Gett

Determined in its aim, the brother and sister Elkabetz have brought to the screen to much acclaim 'Gett: the Trial of Viviane Amsalem'. Like many Israeli film that attacks Israel's sacred cows, 'Gett' takes place in a closed universe of a courtroom, as though we are in a theater. Viviane Amsalem sues for divorce--a 'Gett'Only a religious court can dissolve the marriage, but Elisha Amsalem refuses to allow it, to the extent he at first refuses to appear in court; then does but remains firm in his refusal. Israel like most Muslim and Arab countries leaves issues such as divorce and inheritance and other matter touching the personal sphere in the hands of religious authorities. A practice that goes far back in time. So during five years, Viviane Amsalem suffers abuse by the rabbis and the contempt of her accusers for not being a good Jewish wife. Her husband initially is seen as a model spouse, but mittendrin it turns out that Elisha is intolerant, intransigent and contentious. So, after 30 years of marriage, Viviane files for divorce; she has moved out of the house, gone to her sister's. Nonetheless, she prepares food daily for husband and her only son who remains at home. She is a hairdresser with her own business and a will of her own. On the other hand, Elisha treats her as his property--professing undying love--but won't let go until at the end he signs the divorce, but at a price which prejudices Viviane's happiness. Yet, she is free of him. It is good to see Simon Abkarian in the role of Elisha. This seasoned actor gave a good turn in Michel Deville's 'Almost Peaceful'. Ronit Elkabetz us a study in wifely suffering, and absolutely beautiful. The Hebrew is peppered with words of Moroccan Arabic, and moments of French since the protagonists are of Moroccan origin settled in Israel of long date. 'Gett' is a blow for women's rights. And a winner. In Europe and North America say Beit Dins exist to grant divorce for Orthodox Jews. (In Israel only Orthodox practices are allowed for a gett.) Luckily, divorce exists in the civil sphere, but in the eyes of the pious Jews, a woman without a gett is wayward and nothing better than a prostitute. A word or two, on the presence of Arab Jews in Israeli cinema and stage, although they are not considered the equal of Jews of European ancestry. Isn't Israel a European construct, with non-European Jews for the numbers to take possession of land?

The matter of divorce is an Israel-only problem where power over marriage and divorce is in the hands of the rabbinate. As the IMDb Summary notes, civil marriage and divorce does not exist in Israel. Thus Gett may be incomprehensible to non-Jews outside Israel where marriage is a civil matter but can be licensed to religious authorities. Judaism has this further peculiarity that the man must consent to the bill of divorce (the Get)for the divorce to take place. Normally,this is a formality and Israeli couples can part and resume their lives.

Without a Get, neither spouse can remarry. If the man abandons his wife and leaves the country, the woman is in a legal limbo. This was the subject of an earlier short Israeli film, Ha-Get. In Gett, the man is available but refuses to consent. The Rabbis try all the limited avenues available to force consent (take away the driver's license, jail, etc.) but can't force the man to sign. That is the basis of Gett.

I have given Gett a 9 despite the lack of action and the focus on a less than universal problem. My reason is that, while watching Gett, I found similarities to the classic 12 Angry Men. I realize that it's a different courtroom and type of case on trial but that static tension is present in both films. The second reason is the acting skills displayed, particularly by Ronit Elkabetz. Even if you knew nothing about the divorce problem in Israel, you can read in Ronit Elkabetz' character the agony and frustration that getting a Get can cause.

I highly recommend Gett.

The Israeli movie Gett is the story of Viviane Amsalem and her five-year struggle to obtain a divorce (gett) through Israel's Orthodox rabbinical courts. The only roadblock: her husband says "no," and under Jewish religious law, a divorce cannot be granted unless the husband agrees. The entire movie takes place in the courtroom and just outside it, as witnesses come and go and the couple and their lawyers face off, in confrontations that rapidly switch between absurdity and tragedy. This may sound as if there's not much action, but there is plenty going on emotionally. Except for the lawyers' confrontations, much of the power of the film comes from the way feelings simmer (mostly) below the surface, through the outstanding performances by the wife (played by Ronit Elkabetz) and husband (Simon Abkarian). He is torturing her in front of the three rabbis who serve as judges, who alternately don't see it, don't acknowledge it, and don't act when they do. This also makes the film a cautionary tale about the difficulties of male-dominated religious courts, intent on shoring up a patriarchic system and oblivious to individual and women's rights. Not surprisingly, in real life, Israel's rabbinic judges claim the movie misrepresents them, which, as Israel's oldest daily newspaper Haaretz says, "misses the underlying point: that the rabbinical courts will not approve a divorce unless the man agrees to it," citing a 2013 survey that one in three women seeking divorce in Israel is "subject to financial or other extortion by her husband." The term for these truly "desperate housewives" is "chained women." Lest you think these difficulties are confined to the Jewish State or some historical period, in 2013 in New York, criminal prosecutions resulted when rabbis kidnapped and tortured several estranged husbands to persuade them to approve their divorces. (Although the United States regulates marriage, divorce, and remarriage through the secular laws, for these proceedings to be religiously recognized, Orthodox Jews must also have them approved in rabbinical courts.) Elkabetz and her brother Shlomi directed the film, which was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 72nd Golden Globe Awards and won the Israeli Film Academy Ophir Award for Best Picture.

The title character is a secular Israeli Jew trying to get a divorce from her devoutly religious Orthodox husband who refuses to comply. As the Israeli court system cannot grant a divorce without the husband's consent, Viviane has a very uphill struggle.

With the exception of a minute or so, all of this film takes place in a small courtroom with occasional scenes in an adjoining waiting room. As the courtroom looks bland and ordinary, this film deliberately takes on the challenge of maintaining viewers' interest within such constraints. In doing so, it succeeds with flying colours.

This is due to a detailed script with various surprises and a superb cast especially Ronit Elkabitz in the title role. (She is also the co-director and co-writer with Shlomi Elkabitz, her brother.) She has a couple of explosive scenes that are riveting especially one in which she cathartically expresses the views of many of us in the audience.

The various accounts of the plaintiff, defendant, witnesses, and lawyers provide all the detail in what could have been a solid movie about a disintegrating marriage, Ingmar Bergman-style. Incidentally, some of the witness accounts from relatives and neighbours are the most revealing aspects of the story and of the culture of a religious community.

In the end, it is the audience who are the true witnesses and judges of a legal system that is absurd and harshly unfair to women.

Excellent movie. It is really a play, with a play's limited sets, but with the movie camera's freedom to somehow annotate the lines with sub-textual commentary. The camera, is, however, never, intrusive, and remains mostly neutral (if that is even possible). The immense frustration of this absurd ritual for divorce transfers to the viewer. The 'wife", seeking the divorce, remains almost silent, save for several curt responses to the self-important rabbis ruling over the case. The underlay here is Middle East culture, fundamentalism in my book, trundling it's (formerly: its) tyranny down thru these ages, and it makes you wonder how sane peep still adhere, so desperately it seems, to this primitive and obsolete madness.