Instant Favorite.

I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The individuals and institutions promoting the rights of women make an admirable work, but sometimes, a film such as Gett is able to show us how much is still left to do in a much more devastating and memorable way, specially in regions of the world in which rules haven't changed enough throughout the centuries. And the fact that the film achieved that without any exaggeration or dull sermons reflects the brilliant work from co-directors and co- screenwriters Ronit (who was also the leading actress) and Shlomi Elkabetz. I also have to make the warning that Gett is a movie whose minimalistic structure and paused rhythm might end up boring some spectators (even though that wasn't my case). The film is exclusively developed inside the austere offices of a court in Israel, in which three wise rabbis judge and rule civil disputes. In this occasion, lawyer Carmel Ben Tovim requests the dissolution of the marriage between Viviane and Elisha, who has apparently been a model husband throughout the years. However, Viviane isn't entitled to separate due to the absence of concrete causes (such as abuse, adultery, etc.) and the husband is left the right to grant the divorce, even if his wife has been suffering an unhappy and incompatible marriage. In other words, Viviane is practically a slave without any rights or control over her destiny. And that's what the whole film basically consists on. The months of trial are extended to years while both sides of the conflict present witnesses, expose reasons and try to convince the judges. The process is obviously more difficult for Viviane, since her happiness and wish of marital freedom don't seem to be relevant factors in the legal process; law is always on her husband's side, while the judges don't even comprehend the woman's motivation. Even the witnesses appointed by her lawyer have difficulties to justify a divorce when none of the "normal" reasons are present. Why does Viviane not stay quiet and accept her devout wife role? And the most interesting thing is that none of that comes from intentional malice, but the combination of patriarchal culture with laws and traditions of a very slow evolution. The performances are excellent, since all the actors feel absolutely credible as authentic individuals with very particular interpretations about justice and spirituality. Apparently, Gett is the third part of a trilogy, but I don't think it's necessary to have watched the previous films in order to appreciate the remarkable attributes from this movie as well as its cultural and ideological value. In summary, I recommend Gett with enthusiasm because of its fascinating screenplay, perfect performances and austere direction which doesn't require the traditional ornaments of legal drama in order to captivate us and leave us thinking. Thinking specially about the blessing of being single.

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.

Governed by strict religious rules, there are no civil courts for divorce proceedings for Jews in Israel. Even though women over age eighteen can vote and must, like everyone else, undergo compulsory military training, Israel is still a male-dominated society and wives are considered to be the property of the husband. This means that a divorce (referred to as a "get") can only be granted if the husband agrees to it, unless there is proof of physical abuse, infidelity, or lack of support. Without a divorce, a religious Jewish woman cannot remarry and becomes an ostracized member of the community called an "agunah" or a "chained person." This predicament of Jewish women in Israel is the focus of the absorbing Israeli film, Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem. Directed by siblings Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz, Gett, the third film in a trilogy that began in 2004 with To Take a Wife and continued in 2008 with 7 Days, is a powerful dramatization of Viviane Amsalem, an unhappily married woman (Ronit Elkabetz, Edut) who seeks a divorce from her husband Elisha (Simon Abkarian, Zero Dark Thirty). Since he refuses to grant her a get, she must plead her case in a religious court under the jurisdiction of three Orthodox rabbis.Winner of six Israeli Ophir Awards including Best Picture and nominated for a Golden Globe, Gett depicts the interviews and appointments Viviane has with the rabbinical court and the entire film takes place in the cramped courtroom or in the adjacent hallways. Viviane does not appear during the first few minutes as the camera focuses only on the men talking about her. She sits facing the judges and is only visible when she is being reprimanded for speaking without being spoken to. She needs no words, however, to convey the anguish clearly apparent on her face and in her gestures.Though the trial stretches out for what seems like an endless period of time, the directors stated that similar trials may take three times as long. The dramatization of the extended trial starts and stops as we are notified by intertitles such as "three months later," "two months later," "one year later," and so forth until five years have passed. There are times when Elisha does not show up in court in spite of the rabbi's order and who threatens to revoke his driver's license, cancel his credit cards, and/or send him to jail but to no avail. If a husband refuses to grant his wife a divorce, the rabbis are powerless to force him.Though Viviane has lived apart from him for four years and claims that they have not spoken during that time, the judges refuse to see that the marriage has gone past the point of no return and look for no solution other than having the couple remain together to try and "work it out." Witnesses are brought in to testify about Elisha being a good man (one calls him a saint) who even lets his wife go out alone. Even witnesses for the plaintiff say that Elisha has a good character. Represented by her articulate attorney Carmel Ben Tovim (Menashe Noy, Big Bad Wolves), Elisha is not accused of cheating, physical abuse, or lack of support, but only that, after thirty unhappy years of marriage, she no longer loves him and that they are incompatible.While Elisha sits in distant silence, one witness claims that she heard Viviane yelling and throwing things inside the house. At that point Viviane says "It's easy to blame the one who yells. Those who whisper venom are innocent." It often seems as if Viviane is on trial rather than the issue of divorce. Elisha's brother Rabbi Shimon (Sasson Gabai, The Band's Visit) who is representing him, calls her a "wayward" woman and the judge takes offense when she unties the bun and lets her hair fall on her shoulders while another judge chastises her for speaking her mind. Brazenly, Shimon accuses Carmel of being secretly in love with his client and one witness testifies that she saw Viviane in a café talking to a man who was not part of her family.As the trial drags on, it is clear that Elisha is simply not willing to let go and that he still loves his wife even if he defines it in his own terms. Gett has become a hot-button topic in Israel and is now being vigorously debated in both secular and religious circles. In fact, it mirrors a current case in New York where an orthodox rabbi has been accused of kidnapping husbands to coerce them through beatings and torture to provide a get to their wives. While there are no clear-cut victims and both characters are trapped in a heartbreaking situation, the film is a powerful indictment of archaic religious laws and traditions that make women second-class citizens. In the movie's most compelling moment, Viviane finally explodes in a torrent of rage and frustration, practically begging for her freedom. The rage and frustration is also ours.

