The Battle for Britney: A critical view
Share this with folks who may be unaware of the case and its intricacies, or those who may be starting to look at how media is arranged to shape, support, and uphold certain narratives. #FreeBritney #FreeBritneyNOW #MediaLiteracy 1/x

My background: I have a PhD in Media/Cultural Studies, an MFA in film, experience working in documentary & reality TV post-production and in photo research for an agency that worked with many of the big entertainment magazines. 2/x

Overall impression: This doc is as much an invitation to follow authority as it is an attempt to uncover pieces of the events leading up to the conservatorship. Within the first minute, success is measured by the ability to bounce back w/albums & residencies, i.e. profit. 3/x

My notes: From the start, there is an opposition between the fans & those in some way industry-related. Who is the viewer asked to trust? Filmmaking is a series of choices: What makes it to the final cut or ends up on the cutting room floor determines what holds power. 4/x

The 1st interviewee, an astute superfan, makes important points (& returns later in the film), but after the interview, the watered down narration focuses on how she "loves Britney like she's part of the family, but some of the stuff she said sounded out there to me." 5/x

Remember, the filmmakers actively & intentionally choose which clips to use & how to frame them. Azhar doubts the legitimacy of court documents & the paralegal voicemail. Never mind his personal disbelief - that these are used to propel a narrative is what matters here. 6/x

The film utilizes a sort of naïveté on the part of its main narrator as a tactic which is understandable, except that this reveals an inherent trust in assumed truths within the case that any informed, engaged individual can easily investigate & disprove. 7/x

In the film, the massive legwork from individuals in the movement is compounded into a collection of suspect conspiracies dreamt up by emotional fans while the assumed truths are used to covertly uphold the argument that the conservatorship may not be so bad. 8/x

At the root of this is the fact that Azhar can't grasp how Britney can't speak up for herself! The disbelief that a human being can't just do what they want speaks volumes. It also serves to dumb the story down, which begs the question: Are we being asked to remain ignorant? 9/x

In a group call, 3 individuals in the movement explain parts of the case including probate vs. mental health c-ships. Azhar responds by asking about the "bad guys" in this story. Is it a harmless, conversational approach, or slightly patronizing? 10/x

The 3 express how much Britney means to them, but again, emotion outweighs the actual facts. This tactic is used often in mainstream media. When it is paired as it is in this film w/figures asserting some form of authority, the resulting ideology is about bending to power. 11/x

Case in point: The narrator outlines the pop “formula” that brought the world Britney Spears -- after which Brian Friedman talks about how fans "don’t really understand" as a way to blame them & not that very formula (and its many players) for the resulting toxicity of fame. 12/x

The good people of Kentwood reiterate what Friedman mentions. Fame was not something Britney could easily accept. The problem is that this fame is not sufficiently unpacked. Instead, the scale tips toward blaming the consumers - her fans - rather than the machine itself. 13/x

More assumed truths: Hate mail. What's interesting is that the combination of a 15-page legal document refuting c-ship involvement PLUS the detail that it ends with a “polite” comment on hate mail adds to the covert narrative that blames this unknown mass of vicious fans. 14/x

We can't assume no research beyond what makes it to the screen was done. And yet, there's so much existing information from court documents & easily accessible significant analysis that makes the viewer wonder if the film was hastily made or made with specific intentions. 15/x

Britney’s fans are not rabid dogs, the tornado that caught on in 2007-08 was not fueled primarily by these fans. Prioritizing emphasis on these "obsessed" fans over the culture industry and massive media machine (with its multiple coexisting parts) reveals a great deal. 16/x

Many of the characters in this documentary enforce that prioritization. The paparazzo is 1 of the more honest of the bunch: "I didn’t come here to take photographs. I came here to make a lot of money and make history" - but he also deflects in order to uphold certain power. 17/x

PH claims he didn’t know the extent of the mental health issues. Would he gladly bully someone we assume is mentally fit? He upholds a system that will still rely on abuse and exploitation of SOMEONE for profit & clicks & the popularity that afforded him his nice WeHo digs. 18/x

PH attempts to appear remorseful about his bullying/abuse, but “If I believe what Perez says, the c-ship could be saving Britney’s life.” Why even consider what he says? How is he an expert when he was instrumental in the mess that fueled these personal and legal problems? 19/x

The film does include a diverse cast of characters, many of whom are admirable and speak with integrity & grace. Lisa MacCauley & Catherine Falk are two such individuals. And yet, they receive the least amount of screen time. Think about that. 20/x

Azhar's outrage after speaking with Falk is punctuated by worry that exploitative acts are supported by the courts. He wonders how this happens in a “civilized country.” Another naïve assumption. We’re far from civilized, but the film pulls the punch rather than throwing it. 21/x

A fundamental problem: The doc places the fans & those with any modicum of power & capital on the same level. As with most situations in entertainment as well as in politics, the collapse of the power structure leaves little room for serious confrontation of what’s going on. 22/x

Please, media people, stop using words like “evil” (i.e. "the fans think it’s evil"). It turns a legitimate legal matter into high school drama. 23/x

To give a money manager, blogger, or choreographer a platform to accuse fans & activists practicing critical thinking of villainy confirms that this is another project that upholds the industry in which this exploitation continues (and will continue) to take place. 24/x

There is so much money involved in this case, but it doesn’t get scrutinized as much as the fans do. The film ends with: “She just wanted to be a star. That status could end up holding her prisoner forever.” Who does the final quote in the film blame, empower, or condemn? 25/25