“Framing Britney Spears” does something it’s hard to imagine the newspaper doing in print: It gives extensive, credulous airtime to the “Free Britney” movement. https://t.co/SvIb6zX2Z7— Slate (@Slate) February 15, 2021
-The author, Jeffrey Bloomer, understands the connection fans have with Britney because Bloomer is also a fan.
-Says it reveals nothing new about Britney Spears, and instead props up the "often twisted sidesow" of the Free Britney movement.
-These fans are honorable, but end up replaying some of "the same patterns of obsessions and celebrity intrigue that helped fuel Spears' darkest moments in the first place."
-One service the documentary has provided is that it's helped viewers empathize for Spears. But the center of the documentary is on the Free Britney movement.
-Conservatorship is worth scrutiny because it's still unclear why it's necessary. But documentary does not reveal any concrete evidence of abuse or provide new details about why it was invoked in the first place.
-Free Britney movement argues that the conservatorship is kind of a hostage situation, and that Spears is secretly communicating to them via Instagram.The hosts of the podcast Britney's Gram are given a lot of screen time and allowed to idly analyze conservatorship legal documents.
-The documentary includes audio from an unverified source who makes claims about Spears' conservatorship, but said audio is very suspect. "Outrageously, it’s reproduced in Framing Britney Spears, presented as a tantalizing development with only a quick disclaimer that 'The voicemail’s source and claims have not been verified by the New York Times.' No kidding. (It’s hard not to wonder if the same very public issues in the Times’ audio department are playing out in a new medium.)"
"There’s a certain irony to the film correctly portraying how our incessant obsession with Spears in the early 2000s harmed her, and then propping up our modern incarnation of that obsession as the thing that may save her," the writer states.