Rebecca's Thoughts

An edited version of this paper was published in Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

When someone is watching their favourite movie or playing their favourite videogame, they may not expect that the United States military is actively trying to recruit them. The person may also not expect that many depictions of the military, war, or conflict are curated in a way to make them feel more favourable towards the institution and, to put it plainly, make the military look cool. The United States military is a very large institution both domestically and internationally with about 750 bases in about 80 countries (Bandow, 2022). This does not depict the whole picture however, and the reality is that the United States has so many military bases, former and active, that it is hard to know which ones are still in service and where exactly they are all located (Johnny Harris, 2021). Due to the sheer size of the military and the types of activities it conducts, it is important that the people of the country are on board and perceive it as something that is important. The institutions of the military have an active mission to make the Armed Forces and war/conflict look appealing and framed in a good light. This is to get people’s support, but also works within the framework of recruitment, giving Americans a reason to join. This is something that can be actively observed in advertisement campaigns, recruitment, but also in everyday media like movies and videogames. 

The people’s perception of war in media is something that contributes to both the morale of a country and the image of the military and the people serving in it. If the military looks like an evil and bad institution, people will likely feel negatively towards it, and have no incentive or pull towards the organization. If this goes far enough, people could be incentivised to act against these institutions through either civil or political actions.  Whereas, if the military markets itself as a patriotic organization doing good things around the world, people will more likely view it as being important and would want to join and/or contribute to its efforts. When it comes to recruitment, people are more likely to join the military if they are familiar with the organization, see it as having a significant role in society (i.e., people within a given country view the military and its institutions as being good and in high regard), and see their values, personality, and/or goals reflected in its values or missions (Schreurs & Syed, 2011). This is where the image of war and the institutions that support it come into play and is what will be discussed throughout this paper. This paper will look at how pieces of media like movies and videogame play into people’s ideas and perception of the military/war and how that plays into recruitment. This paper will argue that media about war, whether it be sponsored by the military/pentagon or as an independent piece of “civilian” media, plays a role in making war look appealing and functioning untimely as a recruitment tool.

To begin this paper, it is important to understand what recruitment is and what it means. For the sake of this paper, recruitment will be defined by Alan M. Saks (2017) as:

“actions and activities taken by an organization in order to identify and attract individuals to the organization who have the capabilities to help the organization realize its strategic objectives. In particular, such activities should generate a pool of desirable candidates; enhance their interest in and attraction to the organization as an employer; and increase the probability that they will accept a job offer. (p. 48)”

This definition sees recruitment as being a targeted initiative with the purpose of attracting candidates to a job with success in mind. This definition is also inclusive of an organization’s objectives and how that can play into getting eligible and qualified individuals. This is something the military activity takes part in through a variety of methods and is constantly evolving the way it presents itself and war to the public. In Sejin Park, Zienab Shoieb, and Ronald E. Taylor article “Message Strategies in Military Recruitment Advertising,” (2016) they show that this idea can come directly in the form of advertisement, one of the main functions of recruitment, as the military can actively improve its image while also recruiting people. They go onto explain that this is somewhat of a two-for-one deal and allows the military to target specific demographics that may typically be under-represented while also making itself look like a viable and good decision.

Typically, when people think of military recruitment two different kinds come to mind (Park et al., 2016). They mention that the first type of recruitment is often informational advertisement. This is along the lines of “joining the Army to learn life skills,” “guaranteed pay and benefits every month,” and other appeals to money, education, travel, and skill development. The other type of recruitment mentioned is “transformational” and appeals to the ego, social, and sensory situations. This can come in the form of pictures of people parachuting out of planes with captions like “challenge yourself” or “last step towards becoming a man.” These advertisements are direct-to-consumer in the sense the military makes these for people to see and then react to. Since these apply to a person’s ego, they can make situations feel like a challenge that one has to do to prove their worth. Many of these advertisements appeal to conventional ideas of masculinity and the “tough” or “manly man” image is often associated with the military, particularly branches like the marines and army. This is not to say that women are not targeted in military recruitment campaigns but rather men are the targeted audience when it comes to the campaigns discussed in this paper. This can be seen in the types of media that are considered recruitment materials as they tend to be things conventionally marketed towards men: videogames and action movies. This discussion around targeted audience is not particularly relevant to the discussion in this paper, but it is important to keep in mind when analysing these works as men tend to be the heroes and main focal point in these works, whereas the women are typically side characters and/or love interests, ultimately supporting the main character rather than actively participate in the conflict.

