Law on Film

Jonathan Hafetz
  • 5.0 (20)
  • Film History
  • Biweekly

Law on Film explores the rich connections between law and film. Law is critical to many films, even to those that are not obviously about the legal world.  Film, meanwhile, tells us a lot about the law, especially how it is perceived and portrayed. The podcast is created and hosted by Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer, legal scholar, and  film buff.  Each episode, Jonathan and a guest expert will examine a film that is noteworthy from a legal perspective. What does the film get right about the law and what does it get wrong? Why is law important to understanding the film? And what does the film teach about law's relationship to the larger society and culture that surrounds it.  Whether you're interested in law, film, or an entertaining discussion, there will be something here for you.

  1. Oct 27

    One Person, One Vote? (2024) (Guests: Paul Finkelman & Maximina Juson) (episode 65)

    The Electoral College is one of the most consequential—and perhaps least understood—features of the American constitutional system. Americans often think of themselves as voting for president, but technically they vote for electors, through a system created at the founding that was deeply intertwined with slavery and that continues to shape where candidates campaign, whose votes matter most, and even whether the candidate who receives the most votes becomes president. Those questions became especially pressing after the elections of 2000 and 2016 and, in a very different way, in 2020, when the machinery of electors and congressional certification became central to an effort to overturn the election. This episode we discuss the 2024 documentary One Person, One Vote?, which aired on PBS’s Independent Lens and which explores the electoral college through its history and through the experiences of four actual electors during the 2020 election.  Guests:  Paul Finkelman is a Scholar in Residence at Western New England University School of Law and Professor Emeritus at Albany Law School. He specializes in American legal history, constitutional law, slavery, and the Civil War and has authored or edited more than fifty books. Maximina Juson is an award-winning filmmaker and founder of Humans Understanding Machinery (HUM). She directed the PBS documentary One Person, One Vote? Time stamps: 0:00                       Introduction 3:45                        The origins of the Electoral College 7:12                         Telling the story of how the Electoral College works 10:32                      Past controversies over the Electoral College 21:53                      Slavery, race, and the Electoral College 27:58                      What makes the Electoral College such an anomaly 33:36                     The 2020 election 43:12                      The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 52:46                      Why Electoral College reform should be nonpartisan issue 56:53                      Looking ahead to 2028   Further reading: Cohen, Alex, The National Popular Vote, Explained (Brennan Center for Justice, 2020) Finkelman, Paul, “The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College,” 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1145 (2002) Edwards, George C. III, Why Is the Electoral College is Bad for America (4th ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2024) Juson, Maximina, Director’s Statement: One Person, One Vote?  Keyssar, Alexander, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard Univ. Press, 2020) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  2. Oct 6

    Souleymane's Story (L'Histoire de Souleymane) (2024) (Guest: Sharon Weill) (episode 64)

    Souleymane's Story (L’Histoire de Souleymane), directed by Boris Lojkine, is anchored by the powerful performance of Abou Sangaré as a delivery worker from Guinea who is seeking asylum in France. What begins as a story of daily survival becomes a story about the legal and administrative processes governing asylum and the often fragile line between recognition and rejection. The film foregrounds questions of identity, performance, and translation, as Souleymane must shape his story to fit the expectations of the asylum system. More broadly, the film invites reflection on the gap between lived experience and legal categories—as well as what gets lost when human stories are filtered through bureaucratic judgment.  The guest for this episode is Sharon Weill, who serves as Professor of International Law at the American University of Paris and teaches at Sciences Po in Paris.  Time stamps: 0:00     Introduction 2:26      An urban story of 48 hours in a migrant’s life 9:45      Migrant housing 12:47     Separation from home              14:38     The legal categories of asylum 20:38    The asylum hearing 25:10     Souleymane tells his story and closes the door 29:32     Enforcement of immigration law 34:37     Abou Sangaré: the actor who plays Souleymane 37:08     The appeals process and limits on asylum 44:15      Giving a human face to migration Further reading:  Akoka, Karen, Asylum and Exile: A History of the Refugee/Migrant Distinction (Éditions La Découverte, 2020) Carpentier, Laurent, "Cannes 2024: Life imitates art for the star of ''L'Histoire de Souleymane,'" The Guardian (May 16, 2024) Chang, Justin, "The Piercing Immigrant Drama of 'Souleymane's Story,'" The New Yorker (Aug. 6, 2025) Dezalay, Sara & Weill, Sharon, Asylum Justice: Between Crisis and Crisis Routine: An Ethnography of the National Court of Asylum Law (June 17, 2026) Kobelinsky, Carolina, The Reception of Asylum Seekers: An Ethnography of Waiting (Éditions du Cygne, 2010) Lemercier, Fabian, "Interview with Boris Lojkine, Director of 'Souleymane's Story,'" Cineuropa (May 21, 2024) Weill, Sharon et al., Terror on Trial: An Ethnography of French Courts (2026) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  3. Sep 15

