The Case for Thinking Like a Filmaker : Using Lars von Trier\u27s Dogville as a Model for Writing a Statement of Facts

Part I of this Article introduces movies as a persuasive medium. Part II examines the value of movies as teaching tools in the law school context. Part III breaks down the movie Dogville and demonstrates how it might be used to create two Statements of Facts in a fictionalized criminal case. Part IV recaps the lessons learned from using a film as a model for fact writing

The Case for Thinking Like a Filmaker : Using Lars von Trier\u27s Dogville as a Model for Writing a Statement of Facts

Part I of this Article introduces movies as a persuasive medium. Part II examines the value of movies as teaching tools in the law school context. Part III breaks down the movie Dogville and demonstrates how it might be used to create two Statements of Facts in a fictionalized criminal case. Part IV recaps the lessons learned from using a film as a model for fact writing

Getting it Right by Writing it Wrong: Embracing Faulty Reasoning as a Teaching Tool

(Excerpt) In the early days of legal writing, we use exercises that have clear right answers. The rules are very simple and their meaning, even without looking at the cases, is usually clear. So, the right answer is often obvious. Indeed, it is intuitive. Though these exercises give students a sense of accomplishment and allow them to track achievement and understand success and failure, in some ways, they reinforce a common problem in first-year law students: their inability to see beyond the surface of a legal rule. To ensure the right answer, students must distill not only a general rule, but derive its meaning from the facts, holdings, and reasoning of precedent cases. They must use what\u27s explicit as well as what\u27s implicit in the cases. They must make reasonable inferences from the facts, and not disregard common sense or ignore practical implications and everyday realities. In other words, they must approach the assignment as a skilled practitioner. Therefore, after the most preliminary assignments, when the meaning of the general rule is not easily discernable and the right answer is counterintuitive, students usually get the answer wrong because they neglect all but the most obvious analysis