Happy 19th anniversary, BreatheHeavy! ×
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'nytimes'.
Found 4 results
I didn't understand what she was complaining about with regards to her Stylist Tish, Fe and others who spoke out in the documentaries. I was actually critical of her cynicism and am one of the first who will defend the documentaries. Now, I do believe the documentaries made a sizeable impact in spreading the word to the general public. But, today, I have some tats with it. ALL those who spoke up in the documentaries did so when they were no longer making BANK off Britney. Think about it. Why did they not speak up from the get-go? As Liz Day put it in the documentary "[...] everyone stood to make a cut". And those who were interviewed in the documentary... they came out of the wood-work at a very convenient time. Britney had spoken out, Free Britney movement in full swing, and truths are coming forward about the abuse. Those who set up the CON were pointing the fingers at each other, scrambling. But so too were all these individuals in the NYT documentaries. When it likely mattered most to ensure they redeemed their character publicly and save face and to control the narrative that they were helpless bystanders they went on record stating how helpless they were and how wrong they felt the conservatorship was. SO CONVENIENT it seems that now it doesn't seem altruistic at all to me. And so, I think I finally get where some of Britney's anger stems from with regards to these documentaries. I often felt and would vocalize that Britney's anger is misplaced, she is going after the wrong people. But, in re-framing my perspective of those who "spoke out", when you take the timing into consideration and the fact these people made a LOT of money by simply being helpless bystanders, it just doesn't pass the smell test to me anymore. Someone once said to me, and it now comes to mind, when someone is being bullied, harassed, assaulted / harmed and you are merely a bystander watching on and not intervening, YOU are as guilty as the perpetrator, YOU are part of the problem. Now, that is only an opinion. But being a gay kid in school I remember being bullied relentlessly. And I remember being beaten up and other kids would encircle the person hurting me and myself and laugh or stand there emotionless. And it wouldn't matter what excuse any one of those kids would later say they had for not intervening or getting help for me, the fact they did NOTHING when it mattered destroyed me and I felt they were no different than the kids picking on me. They were part of the problem. They ENABLED the abuse and did nothing to stop it. I also was raised in a fairly abusive home. When it comes to mind, I resent all the adults, all the teachers all the neighbours who knew something wasn't right going on, yet did nothing to prevent that abuse. They didn't speak up. They didn't report the abuse when they heard it happen or saw it first hand. Now I understand Britney more. Many of you have probably already come to this conclusion too, but for those of us like myself who are a little slower, I hope this epiphany I've had may also make a light-bulb go off for others too. Agreeing to being part of the documentary solidified for most, that these players were "saviours", "heroes" and "admirable". It absolved them of their guilt and their part to play. It absolved them of the nasty feeling it must be to have, being that they profited from the conservatorship. When it was no longer profitable, when shiz hit the fan, they had to come forward. Their calculated strategy worked. No matter Britney's insistence these people are as low as her father, they were painted in such a redeeming light that even her most staunch fans like myself gave our heads a shake and doubted Britney. I don't doubt her anymore. The information these people brought forward was useful. Their motivations may not be as heroic as many of us thought. What do you think? Was this already what you considered to be the case or have you too been forgiving of these individuals based on their appearance in the documentaries? EDIT: Some have raised the possibility their careers would be over and they’d be sued or threatened with legal action had they spoken out earlier. Let’s clear this up: the first amendment of the United States protects free speech and it also protects journalists / the free press. When someone brings vital information of wrongdoing on the condition of anonymity, journalistic privilege prevails and their identities are protected. This is a long-standing privilege the free press has long held in order to protect whistleblowers so that anything and anyone can be held to account through investigative journalism reporting. So the whole idea that they would have lost their livelihoods falls apart when you take this into consideration. Food for thought!
Lana Del Rey Photographed by NYT For Pride Event
Cqleb posted a topic in Entertainment
Variety posted a rather interesting review of ‘The New York Times Presents: Framing Britney Spears’. Firstly, those that are anxious that the documentary will be very one sided i.e pro-conservatorship and pro-team con, it’s not. So, we can breath a huge sign of relief. If anything it tips ever so slightly in the other direction. The reviewer Daniel D’addario’s overall take is a positive one (Britney matters), and suggests the documentary is fairly “balanced” in its depiction of her current situation (i.e the conservatorship). But, with regards to how the public (fans included) treat her (now and in the past), as an artist and human being, this is the biggest tragedy of all. Here are main takeaways from the article of what we can expect to see in the documentary. Spoiler: If you don’t want know anything about what’s to come, stop reading now. 1. Brit is presented as both a fascinating example of how our culture treats those we allegedly love, and as a deeply sad case of abuse. 2. Audio of Timberlake speaking crudely on the radio about Spears (no doubt about her virginity) appears on the documentary. 3. They use footage of 10 year old Britney singing “Love Can Build a Bridge” on “Star Search”. 4. Fe speaks extensively (and lovingly) about Brit the artist, and human being. She’s there to humanise Brit. 5. Hosts of a podcast (likely Britney’s Gram) discuss theories about Spears’ legal situation. 6. The documentary touches on a number of conspiracy theories that “fans” obsess over (like Britney communicating in code). Implying, the online “fandom” is as damaging to Britney the “star” as the conservatorship is. 7. The conservatorship is openly discussed, with commentary from all sides (see below), including FreeBritney fans, (FreeBritney advocate Leanne Simmons is already confirmed). 8. The conservatorship appears to be part of a lifelong pattern of “misuse” in Spears life, and career. $$$$ 9. There is an interview with a Conservatorship lawyer who had been on, and later rejoined, Spears’ father’s legal team. Likely Vivian Lee Thoreen (it couldn’t be Andrew Wallet, or could it)? 10. The documentary reproduces footage from “For The Record” of Spears yearning to be freed from the conservatorship, and being sad. 11. Brit’s silence on her situation is its own tragedy, because it would appear that the situation has caused the silence. She has a story to tell (like her contemporaries). But she is the only one who can tell it (like her contemporaries). 12. Finally, the article/documentary claims that fame was another kind of captivity for Spears, albeit one with more “liberties”. Suggesting, that before her “controlling” father, the culture that idolised her had kept her captive too. Namely, the public never saw her as a real person. Just a puppet, and someone to project on. https://variety.com/2021/tv/reviews/framing-britney-spears-review-fx-1234892912/ The 75 minute documentary airs Friday February 5th, at 10 PM, on FX and Hulu.