Although informational advertisement plays a role in changing the image of war and people’s perception of the military, this paper is more concerned with the indirect ways the military recruits and plays with people’s perceptions with war and conflict. As previously mentioned, this usually comes in the form of movies and videogames. Movies and videogames can be made solely for recruitment purposes, Act of Valor (2012) is a Pentagon made feature-length film made and designed for recruitment, not all of them are (Powell, 2014). For the sake of simplicity this paper will focus on civilian made movies that received some or no help/support from the military. Although Act of Valor did get a theatrical release and did make money (Act of Valor 2012), civilian made movies have a larger impact on popular culture and are more accessible to the average person. Additionally, civilian made movies tend to have big and widely recognizable actors in them; people like Tom Cruse, Bradley Cooper, and Ben Affleck have all starred in war movies and received praise for their roles. This broadens the audience for people who want to see the movie and gets people who may not normally watch war or military focused movies to the theater.

 One of the main goals of recruitment is to influence a person’s behaviour. In the case of the military this behaviour is the act of enlisting or telling others to enlist. The military wants to persuade people to seek out recruitment officers to get more information to join. When people are familiar with an institution, they are more likely to join it (Schreurs & Syed 2011). Additionally, when people see that recruiters are willing to provide information about war or the military, people are more likely to sign up. Schreurs and Syed ultimately claim that recruitment activities influence the militaries attractiveness through influencing feeling of the militaries image and the image of war. One way to alter the image of the military (and by-proxy war), and make recruitment seem like a good idea, is through everyday media.

In Jacques Ellul paper “Categories of Propaganda” (1965) he defines sociological propaganda as being an “influence [that] aims much more at an entire style of life or even one particular course of behaviour. (p. 5-6)” This influence of behaviour is something that the military utilizes in media to improve the image of war and its surrounding institutions. A movie may not have an explicit pro-war stance, it may not even be a movie about war, but the military is able to utilize these pieces of media to further its agendas and create “unconscious” habits or reactions to war. This is something that can be done both deliberately or without meaning to, but either way contributes to the image of war and the military. This is also something that can develop into patriotism as movies about war tend to be reflective of the United States’ ideals and culture. When enough people see movie after movie perpetuating American patriotism, they become more and more patriotic. Ellul describes this connection as having an ideology develop after time into someone’s whole personality: he is American, they are pro-military. This is further solidified by constant reinforcement of ideals, and in the case of the military if war is said to be good enough times people will start believing that war is good (Ellul, 1965). Patriotism as a feeling, can develop into acts and further contribute to motivate people to enlist. It has been pointed out by some scholars that non-economic motives like patriotism are enough incentive for people to join the military (Padilla & Laner, 2001). 

This idea of patriotism is also reflected in movies through the characters in them. Many characters in film are named after or based on real life soldiers and a film is more likely to get military/pentagon support by doing so (Robb. 2004). Support is granted when a film’s producers portray people and activities in an “authentic” manner. This means that war and conflict are depicted in a way that aligns with how battles are actually fought and how personal would act under a variety of circumstances. This is something that is not always followed, as will be discussed later in this paper. The Transformers (2007-) movie franchise is partly funded by the military, and it would be safe to say that alien robots are not conventionally found on the battlefield nor are they authentic to a soldier’s experience of the military or war.  This portrayal of “authenticity” only goes so far and is at the discretion of the military/pentagon, with these institutions placing more importance on portraying a good and/or “cool” image over authenticity. This can be seen in films like Black Hawk Down (2001) and the renaming of characters as their “authentic” or in real life nicknames were seen as being uncool (Robb. 2004). Other changes can be seen in films like, Top Gun (1986) and Pearl Harbor (2001) and the portrayal of characters as love interests, their personalities, and general appearances. In Top Gun for an example, the U.S. Navy requested Kelly McGillis’ character be changed from an enlisted member of the military to an outside contractor. This decision was to make the movie more “accurate” but to also avoid fraternization between enlisted members of the military, something that is not allowed.