'Gett' means divorce decree in Hebrew. And that's what this film is about: a divorce. A long, painful, difficult and tragic divorce. The film shows the court procedures during a five year period, in which Viviane Amsalem tries to convince her husband Elisha to grant her a divorce. Apparently, in Israel, mutual consent is necessary for a divorce. And a divorce can only be obtained after a procedure in a rabbinical courts. The consequences of this archaic system are clearly shown. The whole procedure and the rabbinical judges themselves are biased towards men. They consider marriage as a religious contract, not as a consensual agreement between two equal persons. 'Why don't you want to divorce this woman?', asks a judge. 'Because she is my fate', answers Elisha Amsalem. The whole concept of these religiously inspired courts is completely contrary to what we consider as fair justice. It's amazing that this can exist in a modern state like Israel. No doubt, that is exactly the message the directors wanted to give with this film. Of course, Judaism is no exception in this regard. Compared to men, women are usually disadvantaged in religion, be it by the Islamic rules to wear a veil, or by the catholic rules forbidding women to become priests. Apart from being a film with a strong message, this is also a wonderful cinematographic accomplishment. The film is completely devoid of any sensationalism. It shows the goings-on in the court room, and nothing else. This sounds boring, but in fact the film makers achieve the opposite effect. You keep on watching with growing amazement. In fact, a lot of things happen during the proceedings. At first, there is the clear obstruction from Elisha, who refuses several times to appear in court. After that, there is a series of appearances by witnesses, who are very colourful personalities and sometimes add a bit of humor to the grim proceedings. And in the end there is a final dramatic showdown between the two protagonists. All of this takes place in the bare court room, filled with religious zealots, who consider coloured toe nails as something to be frowned upon, and forbid Viviane to touch her own hair because somehow that could give offense. The power of this film is the acting by all involved. Co-director Ronit Elkabetz is incredible as the patient, dignified Viviane, barely hiding her contempt for her husband and the judges. Only at the very end, she allows herself to fully express her emotions. But the husband, Elisha, is also shown as a complex character. He is a rigid man, constrained by his religious beliefs. You only fully get to understand his motivations after he is convicted to a prison sentence for contempt of court. This is one of those movies that truly deserve an international art-house audience. It is worth seeing because of the subject, but even more so because of its quality. I was amazed to be the first one to review it, and to see that only 130 people have rated it.