Chapter 14: Exercises

Film, Television, and the Moving Image

Propaganda, Power, and Persuasion: A Critical Study of Influence, Disinformation, and Resistance

These exercises develop the analytical and empirical skills introduced in Chapter 14. They can be completed individually or adapted for group work. Exercises 2 and 5 are specifically suited to group discussion; Exercise 4 requires access to a publicly available database of military-cooperated productions.

Exercise 1: The Eisenstein Experiment — Montage and Manufactured Meaning

Objective: To demonstrate, through direct experience, how editorial juxtaposition creates meaning that is not present in individual images.

Time required: 45–60 minutes.

Materials: Access to four still images (photographs or film stills), either found online or provided by the instructor. Select images that are visually clear but emotionally ambiguous in isolation — a human face with a neutral or slightly ambiguous expression works well. You will use this same face image across all arrangements. Select three other images from different categories: a domestic scene (a meal, a family gathering, an empty room), a scene of violence or crisis (a fire, a collision, a crowd fleeing), and an image of natural beauty or abundance (a landscape, blooming flowers, children playing). Do not use images that are explicitly labeled or that carry obvious captions.

Part A: Arrange and Describe

Create four different two-image sequences using the face and one of the other images:

1. Face → Domestic scene
2. Face → Violence/crisis scene
3. Face → Natural beauty scene
4. Violence/crisis scene → Face

For each sequence, write a brief description (3–4 sentences) of what you perceive the person in the face image to be experiencing, thinking, or feeling. Be specific: do not just write "an emotion" — describe what the person seems to want, fear, remember, or intend.

Part B: Comparative Analysis

After completing all four descriptions, compare them. You used the same face image in at least three of the four sequences. To what extent did the adjacent image change your perception of the person in the face image? Be specific about what changed and what the adjacent image contributed.

Part C: Application to Film

Write one paragraph (150–200 words) connecting your observations to Eisenstein's theory of dialectical montage. Address the following: If the same face image produces different perceived meanings in different juxtapositions, what does this imply for how we should understand the emotional content we experience while watching edited film or video? What control does an editor have over what we feel? Where does that control operate — in the footage itself, or in the structure imposed on the footage?

Discussion prompt for class: Bring one specific example from a film or video you have recently watched where you noticed (or, in retrospect, now notice) an editorial juxtaposition that shaped your emotional response to a person or situation. What were the two shots? What third meaning did the combination create? Was the meaning created by evidence in either shot, or by the collision between them?

Exercise 2: The Cultivation Theory Audit — Your Beliefs vs. The Statistics

Objective: To empirically test whether your personal estimates of real-world conditions show evidence of cultivation effects from media exposure.

Time required: 30–40 minutes of solo work; additional time for group comparison.

Part A: Estimate First (Do Not Look Anything Up)

Before consulting any sources, write down your best estimates for each of the following. These are intuitive estimates — write down your first answer without deliberation:

1. What percentage of the U.S. population is employed in law enforcement (police, sheriffs, federal agents, corrections officers combined)?

2. In the United States last year, what was the approximate violent crime rate — how many violent crimes per 100,000 people?

3. What percentage of Americans will be the victim of a violent crime in any given year?

4. On any given day in the United States, what percentage of the population is involved in the criminal justice system in some way (arrested, charged, in trial, in prison, on probation, or on parole)?

5. What percentage of murders in the United States are solved (i.e., result in an arrest)?

6. In major U.S. cities, what proportion of police-civilian interactions involve criminal activity or enforcement action?

7. What percentage of U.S. federal government spending goes to law enforcement and criminal justice?

Record your estimates before proceeding.

Part B: Look Up the Actual Statistics

Using reliable statistical sources (Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, or equivalent), find the actual figures for each question above. Record the actual figures alongside your estimates.

Recommended sources: - Bureau of Justice Statistics (bjs.gov): crime victimization surveys, criminal justice system statistics - FBI Crime Data Explorer (cde.fbi.gov): crime rates, clearance rates - Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics: law enforcement employment figures - Urban Institute or Vera Institute: criminal justice data synthesis

Part C: Analysis

Calculate the direction and magnitude of your estimation errors. For each item where you overestimated the prevalence of crime, law enforcement activity, or danger: by how much did you overestimate? For any items where you underestimated: by how much?

Write a 300-word analysis addressing the following: - Do your estimation errors show a pattern consistent with the mean world syndrome (systematic overestimation of crime, danger, and law enforcement prevalence)? - If so, what do you think are the sources of your baseline impression of these statistics? Can you identify specific media sources — genres, programs, platforms — that may have contributed to your estimates? - If your estimates were accurate or showed the opposite pattern, reflect on why. What information sources have you used that might have corrected for cultivation effects?

Group component: In seminar, compare estimates across the class. Calculate class averages for each question and compare them to actual statistics. Discuss whether class averages show systematic patterns of over- or underestimation. What does the class-level pattern suggest about the shared media environment you have all been exposed to?

Exercise 3: Anatomy of a Military Recruitment Advertisement

Objective: To apply the five-part anatomy of propaganda (defined in Chapter 6) to a current piece of military communication.

Time required: 45–60 minutes.

Step 1: Select a source. Find a current military recruitment advertisement. All branches of the U.S. military maintain official YouTube channels that archive current and historical recruitment advertising. Select one advertisement between 60 seconds and 3 minutes in length. Write down the URL and the branch, title, and date of the advertisement.

Step 2: Apply the five-part anatomy.