When it comes to the perception of war and the military things in scripts are often changed to avoid outcry or controversy from the military community and veterans. Projects are also often denied support from the military for depicting things deemed “unflattering (Powell, 2014).” Films supported by the military tend to have toned down violence and gore, in some cases minimal use of expletives and are usually somewhat sanitized. It is the job of the military/pentagon to decide what is okay to use and what changes must be made in a scrip to receive support (Robb. 2004). In Robb’s article movie producer Jerry Bruckheimer claims that many of the films he produced could not have been made without help and support of the military. This is not to say that good war movies can not be made without the help of the military, for an example the award-winning film The Hurt Locker (2008) was made without military assistance due to it being deemed as depicting an “unflattering picture of the military (Powell, 2014).” Despite this however, it is ultimately difficult to get these types of films made without the resources provided by the military. This is because military movies often require assets that are hard to get without military support. Although monetary funding is important in making movies, material assets are also important and are often loaned out to supported films. These assets include things like airplanes, tanks, weapon assets, personal, but also consultation on things like conflict strategy, and general appearance or attitude of solders and people. It would be hard, for an example, to make a movie like Top Gun without the airplanes and pilots to fly them.

This balance between accuracy and “things that make the military look good” is often towed and most of the time swings in favour of good publicity and maintaining a good public image. This extends beyond what could be considered typical military movies and onto general action or science fiction movies. The Transformers franchise has many ties and has received help from the military due to the plot of the movie having the United States as the setting and the place where the aliens attack (Löfflmann 2013). Löfflmann also describes the United States as acting as the hero of the movie and is the defenders of “freedom.” The military also plays a role in the story of the films with the use of technology like missiles, planes, but also personal, special combat units, and “citizen-soldiers.” The Transformers movies are indulgent when it comes to American military supremacy and the global influence it holds. The idea of freedom is further explored in these movies where modern ideas of warfare, ideology, and military powers are discussed.

The military has also co-opted movie advertisement in some cases, to use as recruitment. In 2011, the U.S. Army entered a deal with the movie X-Men: First Class (2011) running advertisement campaigns within movie trailers. This was apart of the “Army Strong” advertisement campaign that sought to “portray soldiers not just as heroes, but as superheroes.” (Allison, 2015) The advertisements saw real U.S. Army personal jumping out of planes along side footage from the film. Bonus footage/features from the film could also be found on the U.S. Army’s Facebook page, where people were encouraged to visit, in turn bringing more attention to the Army and allowing for direct access to information and where/how to enlist. This was in an attempt to sell the military, in this case the Army, to young Americans and get them excited about the military. This could also grow the idea of patriotism that was discussed earlier in this paper. If the people in the Army are considered and viewed as being superheroes then the U.S. Military must be good, important, and strong, thus should be supported and praised to the highest extent. This line of thought further solidifies the role and place of the military in society and everyday life.

It is not a controversial idea to say that movies like The Hurt Locker portray a more accurate depiction of war and the military over movies like the Transformers franchise but the message the two movies send are vastly different and that plays a role in both the image of war, the military, and also plays into recruitment and general morale. The Transformers franchise is an action-packed movie that perpetuates an idea of American exceptionalism, heroism, and the unwavering powers of the United States and its military. The Hurt Locker on the other hand, is raw and unflattering. The characters in the movie struggle, die, and characters ultimately make mistakes. Despite these differences, however, both movies still have the same themes of loyalty, dedication to one’s county, and an overall sense of Americanness. (Löfflmann 2013)

