Movie Review: '12 Angry Men'
by The Shadow
1 March 2005
This 1957 Hollywood flick starred Henry Fonda (Jane's old man) as the jury foreman in the Murder One trial of a teenaged (?) son accused of stabbing his father to death. The movie (from the point where I tuned in) takes place entirely in a jury room. When I began watching, the jurors were 9-3 in favor of Guilty. (Ultimately, they would be 12-0 in favor of Not Guilty.)
While there is a lot of anger displayed among the all-male jurors, Hero Henry Fonda is definitely not one of the (12) angry men. Fonda remains serene throughout the deliberations; after all, he is always on the side of right, that is, a not-guilty verdict.
The accused, apparently a negro, had had his face slapped by his father and, as a result, was heard to say that he would kill him. The son was later seen by a woman in an apartment across the street stabbing the father around midnight, and the downstairs neighbor testified that he saw the boy running down the stairs seconds after he heard the father fall in the apartment above his.
The son showed up back at the family's apartment about 3 AM, with the police already there. He said that he had been to the movies; yet, he wasn't able to tell a cop what movie he had seen.
Here are some excerpts/scenes from this drama:
1. The most WASPy-looking juror, the only guy wearing a suit jacket, is asked by another juror if he ever sweats.
2. A juror with a fake German-Jewish accent lectures another juror on his responsibilities as an American, even with the other juror voting the same way he does, namely, not guilty. [The producers may have missed how Jewish this actually is -- not even taking 'yes' for an answer.] Obviously, the foreigner is meant to be a "Holocaust" survivor who appreciates America much more than real Americans do.
3. The real American then accuses the Jew of "coming to this country and then telling us how to live" (which obviously is quite true but at the same time, we know, clearly wrong).
4. One of the jurors favoring a guilty verdict says, "these people (presumably negroes) have no respect for life, etc." (Meanwhile, it is agreed among the jurors that the kid carried a switchblade.)
5. The last juror to hold out for a guilty verdict is shown to have done so not because of the evidence but because he hated the way his own sons had treated him (very Freudian).
6. At one point, the effects of "prejudice" are explained to the other jurors by St. Henry.
7. One of the juror holdouts disparagingly uses the term "bleeding hearts" in describing the high-minded jurors favoring a not-guilty verdict.
8. Other Jewglish terms used included "democracy" and, I believe, "disadvantaged" (if not, then a synonym).
If "12 Angry Men" sounds a lot like "Trial," that's because it is. In both courthouse dramas, there is a capital crime with probably not quite enough evidence to support the death penalty. That small measure of doubt is used by the producers to support the movies' principal message, viz., that minority minors are unjustly convicted of crimes even in situations where there is (a) plenty of evidence in support of a conviction and (b) no other suspect. The reason for the injustices is not insufficient evidence but prejudice on the part of White males.
Both movies were:
1. anti-capital punishment
4. anti-White (with the proviso that Whites are okay once they've been reeducated by Jews).
In summary, in each movie we have a minority "yout" facing execution for a crime he probably, but not quite certainly, committed -- a Jewish conundrum posed for the purpose of confusing and ultimately converting the goy mind.
[As far back as 1916, the Jews actually made a movie called "Intolerance." No wonder so many White people can't allow themselves to see what's been going on all these years. It's almost unbelievable.]