“IT’S THE LAW SCHOOL ELECTION—ONLY TEN PEOPLE CARE, BUT THOSE TEN PEOPLE SURE TALK THE LOUDEST”
This November 7th, dozens of CLS students, battling the impending doom of finals and the dramatic results of a presidential election, were urgently seeking respite. How should law students understand the outcome of the election? Handle the prospect of practising law in an increasingly conservative judiciary system? Figure out what’s left of LegReg? The folks at Law Revue answer these questions in two words: laughter and song.
This semester’s Law Revue production, ChalLAWngers, follows the story of the CLS Student Senate Elections while (bravely) parodying the 2024 Presidential Election. The story centers on three candidates: Donna Frump, Pamela Ferris, and MFK Jr., with appearances from characters like Joanna Mama, JG Lance, and Tom Lawz. The show progresses in segments, each loosely inspired by a real-life event from the campaign trails, the rallies, and the presidential debates. These stories culminate in the finale, where the election results are declared.
As a student-run show, no one walked into the auditorium expecting Broadway levels of production. There was not much lighting work, the projected subtitles were sometimes delayed, and the most expensive prop in the show was probably the worm suit for MFK’s brain worm (more on this later). Nevertheless, the evidently small budget added to the charm and relatability of the show. Donna Frump’s tie and jacket combination landed. And you couldn’t distinguish Pamela from Kamala in that wig.
The show was undoubtedly political. It explored whether RFK Jr. is an embarrassment to his family, highlighted JD Vance’s undeniably porcine features, and contemplated whether Kamala is indeed “brat.” Taking a fresh angle on any of these topics is, indeed, quite difficult. But in a reality as absurd as any satire’s attempts to lampoon it, we applaud the directors’ creativity in amplifying the comedic aspects of the candidates. For example, the audience got to experience MFK Jr. depicted as a flesh puppet to his talking, human-sized brain worm, which speaks through him like Remy from Ratatouille. Needless to say, the audience certainly got their money’s worth.
Despite the political overlay, the topics lampooned in this year’s Law Revue show also included the usual fare: jokes about outlines, topical commentary on our new dean, bewilderment about whether to italicize a period in a law review article (See inter alia, BB 4.1, pls fix thx, Sent from My iPhone). The show’s script and lyrics were fluid, light-hearted, and effortlessly funny. The writers did a good job of balancing political jabs and comedy. Structurally, however, the show was a bit too loose. Audiences were thrust from one scene to another, often without much connective tissue. The show itself felt a lot more like several self-contained snapshots rather than a complete narrative—concededly, that might have been the directors’ intention, but it did make for a rather flat grand finale that left one of our writers “looking for more.” Having an intermission might have helped. We were also (kinda) disappointed that the show referenced the many clubs at CLS, and at some point even suggested starting a Legal Poetry Club and a Diet Coke club, but made no references to The Verdict. (As Donna Frump might say, “Sad!”)
Reviewers of the show would be remiss not to highlight the exemplary performances. Donna Frump really stood out, and her Trump impressions were scarily accurate. To quote another one of our writers, “Before She Cheats was just so, so good” (emphasis added). Pamela Harris was also exceptional. We really hope to see both of them again in the show next semester. MFK’s Jr.’s baritone on “My Favorite Things” was also quite good. And hats off to the soul who channeled the dark, vengeful spirit of Edgar Allen Poe’s Raven from “The Raven.” To quote one of our writers, “I felt I was truly in the presence of a terrifying bird that embodied all of my academic anxieties.” The punches were easy to follow and enjoyable.
In all earnestness, the show was, as always, fun to experience. We want to encourage everyone who’s never given Law Revue a chance to try to make it to next semester’s show. Yes, it’s cheesy. Yes, it’s low-budget and kind of slapped together. But that’s what makes it endearing and fun to watch. Truthfully, it’s just fun to see your classmates make fools of themselves for an hour and a half. And the open bar and all you can eat pizza is, of course, a great incentive.
As the late Roger Ebert once said, “we laugh, that we may not cry.” To offer respite in these trying times, through a show whose very conceit is those difficulties themselves, is an endeavor perhaps reckless, perhaps brave. But maybe between laughing and crying, and definitely between your third and seventh drinks, you’ll begin to understand the magic of Law Revue.
The following Writers contributed to this piece: Daniel Bugingo ’26, Tanisha Choudhary ’25, Hongyi Duan ’27, Elijah Pitt ’27, and Daniel Sweat ’25. This piece was edited and compiled by Tanisha Choudhary ’25 and Davawn Hartz ’25.