American film maker Oliver Stone said, “most films about the military are recruitment posters (Powell, 2014)” and while these films may not be explicitly recruitment films or advertisements, they act as a vessel for people to experience war and understand what it is like. This can be seen with the movie Top Gun and the military capitalizing off it by placing recruiters outside of theaters, leading to a noticeable increase in enlistments (Powell, 2014; MSMBC, 2022). One of the main roles of military recruiters is to get people to sign up for a new way of life, new rules, and identity. (Padilla & Laner, 2001) Civilian made/produced movies are an excellent way of introducing these ideals and lifestyles. Maj. Gen. Edward Thomas of the United States Air Force said that “movies like Top Gun could create a perspective of what [the military] does every day (MSMBC, 2022)” and that these types of movies get people excited about the military and particularly about Navy Aviation. In a NATO document for “A Proposed Model of Military Recruitment” (Schreurs & Syed, 2007) the organization said that “some anecdotal and preliminary research evidence that movies that portray the military in a favourable way (e.g., Top Gun) can have a serious impact on military recruitment.” The document goes onto say that films and videogames have the ability to “influence youth attitudes toward the organization” and that most individuals do not enlist as “blank slates” having gained knowledge of the military through external popular sources. When movies are made about the military, they are inherently educating people, to some degree, about war and conflict in addition to military structures and lifestyles.

Much like films and movies, the video game market is also home to military sponsored and inspired games. One of the most famous examples is America’s Army (2002-2008). This franchise originated as a research tool to investigate new technologies in developing real weapons. The game also functioned as a recruitment tool and public relations tool used by the U.S Army. (Derby, 2014) The game worked not to misrepresent war but as a piece of media that immersed people into the culture and universe of war and the military. The game gave prospects information about the military structure, operations, specialties, and other helpful knowledge. (United States Army and MOVES Institute, 2004) This is often considered as being “lifestyle marketing” with the goal of getting people to enlist in a new type of lifestyle. Another government funded game was Full Spectrum Warrior (2002). It was designed as a training/commercial video game that depicted “realistic contemporary warfare. (Allison, 2015)” Other games like Call of Duty (2003-) and Halo (2001-) are a good example of contemporary non-affiliated military games with quite a large impact on gaming culture. Much like movies, these game deal with both real life and science fiction topics. Neither of these franchises are affiliated with the military, but it is fair to say that the military does benefit from these games and the themes present in the.

All of these movies and videogames depict war in a way that seems enticing, good, and interesting. Although there seems to be a lack of information and research into the direct correlation between media and military recruitment, many scholars agree on the propagandistic appeal to movies and videogames and their role in recruitment. (Löfflmann 2013; Padilla & Laner, 2001) Video games and movies make war accessible to the average individual and open people’s eyes to what goes on through carefully curated and sanitized depictions that often ignore or negate the negative side effects of war. This is done on purpose with the intent to minimize the damage and negative side effects that can arise out of fighting in a war. If fighting in the military was depicted with the same violence and persecution  seen in real life, not only would the movies likely be unwatchable to the average movie goer, very few people would want to join and subject themselves to experiencing these tragedies for themselves. This is not done with the intent to deceive, any Google search about war can bring up its mass devastation and personal/public impacts, but rather make the cool aspects of the military look even cooler. As a side effect of this things like PTSD, mortality, and mental or physical health risks often get ignored, left out, or minimized in film (Powell, 2014) and videogames. (Derby, 2014) In the United States it is estimated that 11–20% of Iraq War and Afghanistan War veterans, upward to 10% of Gulf War veterans, and approximately 30% of Vietnam War veterans were affected by PTSD. (Powell, 2014) These numbers are likely not surprising given the attention the news media and veterans have given to the issue in recent years but is something rarely covered in film and videogames.