    The Alabama Solution (2025) (Guest: Joseph Margulies) (episode 63)

    The Alabama Solution is a searing documentary about Alabama’s prison system and the broader crisis of mass incarceration. Directed by Andrew Jarecki and Charlotte Kaufman, the film draws on years of secretly recorded cell phone footage made by incarcerated people, offering an unusually intimate and unfiltered account of violence, isolation, resistance, and survival inside one of the harshest prison systems in the United States. The film shows how contraband cell phones transform incarcerated people from subjects of documentation into documentarians themselves, while prisoners’ families emerge as advocates, investigators, and conduits to the outside world. Guest:  Joseph Margulies is a professor of the practice of government at Cornell University, a veteran civil rights attorney, and an author whose work explores punishment, exclusion, and the politics of belonging.  Time stamps: 0:00   Introduction 3:48    Not an innocence movie 6:43    The cell phone footage 10:15    A system of dehumanization 17:37    The Free Alabama Movement 22:09   The declining federal presence and state prisons 25:48   "The Alabama Solution” 31:45     A legacy of slavery 38:30    The challenges of investigating abuses in prisons 42:26    The moral obligation of prison reform Further reading: Alexander, Michelle, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010) Foreman, James, Jr., Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America (2017) Lewis, Nicole, “‘The Alabama Solution’: A Humanitarian Crisis in Grainy Detail,” The Marshall Project (2025) Margulies, Joseph, Cast Out: A Call for a Forgiving Society in an Age of Incarceration (2026) Parker, Anabelle, “‘Let’s just shut down’: an interview with Spokesperson Ray of the Free Alabama Movement,” San Francisco Bay View (Dec. 2, 2014) Stevenson, Bryan, Just Mercy (2014) U.S. Dep’t of Justice Civil Rights Division, Investigation of Alabama’s State Prison for Men (July 23, 2020) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  4. Aug 4

    Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (Guest: Daniel Ortiz) (episode 62)

    Alfred Hitchcock’s 1943 film, Shadow of a Doubt (1943), sets a murder story inside what seems the safest place imaginable: an ordinary American family in an ordinary American town. But as suspicion gathers around Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton), the film slowly exposes something more unsettling than a single killer on the run. It reveals how charm, respectability, and social status can insulate wrongdoing from scrutiny — and how communities prefer comforting narratives to disruptive truths. The police investigate, but they move hesitantly; the town remains confident in its own innocence. The real drama unfolds not in the courtroom, but at the dinner table. The film explores law’s capacity — and its limits. How does misogyny operate not just as motive but as ideology? What happens when loyalty to family collides with loyalty to justice? And in a film released at the height of World War II, is Hitchcock warning that the most dangerous threats to democracy are not always foreign invaders, but may also be charismatic figures embedded within everyday life? Guest:  Daniel Ortiz is the Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where he teaches constitutional law, election law, and legal theory. Timestamps: 0:00     Introduction 2:13     Teaching law students through film 5:54     Shadow of a Doubt and law’s inadequacies 11:11   The film’s setting and Santa Rosa, CA 14:54   Imagining the perfect crime 21:21   Misogyny in Shadow of a Doubt 27:48   Playing with crime genres and narrative structures  32:58   Hitchcock’s cameo 35:16   Doubling and other filmic techniques 48:19   Complicity in covering up the evil 51:11   A critique of wartime idealism and the narrative of the enemy within 56:17   Questioning American institutions Further reading: Eggert, Brian, Shadow of a Doubt, Deep Focus Review (Mar. 2, 2013)  Hughes, Rowland, “Shadows and Doubts: Hitchcock, Genre, and Villainy,” in The Devil Himself: Villainy in Detective Fiction and Film (Stacy Gillis & Philippa Gates eds. 2001) Modleski, Tania, The Women Who Knew Too Much (1988) Scovell, Adam, “Why the sinister Shadow of a Doubt was Hitchcock’s Favourite,” The Telegraph (Feb. 7, 2023) Truffaut, Francois, Hitchcock (Simon & Schuster, 1985) Wood, Robin, Hitchcock’s Films Revisited (2002) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  5. Jul 14

