mediaeducationculture

Visual Rhetoric: How TV Costuming and Casting Affect Portrayals of Presidents

UUnknown

2026-02-16

11 min read

How costume, casting, and staging together shape on-screen presidents—teachable methods, 2026 trends, and classroom-ready assignments.

Visual Rhetoric: How TV Costuming and Casting Affect Portrayals of Presidents

Hook: Students and teachers often find that authoritative presidential information is scattered—but one place where presidents are repeatedly rewritten is television and film. The choices made by costume designers, casting directors, and production teams shape public perception of leadership in ways that are teachable, repeatable, and measurable. This guide gives media studies classrooms concrete methods to analyze, compare, and teach those choices with side-by-side visual examples and classroom-ready assignments.

Why this matters in 2026

Across late 2024–2026 the screen industry accelerated two trends that directly affect presidential portrayals: genre-blurring political dramas and rapid adoption of production technologies such as LED volumes, advanced prosthetics, and AI-assisted de-aging. At the same time, casting practice has shifted—both in language and practice—thanks to industry upheavals and streaming platform strategies. (A notable tech shift in Jan 2026 even used the phrase "casting is dead" to describe a platform's feature change, highlighting how the word casting now straddles both technical and human choices.) These developments make visual rhetoric analysis more urgent: modern productions can change an actor’s face, voice, or environment while retaining intentional costume and blocking choices that convey presidential authority, warmth, menace, or ambiguity.

Big picture: How costume, casting, and staging work together

At the highest level, three departments combine to create a presidential image on-screen:

Costume design—tailoring, color palette, fabric, insignia, and accessories (ties, lapel pins, glasses) that signal power, accessibility, or untrustworthiness.
Casting—the actor’s age, race, gender, physicality, star persona, and vocal timbre; each choice brings cultural baggage and expectations.
Staging (production design + cinematography)—set dressing, lighting, camera angles, blocking, and visual hierarchy that position the president in relation to others and to the audience.

Together these elements form a visual argument: they don't just dress a character; they make claims about legitimacy, competence, temperament, and ideology.

Key visual variables to teach and measure

When building a lesson or analysis rubric, focus on measurable, repeatable variables that students can observe and quantify:

Silhouette and tailoring—Does the suit have broad or narrow shoulders? Is it fitted or boxy? Presidential silhouettes often rely on classic, conservative cuts to suggest stability. A slimmer, modern cut can imply charisma and approachability.
Color and pattern—Navy and charcoal signal tradition and restraint; lighter grays and blues can read as approachable; stark blacks can read as authoritarian. Patterned ties (stripes vs. small geometric) and visible textures (wool vs. synthetic sheen) also communicate values.
Accessories and insignia—Lapel pins, cufflinks, pocket squares, and watches imply attention to detail or vanity. The presence and placement of a flag, a seal, or a medal changes perceived authenticity.
Makeup and hair—Subtle grooming choices (stubble vs. clean-shaven; controlled vs. tousled hair) align with narratives of fatigue, candor, or control. Advanced prosthetics or de-aging affect believability.
Actor attributes—Age, height, body language, and known public persona. A famously comedic actor cast as president brings a different intertext than an actor associated with gravitas.
Lighting and lensing—High-key soft lighting suggests transparency; low-key chiaroscuro suggests secrecy. Wide-angle lenses can distort or dominate; long lenses compress and create intimacy.
Blocking and scale—Where the president stands relative to flags, podiums, or advisors matters. Elevated platforms and central frames confer authority; off-center framing can suggest illegitimacy or vulnerability.

Side-by-side visual examples (how to set them up in class)

Teachers should create a visual gallery with paired screenshots so students can compare variable-by-variable. Below are suggested pairs to analyze; each pair comes with the specific variables to observe and a short teaching prompt.

Pair A: The Idealist vs. The Pragmatist

Example pairing: a Sorkin-style president (e.g., The West Wing) vs. a Machiavellian leader (e.g., House of Cards).

Costume: Compare lapel width, tie pattern, and jacket fit.
Casting: Note actor age and vocal cadence.
Staging: Observe camera placement—are we at eye level, low angle, or high angle?

Teaching prompt: How do tailoring and color choices support the show’s rhetorical argument about governance? Consider the production context—how shows are pitched and the platform strategies that reward certain visual shorthand (see lessons on pitching bespoke series to platforms and how promotional programs shape expectations).

Pair B: Realist vs. Revisionist—Depicting a Historical President

Example pairing: a biopic (e.g., Lincoln) vs. a speculative or revisionist depiction in a political drama.

