So I recall seeing something about this chick shilling the old movie 12 Angry Men, talking about how good it was. I thought, what the heck, haven't seen it. It's a classic. May well dig into why she's bringing it up.
It's a total shit pill of a movie. 12 jurors sit in a room to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy that allegedly killed his father. They're all convinced he's guilty except for one lone dissenter which uses logic and doubt to turn bigots, unsophisticated, cocky white guys to the not-guilty vote. First he flips a quiet old man, then a weak beta, then a slum guy, then a foreigner… all the while each lectures what would amount to conservative American "deplorable" stereotypes. This is 1957 we're talking about. The protagonist lone dissenter uses logic to breakdown the intricacies of a court room environment (as an architect). The rationale at the start is purely fabricated by the writer of the script, the unique knife murder weapon not actually being unique due to the protagonist finding and buying the identical cheap knife.
It's as if the writer armed his hero with all the tools necessary and gave the stereotypes he was attacking, nothing but weaknesses.
Basically Gillan twatted the movie to remind people to doubt conservative accusations of guilt and to distrust the court process due to the weaknesses of the human variable.
They're trying to maintain faith in the establishment media.