HBO’s-90 minute documentary paints a ghastly picture of the horrific truth behind the “Brandy girl.” Art credit: Sophia Kahng
How do teenage girls perceive the Brandy Melleville controversy? Founded by Silvio and Stephan Marsan in the early 1980s, Brandy Melville opened its first U.S. doors in Los Angeles in 2009. Since then, the multinational fashion brand, famed for its “it girl” and “all-american” aesthetic, has amassed a tremendous following. Maintaining a notable social media presence, the company has allured countless young girls with its comfy basics, celebrity endorsements, and trendy approach. However, along with this soaring popularity, Brandy Mellville has obtained a reputation for promoting its one-size-fits-all policy and fast fashion practices.
HBO’s-90 minute documentary Brandy Hellville & the Cult of Fast Fashion, narrates an institution of prejudice and bigotry, a far cry from Brandy’s idealistic image. Throughout the film, sources illustrate a business where sexual misconduct, racism, body shaming, and abuse go overlooked. The notion of the “Brandy girl” was molded by the Marsans. They then regulated who she was allowed to be.
Allegedly, white employees were encouraged to work in the front of the store while people of color were assigned to the back rooms. Staff members, many of whom were underage, claimed that they were required to send full body pictures before each shift and lost their job if they did not meet the standards. These accusations, chronicled in the feature, accompany a multitude of other revolting reports which include accounts of rape, misogyny, and antisemitism.
Among the most notorious controversies are that of the one-size-fits-all concept and fast fashion customs. The documentary reveals that the stock of entirely small sizes maintains the brand’s exclusivity and notoriety. This constrictive system sets out to curate the model Brandy consumer and dispel those who fall short of the expectation. The program also highlights the company’s manufacturing processes as jeopardizing environmental improvement and human rights. Contributing to these violations are Brandy’s presumed cycle of rapid production and worker exploitation through sweatshops.
Anonymously surveying the insightful young women at Mayfield produced a plethora of different opinions–a handful of which sparked conflicting discussions. While many describe Brandy as “super cute,” and “good-quality” others portray it as “uncomfortable,” “damaging,” and “not fair.” The forefront of these conversations were the matters regarding body positivity and resource-friendliness. A number of students appreciate the smaller sizing and find it convenient to avoid shuffling through piles of clothes. Some argue that “plus size brands doctor to plus sized people, so why is it negative to do the opposite?” On the contrary, several express that the business should offer more variety and promote inclusivity. Students affirm that Brandy should “target an audience, not a size,” and that “if you’re gonna make a clothing brand, make it for everyone.” On the topic of viability, a portion believe that “fast fashion is unavoidable,” but others assert that it is critical to support sustainable establishments.
Majority of the young women disclosed that the documentary and surrounding conflicts fail to hinder their shopping habits. Even though numerous admitted to feeling “conflicted” “disappointed” and “guilty.” Only a small percentage reduced their purchases or abstained altogether. Representing the perception that, “ignorance is bliss”, multiple students consciously evaded the documentary in order to avoid confronting the issues that it unveiled. Despite the contention surrounding its operations, Brandy Melville continues to flourish as its primary demographic “cannot turn (its) back on a good brand.”