Costume: Authentic period fabrics vs. modernized costume choices that signal the director's interpretive stance.
Casting: Compare physical mimicry (prosthetics, makeup) versus casting that relies on an actor’s performative choices.
Staging: Examine how the set dressing anchors the time period versus metaphorical staging that abstracts.

Teaching prompt: What does historical authenticity in costuming add to the film’s claim to truth? When does stylization serve a clearer rhetorical purpose? Use AI-assisted scene breakdowns as a teachable moment to compare what machines tag versus what students observe—especially in cases where facial work (de-aging, deepfakes) is prominent (deepfake-era lessons).

Pair C: Gender and the Office

Example pairing: a male fictional president vs. a female president (e.g., scenes from shows with gender-swapped presidencies). Use Claire Underwood (House of Cards) or Selina Meyer (Veep) against male counterparts.

Costume: Compare suiting silhouettes, skirt vs. pants choices, and the use of jewelry.
Casting: Discuss how gendered expectations change camera angles and blocking.
Staging: How does the director stage patrician spaces for a woman vs. a man?

Teaching prompt: How do costume and staging reinforce or subvert gendered expectations of leadership? Consider production notes and how collaborative promotions (for example, platform-specific marketing and badge-style collaborative programs) shape audience frames.

Micro case studies and class-ready annotations

Below are three short case studies with direct classroom activities.

Case study 1: The power tie is a myth—context matters

Observation: Across multiple shows, a red tie is often labeled a "power tie," but its meaning changes depending on lighting and cut. In a dimly lit scene with low angles, a red tie reads aggressive; in a bright, evenly lit daytime shot it can signal confidence.

Activity: Provide three screenshots of the same red tie under different lighting and camera angles. Ask students to annotate perceived traits (aggression, competence, warmth) and defend their annotations with visual evidence. Consider using safe, public-facing embeds or trailers rather than full scenes; use structured metadata techniques when presenting live or streamed clips to students (JSON-LD snippets for live streams).

Case study 2: Prosthetics vs. performance—where do viewers focus?

Observation: Modern productions use prosthetics and makeup to recreate real presidents, but research in 2024–2026 shows audiences still anchor meaning on costumes and gesture more than minute facial reproduction. Practical tests reveal that when costumes and staging are authentic, viewers accept imperfect prosthetics more readily.

Activity: Screen two short clips of the same historical speech: one with stronger costuming and staging but weaker prosthetics, and one with detailed prosthetics but plain costuming. Have students measure perceived authenticity using a Likert scale and write a short rationale. If you’re teaching short-form units or micro-episodes, consider how condensed formats demand even clearer visual shorthand (short-form engagement lessons).

Case study 3: Casting against type as rhetorical device

Observation: Casting a comedian or a visibly youthful actor as president can be a deliberate rhetorical move: it reframes the presidency as relatable or naïve. Conversely, type-casting a gravitas-heavy actor may generate credibility but limit nuance.

Activity: Assign a short essay: pick a recent show where the actor's previous roles conflict with their presidential role. How does that intertext influence viewer trust? Pair this with a module on platform promotion and how shows are sold to audiences (lessons from platform pitching).

Classroom assignments and rubrics

Here are ready-made assignments and scoring rubrics to bring these ideas into the classroom.

Assignment 1: Visual Rhetoric Shot Deck (Group)

Deliverable: 10-image shot deck with annotations (one paragraph per image) analyzing costume, casting, and staging. Include timestamps and 3–4 comparative bullet points for each image.

Rubric (100 points):

Accuracy of observation: 30 points
Depth of rhetorical interpretation: 30 points
Use of production vocabulary: 20 points
Clarity and citation of sources/timestamps: 20 points

Assignment 2: Re-costume a Scene (Individual)

Deliverable: Reimagine one five-minute scene by changing costume palette and staging. Submit a storyboard with two alternative looks and a 750-word justification.

Teaching objective: Demonstrate how costume decisions alter narrative interpretation.

Assignment 3: Casting Rubric and Pitch (Pair)

Deliverable: Create a casting rubric (criteria such as vocal timbre, age, star persona, physicality) and pitch a cast for a fictional president. Include a short pitch video explaining choices.

Practical tips for capturing side-by-side visuals legally and effectively

Teachers must respect copyright while building visual galleries. Use these strategies:

Use fair use for criticism and teaching—capture brief clips and cite source and timestamp.
When possible, link to official streaming timestamps or embed trailers that are public-facing (structured data for live embeds).
Create permission slips for student uploads if work will be published beyond the classroom.
Use stills under fair use with annotations and minimal cropping; always include source credits.