American Sniper (2014) is one of the few moves that comes to mind that deals with the negative impacts of war and life in the military. This movie is the opposite of a lot of other movies discussed in this paper, as its depiction of war is complicated, uncomfortable, indiscriminate, and gritty. Although not explicitly anti or pro-war, the movie does not leave much to the imagination when it comes to the real-life implications of war. It is also a movie not made in-part by the United States Military, rather all tactical and military support and advisement was done through third parties. (American Sniper 2016) This was done likely to avoid having to make changes to the script and the story the filmmakers wanted to tell. When movies are forced to sanitize their scripts for the sake of military support, they are unable to tell stories like these and express the negativities associated with war. These types of movies are also less likely to attract people to the military as they are quite bleak and make war and the military seem unwelcoming. Despite this, however, the movie American Sniper is not without glorification of its heroes and their accomplishments. The movie has been known to glorify some aspects of war, the people fighting, and violence but the overall message is not as uplifting or “safe” as movies like Top Gun or Pearl Harbor. This is not to say that American Sniper is the perfect example of what military movie should look like, this movie has many valid criticism and problems both in its subject manner but also in its depictions of people and places, and like the other media discussed in this paper should be looked at critically and with the understanding that it is ultimately propping up an agenda and is trying to sell viewers on something. Despite this however, American Sniper attempts shows the reality of conflict behind the aviator sunglasses and 1980’s rock music montages, discussing the effect war has on the individuals fighting the conflicts and not the organizations in charge of them.

Military recruitment like any other type of job recruitment takes part in the battle to find the best and most fitting talent. This often means making the job seem better than it normally is, glorifying certain aspects and negating others. Whether it is through designated advertisement, recruitment campaigns, or civilian made media, image and perception are important aspects in making war and the military look viable and a place someone would want to work. This is why most movies and videogames associated with the military tend to glorify war and life in the military. Although these types of media may not be designed with the intent to recruit, many still have a place in the enlistment process and play a role in why people want to join the military. Media like this is not a new thing and will probably continue in the future as long as movies and videogames keep being made. Selling something like war to the average person is hard but movies and videogame make it easier.

References

Act of Valor (2012) – IMDb (n.d.). IMDB. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2118157825/

Allison, T. (2015). How to Recognize a War Movie: the Contemporary Science-Fiction Blockbuster as Military Recruitment Film. In D. Cunningham (Ed.), A Companion to the War Film. Wiley- Blackwell.

American Sniper (2014) – IMDb. (n.d.). IMDB. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

Bandow, D. (2022). 750 Bases in 80 Countries Is Too Many for Any Nation: Time for the US to Bring Its Troops Home. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/commentary/750-bases-80-countries-too-many-any-nation-time-us-bring-its-troops-home#

Derby, J. (2014). Violent Video Games and the Military: Recruitment, Training, and Treating Mental Disability. Art Education, 67(3), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2014.11519269

Ellul, J. (1965). Categories of Propaganda. In K. Kellen & J. Lerner (Trans.), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (pp. 61–87). Knopf.

Harris, J. (2021, February 24). The US Military is EVERYWHERE. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YR2TxHkb4c

Löfflmann, G. (2013). Hollywood, the Pentagon, and the cinematic production of national security. Critical Studies on Security, 1(3), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2013.820015

MSMBC. (2022, June 7). How “Top Gun” Sequel Could Help Boost Military Recruitment. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJWHSEVyNV4

Padilla, P. A., & Laner, M. R. (2001). Trends in Military Influences on Army Recruitment: 1915?1953. Sociological Inquiry, 71(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2001.tb01124.x

Park, S., Shoieb, Z., & Taylor, R. E. (2016). Message Strategies in Military Recruitment Advertising. Armed Forces & Society, 43(3), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327×16642037

Powell, L. (2014). Glorification of the Military in Popular Culture and the Media. In M. C. Forte (Ed.), Download Good Intentions. Norms And Practices Of Imperial Humanitarianism (pp. 167–184). Alert Press.

Robb, D. L. (2004). Operation Hollywood : how the Pentagon shapes and censors the movies. Prometheus Books.

Saks, A. M. (2017). The Impracticality of Recruitment Research. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), Handbook of Personnel Selection (pp. 47–72). Blackwell Publishing. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781405164221

Schreurs, B. H. J., & Syed, F. (2011). Battling the war for talent: an application in a military context. Career Development International, 16(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111107801

Schreurs, B., & Syed, F. (2007). 4A – A Proposed Model of Military Recruitment. NATO. https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Technical%20Reports/RTO-TR-HFM-107/$$TR-HFM-107-ALL.pdf

United States Army, & MOVES Institute. (2004). AMERICA’S ARMY PC Game Vision and Realization (M. Davis, Ed.). http://mikezyda.com/resources/pubs/YerbaBuenaAABooklet2004.pdf

---