    Blade Runner & Blade Runner 2049 (Guest: Frank Pasquale) (episode 61)

    This episode we look at Blade Runner (1982) (dir. Ridley Scott) and its sequel Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (dir. Denis Villeneuve), two films that imagine a world where the line between human and machine, creation and creator, has all but vanished. Ridley Scott’s 1982 classic depicted a rain-soaked dystopia where “replicants”—bio-engineered beings—fight for recognition, identity, and life itself. Denis Villeneuve’s 2017 sequel deepens that vision. Law operates in the shadows across both films: as surveillance, classification, and control. The “blade runners” themselves enforce a form of administrative violence that exposes the limits of legal personhood. What does it mean to have rights without recognition, or to be alive without legal existence? And conversely, what are the implications of recognizing rights and legal personhood in robots? In this episode, we’ll examine these and other themes around artificial intelligence, migration, colonization, and bioethics as well as the way films themselves can contribute to and shape public perceptions about these issues.  Guest:  Frank Pasquale is a Professor of Law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School and a leading scholar of artificial intelligence, algorithms, and technology law. He is the author of The Black Box Society and New Laws of Robotics. Timestamps: 0:00     Introduction 2:45      Emotion and memory in robots 8:08      Slave labor and robot rebellion 9:54      Generative AI and other changes since the first Blade Runner  15:16      Robots giving birth 20:19     Robot rights 24:17      A new category of companion 32:56    Filmic depictions of AI 38:01     “Time to Die” 43:21     The political economy of AI development 47:22     A dystopian vision of data and surveillance 52:18     A positive post-human future? 57:58     Concepts of immortality Further reading: Almog, Shulamit, “When a Robot Can Love – Blade Runner as a Cautionary Tale on Law and Technology,” in Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice (Jan. 1, 2013) Birhane, Abeba, van Dijk Jelle, and Pasquale, Frank, “Debunking Robot Rights Metaphysically, Ethically, and Legally,” 29(4) First Monday (2024) Darling, Kate, The New Breed: What Our History with Animals Reveals about Our Future with Robots (2021) Dick, Philip K., Do Androids Dream of Sheep (1968) Lewis, C.S., Abolition of Man (1943) Oliver, Kendra H., Higgs, Oliver S., and Clayton, J., “The End of Genetic Privacy in the Blade Runner Canon,” 14 (1/2) Journal of Literature and Science 108 (Dec. 2022) Pasquale, Frank, “Cultural Foundations for Conserving Human Capacities Amidst Generative Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Philosophico-Literary Critique of Simulation,” in Being Human (B. Roessler & V. Steeves, eds, 2024)   Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  6. Jun 23

    Erin Brockovich (2000) (Guest: Dror Ladin) (episode 60)