Tools and workflows (2026-ready)

Recent production and analysis tools make teaching visual rhetoric more interactive in 2026:

Frame-by-frame annotation tools—Cloud-based apps let students mark specific pixels, note costume elements, and share layers for comparison.
AI-assisted scene breakdown—Use machine tagging to identify clothing colors, object placement, and face tracks, then have students verify and critique automated tags (a teachable moment about AI reliability; see discussions about deepfake-era machine behavior).
Collaborative galleries—Cloud galleries with side-by-side viewer mode are now standard in many LMS platforms; pair with timestamped citations and platform promotion best practices (collaborative promotion examples).
Virtual production examples—Show behind-the-scenes tech like LED volumes and digital set extensions; students should identify where costuming must compensate for digital staging.

Assessment: What to evaluate beyond "looks"

Good visual rhetoric analysis weighs both form and function. Consider these assessment dimensions:

Rhetorical coherence: Do costume, casting, and staging consistently support the narrative claim?
Intertextual sensitivity: Does the analysis account for the actor’s off-screen persona and audience expectations?
Evidence-based argument: Are claims backed by timestamps, production notes, or interviews?
Ethical consideration: Does the piece consider representational effects, such as race, gender, or disability portrayals?

2026 trends teachers should highlight in discussion

Bring current industry context into class debates. In 2026, four trends shape how presidents are portrayed on screen:

Diversity and countercasting: More productions cast actors who defy historical type—racially diverse presidents, or gender-swapped roles—forcing audiences to re-evaluate institutional symbolism.
Technological realism: Prosthetics and AI de-aging create new expectations for facial accuracy, which redistributes rhetorical weight onto costume and staging when facial work is imperfect (see analysis of deepfake-era shifts).
Streaming-era brevity: Shorter seasons and serialized formats prioritize iconic visual shorthand—costumes must communicate character quickly (short-form engagement).
Second-screen engagement: With second-screen apps and interactive galleries (even as platform features evolve), educational galleries and behind-the-scenes extras have become crucial for public understanding of production choices. Teachers should also be ready to host or link moderated public conversations about promotional materials (hosting safe, moderated live streams).

"Costume and casting are not decorative; they are argument—designed to persuade audiences who bring real-world expectations."

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Avoid these mistakes when designing lessons or writing analyses:

Over-attributing intent: Designers may make pragmatic choices (budget, availability) that appear ideological. Interview notes or production documents help avoid guesswork.
Ignoring context: A suit that reads as authoritarian in one scene may be neutral in another due to lighting and blocking.
Relying solely on visual shorthand: Combine visual analysis with script and performance study to build robust arguments.
Failing to note audience variance: Different demographic groups read visual cues differently—include survey-based evidence when possible.

Actionable takeaways for classrooms

Create a 3-variable rubric (costume, casting, staging) and use it to rate three presidential portrayals—compare aggregate class scores and discuss variance.
Assign a re-costuming exercise where students must defend how new costumes change the rhetorical claim of a scene.
Bring production interviews into class—ask students to identify where practical constraints affected rhetorical outcomes.
Use AI tagging as a critical tool: have students correct machine labels and reflect on what the AI missed.

Further resources and multimedia suggestions (podcast, lectures, galleries)

To expand lessons, pair your syllabus with multimedia resources:

Podcast episode: Interview a costume designer who worked on a political drama—ask about fabric choices and symbol design.
Video lecture: A short masterclass on camera angles and power dynamics in political scenes (studio lighting and staging).
Gallery: A curated side-by-side image gallery of five presidents across fiction and historical drama, each annotated with timestamped notes. For public-facing embeds and live snippets, follow structured-data best practices (JSON-LD for live content).

Closing synthesis and classroom-ready checklist

In 2026, the visual rhetoric of presidential portrayals is more layered than ever. Advances in prosthetics and virtual production mean costume and staging now often do the heavy lifting of rhetorical clarity. Casting decisions—especially those that challenge historical expectations—can prompt productive classroom conversations about representation and institutional symbolism.

Use this checklist to prepare a lesson:

Choose two scenes for a side-by-side gallery (contrasting variables).
Prepare a 3-variable rubric: costume, casting, staging.
Collect production interviews or designer notes if available.
Set an assignment: re-costume, re-cast, or re-stage and justify.
Include an assessment component that measures rhetorical coherence and evidence use.

Call to action

If you’re a teacher: download our free Visual Rhetoric Lesson Pack—complete with rubrics, slide decks, and a sample gallery—to run a two-week unit on presidential portrayals. If you’re a student: try the 48-hour re-costume challenge and upload your deck for peer review. Subscribe to our podcast series for interviews with costume designers, casting directors, and cinematographers working on political dramas in 2025–2026.

Start building your gallery and lesson plan today—and teach your students to see how costume, casting, and staging together shape the stories we believe about leadership.

Unknown

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.