Nicola Champoux – The True Cost

Directed by: Andrew Morgan

Film Length: 93 minutes

The True Cost (available on YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhCpLzreCw

Documentary; environmental; capitalism; consumerism; activist, clothing industry

The True Cost explores the everyday lives of garment factory workers in Bangladesh, India, and Cambodia and briefly examines cotton farming in the United States. It highlights the struggles these workers face and the mistreatment they encounter in return for an appalling wage. The film shows the unequal power relations between the mega clothing corporations and the essential but extremely vulnerable garment workers. The documentary also includes interviews from different experts, activists, and one cotton farmer which together illustrate the Western world’s view of the clothing industry.

The film begins with a model walking down the catwalk juxtaposed to the Rana Plaza disaster that claimed the lives of 1,134 people. The film continues with the Ali Enterprises fire and Tazreen Fashions fire. The long hours and working conditions highlight the workers’ struggles to raise their children when they cannot afford to feed them, cannot send them to school, or afford housing with safe living conditions.

The film starts with quick shots of garment workers and models in the clothing industry highlighting their stark differences. As the title sequence passes, a voiceover by director Andrew Morgan begins and introduces the issue at hand, the clothing industry and the impact it is having on our world, a story of greed and fear, power and poverty. The filmmaker shares his intention of how his thinking on what he wears has changed forever and he wishes for the audience to share in his shift in perception. He hopes to inspire action from the audience, but, by the end of the film, we are not told what kind of action to take to make a difference. The film is built on many interviews with people from all perspectives within the clothing industry.

At almost 52 minutes in, we have another voiceover by the director as he introduces the toxicity of the leather industry in Kanpur, India. While there is a modest presence from the filmmaker, we do encounter two voiceovers and hear him ask a question before the first interview. This film does not follow a chronological order and instead jumps between different characters like chapters in a book to give an all-encompassing view of the impacts of the clothing industry. The narrative is developed through the point of view of some garment workers, one American cotton farmer, workers affected by the toxicity and inhumane treatment of the clothing industry and different activists, economists, journalists and fashion designers.

While the film mostly includes close-up shots of the interviewees in their homes or the factories, the film does include some long shots to set the varying locations throughout the film. At times, the close-up shots feel personal as we watch a garment worker in her small home with her child but the long shots help show us large regions like the Ganges river running through Kanpur, India but at the same time showing how large scale the current environmental problems are from the poor policies of the clothing industry.

While the film succeeds in its goal to pull back the curtain to show the world, which pays the price for our clothing, it lacks the spark of hope and concrete solutions to help end the suffering of the garment workers who are paying the price. The film’s use of experts falls flat as it leaves the audience wondering what they can do to make a difference in the clothing industry other than supporting sustainable clothing brands. While the film intended to show the harsh realities of the clothing industry, it fails to provide a conclusion that allows the audience to go out and help change the clothing industry. Instead, it leaves the viewer with the feeling that the experts and garment workers do realize how large and powerful capitalism is but that the amount of work it will take to change the clothing industry into sustainable practice is unattainable.

The final part of the film explores the mental health of consumers in the clothing industry and we learn that more materialism equates to lower happiness which is the opposite message we receive from advertising. The 400% increase in annual clothing purchases in the last 20 years shows that consumers have bought into the capitalist “dream” and we are all now paying the price, but the garment workers are paying the largest price of all of us.

If this film was intended to be an activist film, I believe it has failed because despite expanding on viewers’ perceptions of the clothing industry. It has not done enough to allow consumers in the clothing industry to act in the manners needed to change the industry. While this film was reflexive in nature, it failed to provide concrete ways of dismantling the inhumane practices of the clothing industry. I chose to review this film as the clothing industry desperately needs to change to protect garment workers. I also believe watching this film will help society come together to dismantle the clothing industry.