Thank you for this. I'd like to think for each thread of Marxist propaganda you help me untangle eventually the entire tapestry of indoctrination will unravel. I watched this in a class in middle school, then in a class in high school, then in a class in college. When my girlfriend, now wife, said she had not watch this, we rented it and watched it together.
It’s the same with “classic” books such as Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lord of the Flies. Lefties, led mostly by jews, only add such stories to the canon in order to critique and undermine the West, not because they are great literature.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a lot worse. The message is that if you ever think blacks could possibly be dangerous, you're a horrible person. It's a similar message to 12 Angry Men, but far more overt and even more anti-white.
Thanks man. This has long been one of my favourite movies, though I haven't watched it in over a decade and have gone through a substantial ideological transformation since.
When I saw the title to this article I immediately thought of the framing of juror #3. Ah ha, I said to myself. Yes. The overweight gammon racist holdout. This has been a long overdue revision of my attitude to this film. Thank you again for bringing it up.
I wonder, has it been suggested as one for you and Morgoth to cover? I suspect it has.
I recently did some correspondence schooling to grab a few missing high school credits, and in my "English" course (in reality a bald-faced "how to be on the right side of history" course) there was a unit on film analysis mostly revolving around this movie. At first I thought I was in for a break from having to creatively avoid writing essays about race and gender issues because I remembered enjoying this movie before my political awakening. In the context of this course with an obvious political agenda though it become very hard not to notice that this was a movie about a handsome and charismatic man verbally confusing a lot of normal and sensible people into letting a foreign murderer go free, and which takes pains to make bias against violent outsiders look like low status cringe or the result of some mental derangement.
The small amount of actual film analysis taught in that unit also made it clear that every the way the camera is used is intended to evoke certain unconscious feelings in the audience. Making people look heroic, or intimidating, or weak and small in order to nudge viewers into feeling exactly how the director wants them to when presented with each different character and the perspective they represent. The whole experience gave me a new appreciation for how movies have the power to slip past the rational mind and install certain attitudes without the viewer noticing.
They also had me read Shawshank Redemption for the final project, I enjoyed it but it makes me scratch my head as to what agenda they're pushing by having that as an option on their reading list.
What Sidney Lumet did to the "bigoted" jurors in TAM is similar to what Norman Lear did to his Archie Bunker character in the TalmudVision series, All in the Family. Archie was frequently correct, yet Lear and his team of jewish writers managed to make him look stupid for it.
Bigoted juror #10 [Ed Begley] is naturally the most physically unappealing in the array of actors. The film is a popular "First time watch" reaction video on YouTube with youthful reactors never calling out the heavy handed messaging
Thank you for this. I'd like to think for each thread of Marxist propaganda you help me untangle eventually the entire tapestry of indoctrination will unravel. I watched this in a class in middle school, then in a class in high school, then in a class in college. When my girlfriend, now wife, said she had not watch this, we rented it and watched it together.
It’s the same with “classic” books such as Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lord of the Flies. Lefties, led mostly by jews, only add such stories to the canon in order to critique and undermine the West, not because they are great literature.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a lot worse. The message is that if you ever think blacks could possibly be dangerous, you're a horrible person. It's a similar message to 12 Angry Men, but far more overt and even more anti-white.
Oh, that reminds me of another one: Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Thanks man. This has long been one of my favourite movies, though I haven't watched it in over a decade and have gone through a substantial ideological transformation since.
When I saw the title to this article I immediately thought of the framing of juror #3. Ah ha, I said to myself. Yes. The overweight gammon racist holdout. This has been a long overdue revision of my attitude to this film. Thank you again for bringing it up.
I wonder, has it been suggested as one for you and Morgoth to cover? I suspect it has.
Very good. There is this other article that also covers the history of left-wing subversion in America: https://open.substack.com/pub/magane/p/elizabeth-dilling-mothers-movement?r=2354sx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I recently did some correspondence schooling to grab a few missing high school credits, and in my "English" course (in reality a bald-faced "how to be on the right side of history" course) there was a unit on film analysis mostly revolving around this movie. At first I thought I was in for a break from having to creatively avoid writing essays about race and gender issues because I remembered enjoying this movie before my political awakening. In the context of this course with an obvious political agenda though it become very hard not to notice that this was a movie about a handsome and charismatic man verbally confusing a lot of normal and sensible people into letting a foreign murderer go free, and which takes pains to make bias against violent outsiders look like low status cringe or the result of some mental derangement.
The small amount of actual film analysis taught in that unit also made it clear that every the way the camera is used is intended to evoke certain unconscious feelings in the audience. Making people look heroic, or intimidating, or weak and small in order to nudge viewers into feeling exactly how the director wants them to when presented with each different character and the perspective they represent. The whole experience gave me a new appreciation for how movies have the power to slip past the rational mind and install certain attitudes without the viewer noticing.
They also had me read Shawshank Redemption for the final project, I enjoyed it but it makes me scratch my head as to what agenda they're pushing by having that as an option on their reading list.
What Sidney Lumet did to the "bigoted" jurors in TAM is similar to what Norman Lear did to his Archie Bunker character in the TalmudVision series, All in the Family. Archie was frequently correct, yet Lear and his team of jewish writers managed to make him look stupid for it.
Great movie. Had my older children start watching it.
It’s interesting that one of the jurors was so inspired by the experience that he went on to become a medical examiner.
My wife has worn glasses all her life, and when she wakes — even to use the bathroom — she immediately dons them. It’s reflex.
Bigoted juror #10 [Ed Begley] is naturally the most physically unappealing in the array of actors. The film is a popular "First time watch" reaction video on YouTube with youthful reactors never calling out the heavy handed messaging
I saw a great video essay a few years ago that said much the same thing.
https://youtu.be/JTxf4P97gho?si=1oYsMKsPvGWFqs6_
But also, Sidney Lumet's book Making Movies is the best book about directing I've ever read. It's unfortunate what he did with that skill.
Good article, especially for someone who's never seen the movie. Thnaks.