An exploitative rehashing of the stars painful past

If you follow the story of Britney Spears and the strict authority she has wielded over the past 13 years, the many recent documentaries on the subject are no doubt boiling in your blood.

The latter comes from Netflix’s Britney vs SpearsFilmmaker, documentary Erin Lee Carr and journalist Jenny Eliscu theorizing: “This is patriarchy!” And “You won’t come out. Until you scream.”

If you want to slowly expand words and phrases, you can enjoy Britney vs. Spears. This compensates for the lack of original material with lengthy recordings of documents and legal statements.

He creates something like a cubism picture of Britney’s situation by looking at the same event from a different angle, making it confusing, inaccurate and very complete.

The directors were thrilled by the dredging of friends Adnan Garib, who turned to the paparazzi, and Sam Lutfi, who had been Britney’s manager but was accused of trying to control them. It seems to be there.

These people play important roles in several chapters of history, but none of them are reliable or coercive, nor are they in a rush to discuss anything beyond the story he’s trying to tell. I didn’t do it. And Eliscu is like their old (and apparently good) source.

No one asked if they agreed and were not pushed into their motives or actions.

Lutfi was given the opportunity to refute Britney’s mother biographer’s claim that he used Britney’s drugs during their relationship.

Elsewhere, the director talks about the “stimulants” that Britney was given to play, but to find out what they were, why they got them, and whether they were prescribed. Never.

Does that mean we assume it’s Adderall, the ADHD drug mentioned in the first half of the movie? It would be remiss to assume that he was using stimulants without giving details.

They are mostly criminals. A review of the multimillion-dollar copies made for others while in custody provides a brief portrait of his father, Jamie Spears, who was the primary guardian and who has long refused to step down. It’s cut in half.

Spears’ former executive director Lou Taylor is also mentioned, but beyond that he is (or was) intimate with Jamie and he makes a lot of money from the trust system. Its role is not expanded.

Perhaps Taylor’s legal hand prevented further investigation. The warnings that your lawyer sends to the director during production indicate random text arrangement, but here too, there are a few ways to check for cross-checking.

Part of the problem, of course, is that Britney herself remains a negative place in the story and her posts are reduced to video interviews, onstage chats and Instagram posts (the car is the screen). I frown a little).

They tried to give the singer that moment by closing a documentary earlier this year with a summary of his speech in court, but that couldn’t counter an hour and a half of one-sided filming.

There is no doubt that this documentary was made out of real concern. When Galib and Rufi join him for a secret meeting with Britney in a hotel bathroom, Erisk interferes in the story itself (although Erisk’s involvement in the story also casts doubt on the merits of film journalism. Throw).

But with this parade of people disappointing Spears, it’s time to retell the traumatic events surrounding her mental health collapse in 2007 and get another chance to tell the “truth”. It feels like a different practice to make money and gain influence from your tragic story.

x