Best Lawyer Videos

The Three Stooges are America?s physical comedy masters

Physical comedic actors, Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly Howard made legendary reputations as America?s funny men, “The Three Stooges.” Director, Preston Black led the three comedians in Columbia Pictures’ 1936 film, “Disorder in the Court.” The black and white short film depicts one laughable moment after another, as the three stumble, bumble, fall, trip, and confuse otherwise simple and seemingly clear instructions given to them in the courtroom during Curly’s direct and cross-examinations as a key trial witness.

Information in this post gathered in association with a California mesothelioma attorney

Curly exhibits disorder in the court when taking the witness oath

“Curly’s Disorder in the Court” depicts the havoc that the three actors, and in particular, Curly, is able to wreak in the courtroom. The Stooges are actually a high-profile murder trial’s key witnesses. The film’s plot focuses upon identifying the party who murdered victim, Kirk Robbin. One of the murder mystery’s most famous and hilarious clips is the scene where Curly is sworn in before he even takes the witness stand.

In that funny film clip, Curly struggles to complete a simple task of approaching the witness stand and taking the oath in a momentous and legendary manner. First, he struggles to get through the gate to the witness stand because it is locked. Second, he can?t seem to coordinate his hands to remove his top hat, hold his cane, raise his right hand, and put his left hand on the Bible to take the oath. He lacks enough hands and instead of putting down the cane or hat, he repeatedly fumbles and bumbles with both objects. Third, he cannot comprehend, let alone repeat or affirm the oath the bailiff is administering to him about stating only the truth during his pending witness testimony.

The bailiff and judge are not amused by Curly’s courtroom antics but the audience laughs regardless

In response, the bailiff and even more importantly, the presiding judge are clearly less than amused. Fortunately, the audience’s laughter results regardless of Curly’s maturity and composure (or lack thereof) exhibited in the courtroom.

The Simpsons cartoon episode, “A World Without Lawyers,” takes place during a meal-time conversation between title character Bart Simpson and a less-than-stellar, inept, and money-hungry community attorney named Lionel Hutz. Despite his tarnished reputation, Hutz has been hired on several past occasions by the Simpsons to represent them in their legal woes.

Videos on Best Lawyer Videos were chosen based on research made possible by a Miami divorce attorney.

During the characters? conversation, Bart remarks to Hutz that when he (Bart) grows up, he wants to be a lawyer just like Hutz. The irony and satire in that statement is not lost on The Simpsons? astute audience. Its fans are well aware that Hutz is an incompetent attorney, desperate for clients and cases, with a losing record, financially and ethically challenged, and grasping at any opportunity to earn money in his shopping-mall legal practice.

In response to Bart?s comment about wanting to emulate Hutz, the attorney happily acknowledges the compliment, telling Bart that if there is one thing the world needs, surely it is more lawyers. Hutz is so lacking in ethics and morals, and so utterly lacking in perspective, that he would like to see many more depraved persons like himself practicing law in the world. The satire?s exaggeration continues with a rhetorical question posed by Hutz to Bart, asking if Bart is able to imagine the world without lawyers. While posing the question to Bart, Hutz shivers and shudders in an exaggerated fashion at the ominous prospect of a lawyerless world.

Just after this exchange between Bart and Hutz, the cartoon cuts to a utopian scene of the world supposedly without lawyers. The image is one of skipping, smiling, dancing, frolicking people, holding hands, floating over grassy fields arched in rainbows, smiling broadly and lovingly at one another, and singing sappy songs about world peace and love. This scene is a harsh dichotomy to Hutz? shivering exterior and imagined discomfort in a world without lawyers.
The cartoon series? depiction of lawyers is exaggeratedly unfavorable, although humorous nonetheless.

Monty Python’s Court Charades is a classic courtroom scene taken from the Flying Circus, Season 2, Episode 15, entitled “The Spanish Inquisition.” The nearly-slapstick scene was conceived, written, and performed by British actors Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, and Terry Gilliam.

Information and data contained in this post gathered in association with a San Antonio Personal Injury Attorney at The Bates Law Firm.

The clip takes place in the Central Criminal Court. The courtroom is painstakingly formal. Attorneys, court personnel, and the judge are dressed in wigs, collars, and robes. The podiums are elevated. Formal, heavy, dark paneling lines walls. The language is stilted. It’s British in all elements.

Court Charades is a quintessential Monty Python clip. (To be fair, it is somewhat of an acquired taste that is not suitable to all and not a favorite for everyone.) The scene opens with the jury foreman being asked to deliver the jury’s verdict. Instead of making a verbal recitation, as would be expected, the scene surprises the audience with a fresh, comedic twist. The childish, immature, and silly charades game erupts, with the foreman acting out the jury’s verdict. After several minutes of struggle, the verdict of not guilty is guessed and the resolved case closes.

When the second defendant is called, the prop of a giant ant is a little over the top in cheesy, cheeky humor. The case involves a racier and more lewd theme as well. For a few moments, the exchange between the judge, who is the defendant in this case, and the presiding judge is a humorous challenge of authority. The scene definitely mocks the seriousness and formality of the English court system, while giving the audience several enjoyable laughs.

Like most of that decade, 1989′s GhostBusters II was full of special effects, witty punch lines and rudimentary technology. The courtroom scene opens with Judge Stephen ‘The Hammer’ Wexler admonishing counsel to stick to the facts in their cases, avoid malarkey, and leave ghost stories to kids because the law does not recognize ghosts. The movie audience knew those words would haunt (pun intended) and waited in suspense for the other shoe to drop.

The movie’s paranormal investigators, Dr. Peter Venkman (played by Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (played by Dan Aykroyd), and Dr. Egon Spengler (played by Harold Ramis) are on trial for violating their restraining order by continuing to chase down ghosts. The ghosts de jour are those of the infamous brothers and former convicts Tony and Nunzio Scoleri. The busters’ wimpy, whiny defense counsel, Louis Tully (played by Rick Moranis) proves wholly ineffective with tangential direct examinations, harmful revelations, and witness coaching sessions. His insecure demeanor and misguided legal strategies sharply contrast to the direct, aggressive approach of the tough and stern female prosecutor.

Wexler’s bench ruling was more Hollywood-esque than realistic, full of anger, yelling, and lost composure. The judge embellished his condemnation of the investigators’ actions, delivering a harsh sentence that included hefty fines and prison. Immediately upon the judge’s conclusion of his ruling, the ghosts emerge from a beaker and a full-fledged special effects show captures the screen. Ultimately, the busters beat the notorious ghosts, like all tidy endings, and the judge rescinds his ruling and dismisses the case.

Information and data contained in this post gathered in association with a Georgia trucking accident lawyer at Hasty Pope.