Law Revue, Law Revue Video Contest, Law Schools, Videos

Law Revue Video Contest: Honorable Mentions
(And a reminder to vote!)

There’s just one day left to vote in ATL’s Second Annual Law Revue Video contest. Check out the seven finalists — from Columbia, Northwestern, NYU, SMU, Wash. U., Windsor, and Berkeley — and vote before midnight on Thursday.

Columbia and Northwestern are currently in a fierce competition for the crown. There have been some not-so-funny allegations of rigging the vote, so we’ve asked our friends at Vizu to monitor the poll and flag any suspicious activity. So keep the voting clean, folks.

We’ve already given out dishonorable mentions. There were three other videos that we would like to footnote, which just missed the cut for final contenders.

GWU and University of Chicago-Kent made this list, as did one of the schools among our finalists…

Here are the three videos that earned honorable mentions:


KASH: I am not a fan of scatological humor. I assigned this video to our “Crap” category, but I was the lone dissenting judge on this one.
ELIE: I’ve already logged my objections to ripping off something that was funnier in the original. At least they thought of a different song to rip off. At first, my general objection to fecal humor made me not like this video. But, conceptually, shitting in your pants is precisely what you should be doing if you are saddled with top-20 debt without top-20 job prospects.
LAT: Like Kash, I generally don’t go for scat humor. But I thought that this video, while gross, was very funny in parts. Some of the lyrics were ingenious. So, honorable mention.


ELIE: Brilliant concept. Really, I don’t know why we had to wait for Chicago-Kent to think of it. Sadly the execution left a lot to be desired. You could have/should have gotten loads of fun out other Scalia citing to Holmes while Holmes had clearly no conception of how the world worked in the modern age. I mean, it’s like the kids these days don’t even understand the problem with originalism. In any event, I loved the way everybody poked fun at Easterbrook. I hated the length of the video. I have no clue who the Southern guy was supposed to be, but I liked his style.
KASH: Two inspired jokes in this video: Justice Scalia repeatedly pranking Judge Posner, and Justice Holmes being really, really old. Overall, though, there were a few too many judges living in this house.
LAT: My obsession with federal judges is well-documented, so just the subject matter of this video scored huge points with me. The absurdist humor was also excellent. My two quibbles: (a) the length of this video, and (b) the actor who plays Scalia looks more like a young Rehnquist.


KASH: Clever concept. I’d donate.
ELIE: This is the classic one-joke sketch. They had a joke, but they didn’t have a follow-up or any kind of a kicker. So after you got the one joke — which in fairness was a good one — the short video just dragged on. By the end, your mind has fully processed the solitary joke, and you are just left there dissatisfied by the whole process, even though you chuckled at the original joke. If it sounds like I’m describing every Saturday Night Live skit, I am. And no, that’s not a compliment.
LAT: Cute, funny idea. “Will Bluebook for Friendship” = WIN. Even if it wasn’t a finalist — a different NYU video made the cut instead — this was a deserving contender.

Check out the 2010 Law Revue Contest finalists and vote here.

Earlier: Prior ATL Law Revue Video Contest posts

(hidden for your protection)

comments sponsored by

Show all comments