Britney steps closer to freedom – but what will that mean?
As Jamie Spears is suspended as her conservator, a slew of documentaries raises questions about what her future holds
BIG CHANGES ARE afoot for Britney Spears. At a court hearing on 29 September, her father Jamie was suspended as her conservator, to be temporarily replaced with an accountant chosen by the singer’s legal team, after Judge Brenda Penny called the existing situation ‘untenable’ and reflective of ‘a toxic environment’.
Outside the court in LA, the singer’s lawyer Mathew Rosengart told joyful fans, ‘It’s a great day for Britney Spears and it’s a great day for justice… Britney has been faced with a decade-long nightmare, a Kafka-esque nightmare, orchestrated by her father and others.’ ( Jamie, who had previously filed to be removed as conservator, did not comment but has always claimed he was acting in his daughter’s best interests.) Britney did not immediately respond directly, but was clearly in celebratory mood as she posted a video on Instagram showing her flying a plane for the first time, with a caption saying she was on ‘cloud 9’.
It could signal the beginning of the end for the conservatorship, a legal arrangement Britney has called ‘abusive’ and alleged has been used to control every aspect of her life, from her career to her ability to have children. ‘It’s been 13 years and it’s enough,’ she said during testimony in June. ‘I deserve to have a life.’
At the same time, there has been a deluge of new documentaries about her. Along with films from CNN and Netflix, The New York Times has followed up Framing Britney Spears, released earlier this year, with Controlling Britney Spears. It shares new and horrifying claims about the intense, potentially illegal, surveillance Britney has allegedly been subjected to while under the conservatorship, including claims of the monitoring of private phone communications and audio recording devices planted in her bedroom. It also detailed allegations of the level of control wielded over her, with claims the singer wasn’t allowed to buy sushi or shoes (under the conservatorship, Britney does not have control of her estimated $60m fortune). In a statement to The New York Times, Jamie’s lawyer has denied the allegations.
The role these films have played in this saga is complex. While The New York Times’ documentaries have raised public awareness of the situation and helped progress the case, the sheer volume of content produced about Britney and her situation leaves a bitter taste: at what point does it stop being informative and become exploitative? Context is important, but most documentaries seem set on rehashing that difficult period between 2007 and 2008 that led to the conservatorship, complete with distressing paparazzi images and footage of Britney at her lowest. In recent days, she posted on Instagram, ‘I watched a little bit of the last documentary and I hate to inform you but a lot of what you heard is not true’ – later editing her post to say, ‘I must say I scratched my head a couple of times’ (which documentary she was referring to was unclear, but a source told The New York Post it was the CNN film). In May, she called out what she saw as hypocrisy on the part of documentarymakers: ‘They criticise the media and then do the same thing ?’
As these films dissect her life – some with more sensitivity than others – Britney herself remains absent; her involvement relegated to archival footage, old interviews and her testimony from June’s hearing. The documentaries have brought pressure on those involved in her life to respond to the #Freebritney movement, yet Britney’s trauma is still being commodified – if in a less tasteless way than before.
Let’s consider what freedom for Britney could mean: emancipation from the control of her father, yes, but surely also autonomy over her own story. Perhaps the next documentary should be helmed by her, should she choose to make one. If she decides not to? Well, that’s her prerogative.