Netflix’s latest documentary Trainwreck: The Cult of American Apparel doesn’t just peel back the layers of a fashion empire — it exposes what really happened behind the scenes of one of the most controversial brands in American fashion history. The 54-minute exposé is a whirlwind of ambition, abuse, aesthetic, and absolute chaos — all orbiting around one man: Dov Charney.
The Rise of a Fashion Powerhouse
In the early 2000s, American Apparel wasn’t just a clothing brand — it was a lifestyle. It promised something different: sweatshop-free manufacturing, fair wages, and a hyper-sexual, raw aesthetic that felt punk and progressive all at once. The clothes were basic, but the marketing? Anything but. Unretouched models, barely dressed. Ads that teetered between provocative and pornographic. And at the center of it all was Charney — charismatic, chaotic, and completely convinced of his own genius. To outsiders, he was a rebel entrepreneur, building an empire with ethics and edge. To many on the inside, he was something else entirely.
A Workplace Like No Other — And Not in a Good Way
Working at American Apparel wasn’t your standard retail or corporate job. As shown in the documentary, many employees didn’t go through interviews — they were recruited because they looked like they fit the brand. Someone even joked that if you were caught shoplifting, they’d just hand you an application. Employees were expected to work punishing hours. Some put in 36-hour shifts without complaint, believing they were part of something bigger. Promotions came with strings attached — NDAs and arbitration agreements that effectively silenced internal complaints. And then there was the welcome kit: a Blackberry, a Leica camera, a copy of The 48 Laws of Power… and a Hitachi Magic Wand vibrator. Yes, really. That alone gives you a taste of how deeply sexualized — and normalized — inappropriate behavior was within the company culture.
Dov Charney: Visionary or Villain?
Charney was a master of blending charm with control. In public, he championed labor rights and body positivity. In private, he created an environment that many former employees now describe as manipulative and traumatic. He would scream, berate, and publicly humiliate staff. One common tactic? Naming a “fool of the week” on company-wide conference calls. In the doc, one former employee describes regular phone calls from Charney in the middle of the night — just to tell them, “I hate you.” And yet, many stayed. Some believed in the mission. Others were afraid to leave. It wasn’t just about the yelling or the control — sexual misconduct was rampant. Charney often walked around in his underwear. Some say he showed up completely nude. Several employees had sexual relationships with him. While many accusations were settled or dismissed in arbitration, the patterns were hard to ignore.
The Fall
In 2014, it all started to crack. An internal investigation uncovered thousands of explicit messages and images on company servers. The board suspended Charney. Eventually, they fired him. By 2015, American Apparel filed for bankruptcy. It filed again in 2016. Stores shuttered. The once-booming brand had collapsed. In 2017, Gildan Activewear bought the company’s assets. What was left was just a shell — no retail stores, no vision, no Dov.
But He Didn’t Go Away
Charney, as it turns out, never stops. He launched Los Angeles Apparel in 2016 — a familiar brand with a new name. But trouble followed him again. During COVID, the LA-based factory became a hotspot for outbreaks, and the business filed for bankruptcy in 2022. Still, he’s resurfacing. As of mid-2025, Charney’s back in the spotlight — making speeches, plotting a New York City store, and even working with Kanye West’s Yeezy brand. His factory printed “White Lives Matter” T-shirts. No apologies. No rebrand. Just Charney, doing Charney.
Why Trainwreck Hits Hard?
More than just a documentary about a controversial CEO, Trainwreck is a reckoning. It shows how “cool culture” can be weaponized, how charisma can become control, and how easily workplace abuse can hide behind “edgy” branding. It also asks hard questions:
- How do we define a cult in the corporate world?
- Why do we forgive certain people — or ignore red flags — in the name of innovation?
- And when a brand blurs the line between ethics and exploitation, what are we really buying?