For each element, write 100–150 words of analysis:

a) The Communicator: Who is officially producing this communication? What institutional interests does this communicator have? What is the communicator's relationship to the government? Note any production partners or agencies credited.

b) The Message: What is the advertisement's explicit message? Write it out as a propositional claim (e.g., "Joining the Army will give you skills, purpose, and belonging"). What is the implicit message — the emotional or ideological content that the advertisement communicates without stating directly?

c) The Channel: Where does this advertisement appear? What audiences does the placement reach? How does the channel choice affect the message's reception (e.g., YouTube algorithm targeting, demographic data on viewers)?

d) The Audience: Who is the target audience? What does the advertisement's visual vocabulary — casting, setting, musical style, narrative structure — tell you about the intended recipient? What emotional states or aspirations is it designed to activate?

e) The Effect: Based on what you have learned about emotional immersion, montage, and narrative identification, describe the emotional mechanics of this advertisement's persuasive design. What emotion does it seek to install? What associations does its editing create? How does it use the mechanics of moving image (music, pacing, close-ups, voiceover) to produce those effects?

Step 3: Comparative reflection. In 150–200 words, describe what is similar between the mechanisms in this current advertisement and the mechanisms in the propaganda films discussed in Chapter 14 (Riefenstahl, Eisenstein, the Why We Fight series). Then describe what is different. Is the distinction between current military advertising and historical state propaganda a difference in kind or a difference in degree?

Exercise 4: Pentagon Cooperation — What Changed?

Objective: To use publicly available records of military-entertainment cooperation to identify specific documented instances of script or content changes, and to analyze the propaganda significance of those changes.

Time required: 60–90 minutes.

Background: The Film & TV database of military-cooperated productions is maintained through the work of researchers including journalist Tom Secker (available at iconsoffright.com/phil/dod) and the transparency organization Accountability Lab's media project. Academic work by David Robb (Operation Hollywood) and peer-reviewed analysis by Matthew Alford and Tom Secker in American Journal of Economics and Sociology (2017) provides case documentation.

Step 1: Identify a production. Select a film or television production that received documented Department of Defense cooperation and for which at least one documented script change has been publicly reported. Suggested options include: - Top Gun (1986) or Top Gun: Maverick (2022) - Behind Enemy Lines (2001) - Iron Man (2008) - Act of Valor (2012) - Lone Survivor (2013) - Transformers franchise (multiple films)

Alternatively, use an example identified through your own research using the sources noted above.

Step 2: Document the change. Using available sources — news reports, academic accounts, FOIA-released documents if available, or published research — describe specifically what change was requested or made. What did the original script, scene, or visual element contain? What was altered, added, or removed? Who requested the change?

Step 3: Analyze the change. Write 250–300 words analyzing the propaganda significance of the specific change you identified: - What impression of the military, military personnel, military operations, or military necessity would the original version have created? - What impression does the altered version create? - In whose interests is the altered version? Does the change serve narrative purposes (making the film more dramatically effective), commercial purposes (enabling access to resources), or institutional propaganda purposes (managing the military's public image)? - Would the average viewer of the completed film know that this change was made? If not, what does that mean for their ability to evaluate the content they are receiving?

Step 4: Disclosure question. Write one paragraph (100–150 words) arguing for or against a policy requiring films that received Department of Defense production assistance to disclose that assistance in their opening credits, comparable to the disclosure requirements for paid political advertising. What would the effects of such a disclosure requirement be, both for film production and for audience reception?

Exercise 5 (Group): Why We Fight vs. Contemporary Military Documentary

Objective: To identify the shared techniques and divergent strategies across eight decades of military documentary production.

Time required: 2–3 hours of preparation; 45–60 minutes of group discussion.

Group size: 3–5 members.

Step 1: Each group member watches.

Each group member independently watches one assigned film: - Prelude to War (1942), the first film in Frank Capra's Why We Fight series — available through public domain archives including Archive.org and the National Archives digital collection. - A contemporary U.S. military documentary of the group's choosing. Options include documentary films produced by the branches' own media production units (available through official YouTube channels), co-produced documentaries distributed commercially (e.g., Restrepo, 2010, which was independently made but compared frequently to institutional production), or official documentaries distributed through streaming platforms. Select something made after 2010 and at least 45 minutes long.

Step 2: Individual analysis sheets.

Before group discussion, each member completes a brief analysis sheet for their assigned film: 1. What is the film's explicit purpose or thesis? 2. What emotional response is the film designed to produce in its intended audience? 3. Identify three specific formal techniques (editing choices, musical choices, narration choices, visual framing choices) that serve the film's persuasive purpose. For each, describe what the technique is and what effect it creates. 4. How does the film construct the identity of the intended audience? (Who is the "we" in "Why We Fight"? Who is the "we" implied in the contemporary film?) 5. What is absent from the film's frame? What aspects of military service, military operations, or military culture are not represented, and what would their inclusion change?

Step 3: Group comparison discussion.

The group discusses the following questions, using evidence from both films:

Shared techniques: What formal techniques appear in both the 1942 film and the contemporary documentary? Be specific: if both use a particular kind of musical underscore, describe it; if both use a particular type of narration or montage structure, identify it. What does the persistence of these techniques across eight decades suggest?

Divergent strategies: Where do the two films differ most significantly in their approach? What do the differences tell you about what has changed in the propaganda environment between 1942 and the present? Consider: audience sophistication, media literacy, the political context of military operations, the availability of competing information.

The documentary convention: Both films present themselves as documentary — as records of reality rather than constructions of persuasion. How does each film use the convention of documentary authenticity? What formal choices signal "this is real" rather than "this is constructed"? How do those signals function in each film's persuasive strategy?

Group product: Each group produces a brief (600–800 words) comparative analysis identifying the shared grammar of military documentary propaganda across the two films and the specific ways that grammar has evolved. Groups present their findings in a 10-minute seminar presentation.

Chapter 14 | Propaganda, Power, and Persuasion