    Erin Brockovich (2000) (directed by Steven Soderbergh) is based on the true story of Erin Brockovich, a legal assistant without formal training, who uncovers one of the most significant environmental lawsuits in U.S. history: the case against Pacific Gas and Electric for contaminating groundwater in Hinkley, California. The film, which features an Oscar-winning performance by Julia Roberts in the title role, explores the role of lawsuits in exposing truth and gaining compensation for victims, the gendered dynamics of legal advocacy, and the challenges of taking on entrenched power structures in society. Guest:  Dror Ladin is a Senior Attorney at Earthjustice's Northeast Regional Office, where his work focuses on enforcing climate and environmental protections. He previously served as an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, litigating constitutional and human rights cases. Timestamps: 0:00     Introduction 1:59       Who is Erin Brockovich? 3:11       Obstacles to holding corporations accountable 5:49      How Erin Brockovich overcomes those obstacles 8:10      Imbalance of power and resources 14:40    Hinkley, California 18:00    Accessing records 21:16     Tort reform, punitive damages, and proportionality 27:10     States and environmental regulation 32:22    Causation and attribution science 37:30    Whistleblowers               41:17      Finding the “smoking gun” 42:53    The practice of law and parenting Further reading: Banks, Sedina “The ‘Erin Brockovich Effect’: How Media Shapes Toxics Policy,” 26 Environs Env’t L. Poly’ J. 219 (2003) Brockovich, Erin and Eliot, Marc, Take It from Me: Life’s a Struggle but You Can Win (2002) Chen, Sarah Small, “Toxic Film: Analyzing the Impact of Films Depicting Major Contamination Events on the Regulation of Toxic Chemicals,” 35 Georgetown Env’t L. Rev. 561 (2023) "'Erin Brockovich’ Made their Town Famous: They Still Don’t Have Clean Water,” Wash. Post (Dec. 27, 2024) Martens, Daniel L. “Chromium, Cancer, and Causation: Has a Death-Blow Been Dealt Chromium Cases in California?” 16 Natural Resources & Env’t 264 (2002) McCann, Michael McCann & Haltom, William, “Ordinary Heroes vs. Failed Lawyers – Public Interest Litigation in Erin Brockovich and Other Contemporary Films,” 33 Law & Soc. Inquiry 1045 (2008) “Still Toxic After All These Years,” Grist (Jan. 29, 2019) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  7. Jun 2

    Monster (2003) (Guest: Mara Malagodi) (episode 59)

    This episode examines a case that sits at the uneasy boundary between criminal adjudication, media power, and moral authority: the prosecution and execution of Aileen Wuornos, labeled the “first female serial killer. We look at two documentaries by Nick Broomfield—Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992) and Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003)—alongside the feature film Monster (2003), written and directed by Patty Jenkins and starring Charlize Theron in an Oscar-winning role. Broomfield’s documentaries are less about guilt or innocence than about process: who controls the narrative, how legal representation operates, and what happens when a defendant’s life becomes an object of transaction, between lawyers, media, and the public. The films also penetrate the issues around the application of the death penalty in the United States, and the problems that arise when the state seeks to executive individuals who are themselves victims and suffer from severe mental illness. Monster  approaches the same facts through dramatization. It also raises important questions, including how far context should matter in judging criminal responsibility and construction of narratives around crimes. Guest:  Mara Malagodi is a Reader at Warwick Law School and Co-Director of the Centre for Constitutions in Context. She specializes in comparative constitutional law and is also an award-winning documentary filmmaker. Timestamps: 0:00   Introduction 2:58   Capturing law on film 5:24   The two Nick Broomfield documentaries 11:16   Addressing Aileen Wuornos’s murders 14:04  The flawed defense strategy 18:47  The depiction of Tyria Moore (Aileen Wuornos’s girlfriend 20:55  Selling the Aileen Wuornos story 23:09  The theme of the “monster” 28:29  Themes of betrayal and self-defense 31:53   Nick Broomfield and an outsider view of the American legal system 34:56  Mental illness and the death penalty 37:39  Media coverage of sensational murders  39:22  Failures of the legal process 44:26  A critique of the death penalty 47:00  Exoticization in the films Further Reading:  Cavanaugh, L. Sheila, “‘White Trash:’ Abject Skin in Film Reviews of ‘Monster’,” in Skin, Culture, and Pscyhoanalysis (Cavanaugh, L. Sheila et al. eds.) (2013) Dargis, Manohla, “Life and Death Issues,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 9. 2004) Diamond, Suzanna, “‘A Flower in a Hard Rain’: Melodramatic Storytelling by, and About, Aileen Wuornos,” Anthurium, vol. 15(2) (2019) Horeck, Tanya, “From Documentary to Drama: Capturing Aileen Wuornos,” Screen, vol. 48(2), pp. 141-59 (Summer 2007) Pearson, Kyra, “The Trouble with Aileen Wuornos, Feminism’s ‘First Serial Killer,’” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 4(3), pp. 256-75 (Sept. 2007 Smith, Abbe, “The ‘Monster’ in All of Us: When Victims Become Perpetrators,” 38 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 367 (2005) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

