests of the incompetent.” These meanings, of course, are meant to show us that neither one applies to Britney–for she has no protector, and she certainly doesn’t come across as incompetent (so much as deferring to a permanent state of regression in order to cope). In other words, why should she be trapped in a conservatorship? We then cut back to the fans outside the city hall talking about all the ways in which Britney changed their lives for the better as one fan waves a giant flag with Spears’ image on it from the Britney Jean album cover. From here, Stark pointedly cuts to a scene of the American flag waving in the wind. Because, yes, Britney, as her t-shirt once touted, is the embodiment of the so-called American dream. And, therefore, naturally comes from, let’s just say it, a trailer trash background (sorry, “Lana Del Rey,” we know that’s what you wanted for yourself to lend more credibility to your “never needed a persona” claims).
Liz Day, an editor for the New York Times, accordingly comments, “To understand where Britney is now, we should understand how she got here.” Cue the close-up on a Sonic, followed by a residential neighborhood in McComb, Mississippi. We then enter the home of Felicia Culotta, “Britney’s Friend and Former Assistant”–a.k.a. the teacher from the “…Baby One More Time” video, who also recently took advantage of that “fame” by making a cameo in an introduction for Britney the Zone, the presently defunct interactive pop-up museum that opened briefly in L.A. last year before the pandemic hit at full force.
Culotta explains that she decided to give her take on Britney’s conservatorship to help people remember why they fell in love with her in the first place. Going back to her 1992 performance on Star Search, the misogyny angle is presented as something that was there from the very moment of Britney’s “inception,” with Ed McMahon foully asking her, “You have the most adorable, pretty eyes. Do you have a boyfriend?” Britney returns, “No sir.” “Why not?” he asks, as though this is actually a normal question to demand of a preteen. Britney states matter-of-factly, “They’re mean.” This, too, would be a comment that foreshadowed how her first love, Justin Timberlake, would end up treating her in the media after their very public breakup. In truth, the most constant theme of Britney’s life (further iterated by this documentary) is that she seemed to choose men who were inevitably either 1) unattainable in terms of actually sticking around and 2) simply bad for her. And it all goes right back to the father she had as a model for this, Jamie Spears. Framing Britney Spears is certain to emphasize the reality that prior to the conservatorship, Britney’s father was a rather peripheral figure, skulking around and waiting for his daughter to hit the big time so she could buy him a boat.
All the while, Britney is taking flak for her “dichotomous” “public image.” Even Florence “Mrs. Brady” Henderson was out there commenting on how Britney didn’t seem that innocent. A testament to how misogyny invades female reactions to other women as well. And there was no more famous instance of that than Vanessa Grigoriadis’ 2008 Rolling Stone article, “The Tragedy of Britney Spears,” painting Britney as a horrific “inbred swamp thing.”
But even before the damning think piece (and we all know Grigoriadis is no favorite of any pop star), Britney was aware that she was being treated differently by both sexes for her appearance–which came across as “hypocritical” to those who believed she was selling them a false bill of goods with her virgin shtick (and yeah, she was). Hayley Hill, Britney’s former stylist, notes, “That’s when she just really started becoming more free and less concerned with pleasing everybody, which is also like a whole ‘nother metaphor for what women do, right? At some point in our lives, we stop trying to please everybody.”
Least of all the paparazzi, who still take no responsibility for driving her mad. Only Princess Diana had the saint-like patience to endure such scrutiny, and look where it got her. A paparazzo interviewed can only offer, “It sucks you in and it’s hard to get out of it once you start making the kind of moneys that these guys were making.” At the height, up to a million dollars for a photo. And, like a rapist, he insists, “You could tell she enjoyed it. She would give it up–the shots–waving.” He tries his best to come across as empathetic, talking about the night he captured a candid of her with the infamous green umbrella. “That was not a good night for her. It was not a good night for us… But it was a good night for us because of the money shot.” Unable to recognize how disgusting he sounds, even now, the paparazzo insists that he played no part in her downfall.
To this point, a better documentary about Spears and the pop culture machine is Nicole Brending’s stop-motion mockumentary, Dollhouse: The Eradication of Female Subjectivity from American Popular Culture. It centers on a “fictional” pop star very much like Spears named Junie Spoons who rises to fame at the height of tabloid frenzy.
Speaking of, Britney must finally address that frenzy in a 2006 interview with Matt Lauer (of all people). A clip of which is shown in Framing Britney Spears as she explains that her own father used to drive around with her in his lap, the way she was pictured doing with Sean. Again, “role model.” The very source of where she got her own false ideas about how she deserved to be treated.
Through all this, no one is acknowledging that her mental state might also be a signal of postpartum depression. And so, Britney shaving her head was the original, “The old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? ‘Cause she’s dead.” A deliberate eradication of the identity that had been thrust upon her for the past several years.
This gives rise to Sam Lufti’s entrance into her life. Her “manager”/“new bestie,” Lufti was a catalyst for encouraging Spears’ self-destructive behavior, including the use of drugs that he himself furnished (at times, reportedly, unbeknownst to her). With 2008 commencing with Britney in the psych ward, an opportunity is presented to Jamie Spears to step in and take the controls that Lufti had over Britney. The conservatorship subsequently becomes like one of Robert Moses’ Public Authorities: grossly profitable, and somehow legal for money to be collected by others in this way through an unforeseen loophole. “This conservatorship should be viewed as a hybrid business model,” it says in a 2018 petition for Andrew Wallet to receive a raise for his role. Andrew Wallet then quits in 2019 after Britney kiboshes the Domination residency that was to follow her bittersweetly titled Piece of Me one.
Surprisingly, Lufti did not agree to be interviewed. And also markedly missing from the documentary is something of the “OG” Free Britney advocate, Chris Crocker, who, yes, patently profited from her misery by showcasing his own “misery” for viral fame. In addition, where is Sam Asghari’s mention? If he cared about Britney’s “well-being,” wouldn’t he want to be interviewed? Or would ruffling Jamie’s feathers only end up cutting him out of his own potential profit margins?
While the documentary is well-sourced and structured to make its “case” that a conspiracy is afoot, it seems to rely on the very things it decries as sources of “viable” information. “You start to hear these tabloid reports that Britney and her dad are no longer on good terms,” critic Joe Coscarelli says, using the very “source”–tabloids–that the entire documentary seeks to prove a point about in terms of how such rumors destroy people.
She’s been exploited, there’s no doubt. Indeed, perhaps not since Marilyn Monroe has a star been so patently taken advantage of. But the argument that she’s had no agency throughout all of this is at war with the argument that she’s capable of making her own decisions. What people think they know is likely only a small fraction of what’s really going on. Yet this idea that many are trying to put forward about how “we’re all complicit” in “The Tragedy of Britney Spears” doesn’t seem all that fortified by a documentary that also cashes in on her image. And perhaps what genuinely does make her a star is the fact that no one can seem to leave her alone, the suggestion Michael Moore is seen making at one point in a 2008 news clip. But if a white man can’t get people to listen, then nobody can.
For more on the absurdity of 00s celebrity culture, check out this book.
