The film is made with a clear political agenda (i.e., for supporters of the Democratic Party of the United States). It’s not uncommon for Americans to release documentaries on the topic of the day, but it’s important to understand that these films are aimed at either Republicans or Democrats. The trouble with such films is that there are a lot of politics, political slogans and very few neutrally balanced facts. In this film, we are told about the rise and fall of the American clothing brand for teenagers from 1990 to 2013. Many American viewers complain that they expected to see an analysis of the activities of this brand, i.e. production, advertising, management, etc., and received only one message - not respecting the diversity of race, physique, religious preferences (staff), i.e. the desire to hire only white, physically attractive employees. On the one hand, it can be outrageous, they say, how so that the employer selects staff according to skin color, race and physical attractiveness. But on the other hand, the staff is part of the brand, i.e. it must correspond to the brand image. For example, older people do not work in shops for teenagers, because this can lead to dissonance among customers. It's understandable. If we go to a trendy youth store, we expect to see the same or almost the same sellers, because they are an extension of the brand. So, the essence of the film is that the brand Abercrombie & Fitch portrays itself as a brand for the young, successful (a prestigious place of study) and sexy. The latter, sexuality, is where most of the advertising is built, just like Calvin Klein. The film’s authors interviewed several former employees and several journalists/bloggers to show the racism faced by non-white employees of the company, and that the management fired employees, in most students, if they considered them not attractive to the brand. As one English-speaking viewer rightly pointed out, the problem with this company is that it has not hesitated to openly state it (in its documents) and that all or almost all companies producing fashion brands adhere to this policy. And it really is. As I said, the problem is that employees are the face of the brand. Yes, if these are employees who do not catch the eye of buyers, then there is no point in selecting beautiful, fit and young people, but if these are people who are in the retail room, then everything is not so clear. Mainly because all other firms have the same discriminatory policies without explicitly stating it. Is that fair? I think we should look at this issue as hiring models that are filmed to advertise different brands. We're not going to require companies to advertise not top models, but regular people, are we? After all, in this case, we will not buy things of this brand ourselves. People want to look at beautiful models, whether they're women or men, and they don't see themselves as inferior or inferior. However, the film sends us this message.
The first 20 minutes of the film is very interesting, as we are shown the development and success of the brand Abercrombie & Fitch. Next, we are told not very nice things about its creator and CEO. And so, step by step, from small to large, we are led to the idea that the CEO there is gay and the chief and one of the most famous photographers molested male models, and ends with a connection with the infamous Mr. Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein). If the film had just mentioned the non-standard style of CEO management and told us more about this brand, it would have been interesting, but we were offered one of many companies and said, Look, this company doesn’t offer clothes for the full, let’s bankrupt it for this! I’m not kidding, the film is not limited to accusations of harassment of male models and discrimination of staff on racial grounds, it also cited the example of a Muslim woman who was not hired because of her desire to wear a headscarf. And this is in an ultra-fashionable store aimed at an 18-20 audience, where sex is spilled all over the room, in which the main distinguishing symbol is a naked male torso. To be honest, I can understand why the employer didn't accept it. After all, I want to remind you of such a thing as a dress code that all employees must observe and this is not a humiliation of someone’s rights. But as I said, there are a lot of accusations against the CEO in the film, including the lack of big clothes. There is a misunderstanding, because it is purely a matter of style. Some brands imply a large size, but others do not. There are a huge number of clothing brands in the world, so why would you want the size of this particular brand and accuse management of discriminating against fat people? There is such a thing as positioning, i.e. who the brand is focused on. There are clothing brands for women, for men, for children, for pregnant women, for newborns, for fitness/sports and so on and so forth. No one asks the brand to produce the same summer hats and sandals for the beach. I didn’t understand where these claims came from. But if you go back to the very beginning of my review, it becomes clear why the film accuses the brand of all the deadly sins. This film is made for ardent supporters of the Democrats, and their hottest/popular topic is racism, discrimination against minorities and so on. No, I am not against minorities, but I am against propaganda, against overt exaggeration in one case and understatement in another. As I wrote above, there are some things that may not align with brand image, or common sense. In the construction store, consultants should work people who would inspire trust in visitors, just as in the women's department (laundry, for example) female consultants should work, because no matter how great the professionalism of men, women will not talk to them comfortably, not to mention trust them in the fact that they understand the purely female issue. Such examples can be given for a very long time. The film does not give the viewer at least two views / opinions on this problem, and falls into some political rage.