  8. May 12

    My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow (2024) (Russian) (Guests: Rachel Denber & Anna Nemzer) (episode 58)

    My Undesirable Friends: Part I—Last Air in Moscow (2024) is Russian-language American documentary film written and directed by Julia Loktev (with co-director Anna Nemzer). The film describes the effort to maintain press freedoms in Putin’s Russia in the period leading up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The documentary provides an intimate portrait of independent Russian journalists—mainly young women—who risk everything to pursue truth and accountability amidst escalating repression under the Putin regime. Filmed in late 2021 and early 2022, the documentary captures how the legal machinery of censorship, surveillance, and state-harassment converged to crush internal dissent and incapacitate civil society. It not only provides a profoundly disturbing account of what has occurred in Russia but also serves as a broader warning about the fragility of press freedoms and in a time of rising authoritarianism worldwide.  Guests:  Rachel Denber is a human rights expert specializing in Central Eurasia and a former Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia Division. Her work focuses on documenting human rights abuses and advocating for civil liberties throughout the region. Anna Nemzer is a Russian-born journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker who has worked with the independent Russian television channel TV Rain. She is a scholar at Bard College, co-founder of the Russian Independent Media Archive, and co-director of My Undesirable Friends. Timestamps: 0:00      Introduction 2:45       How the film came about 5:25       A primer on Russian censorship and repression 15:15      “Foreign agents” and “undesirable organizations” 23:32     Social marginalization through the creation of an enemies list  28:46     State persecution of TV Rain and other independent media  32:45     The manipulation of language 36:30     Identifying the pivotal moment  43:36     How the film captures the elimination of press freedoms 48:26     Courts and lawyers 53:27     The Kremlin’s public mobilization to support the war in Ukraine 58:53     Independent journalism in exile 1:02:17   Parallels to the United States under Trump Further reading: Chang, Justin, “‘My Undesirable Friends: Part I’ Is a Staggering Portrait of Russian Journalists in Dissent,” New Yorker (Aug. 14, 2025) Edel, Anastasia, “Putin vs. the Press,” Foreign Policy (Oct. 3, 2025) Human Rights Watch, Russia’s Legislative Minefield: Tripwires for Civil Society Since 2020 (2024) Human Rights Watch, Disrupted, Throttled, and Blocked State Censorship, Control, and Increasing Isolation of Internet Users in Russia (2025) Krupskiy, Maxim, “The Impact of Russia’s ‘Foreign Agents’ Legislation on Civil Society,” Fletcher Russia & Eurasia Program (2023) Troinovski, Anton & Safronova, Valeriya, “Russia Takes Censorship to New Extremes, Stifling War Coverage,” New York Times (May 18, 2022) Yablokov, Ilya & Gatov, Vasily, “Broadcasting through the (New) Iron Curtain: Practices, Challenges, and Legacies of Russia's Independent Media in Exile,” Journalism Studies (Feb. 11, 2025) Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.  For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.html You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz  You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

See All (68)

5
out of 5
20 Ratings

About

Law on Film explores the rich connections between law and film. Law is critical to many films, even to those that are not obviously about the legal world.  Film, meanwhile, tells us a lot about the law, especially how it is perceived and portrayed. The podcast is created and hosted by Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer, legal scholar, and  film buff.  Each episode, Jonathan and a guest expert will examine a film that is noteworthy from a legal perspective. What does the film get right about the law and what does it get wrong? Why is law important to understanding the film? And what does the film teach about law's relationship to the larger society and culture that surrounds it.  Whether you're interested in law, film, or an entertaining discussion, there will be something here for you.

Information

  • Creator
    Jonathan Hafetz
  • Years Active
    2023 - 2026
  • Episodes
    68
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Law on Film
  • Show Website
    Law on Film