Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Argemaluco 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.

Polly Puddin Is this movie supposed to be a comedy? An entire community of mentally challenged individuals seemingly incapable of understanding what it means to testify on someone's behalf? Each witness for the wife made the most ridiculous and laugh out loud statements, and each one eventually or in whole discrediting the wife. The rabbis (Learned men indeed) made no sense, and blatant lying was completely acceptable for them. I think the movie could have made it's point while captivating the audience if it didn't resort to turning each character into a caricature. Not one witness seemed to understand the impact their statements had against the person they were there to support. It just made me feel sorry that this entire society is built on ignorance. The lawyers, the wife, the husband, the witnesses, the rabbis - IGNORANT.

Victoria Weisfeld 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.

maurice yacowar The explicit statement of Gett is clear: The Israeli justice system is completely patriarchal and of a smothering misogynous tradition. The 45,000 cases of women denied divorces typifies that.The fictional Vivian Amsalem is put through a trial lasting over five years because her husband refuses to grant her a divorce (a gett). Even then the rabbinical court can only recommend he grant her one; they can't impose it. A husband, of course, has no trouble unloading an unwanted wife. As directors Ronit and Schlomi Elkabetz told the Palm Springs festival audience, they focused the film entirely on the courtroom because that is to what plaintiff Vivian's life was reduced. There are no objective or director's shots in the film; every shot is from a character's perspective. This film is the third in a trilogy with the same actors/characters, that was initially based on their mother's life but moved further away into this general social issue. The last shot is of bare feet in sandals leaving a room and a heavy black door slamming behind. Vivian is going back into the room where her Elisha will finally grant her gett on condition she will never be with another man. The shot suggests she is only entering another prison. As soon as the 15-year-old girl was married she began to feel she was in a prison. She suffered thirty years of marriage and bore three children before finally walking out. But the trial for a divorce only proved another prison. Now she enters a third, caged in the promise which her cruel but very religious husband exacted.The judges are three old men, rabbis, old school, with no tolerance for the woman, her arguments, her emotions. They instinctively side with the husband and expect the wife's traditional subservience to him. Even some of Vivian's family witnesses side with him. The neighbour's wife is so submissive to her husband that he stays and contributes to her testimony. Only when he leaves does she under cross-examination let slip his tyranny. In contrast, a brash woman only alienates the judges by the indecorum of her language and observations.The divorce trial opens into two larger issues. Not just divorce but the entire Israeli social landscape is affected by the power of the orthodoxy. The rabbinical court's sole authority over marriages and divorces is a powerful emblem of the larger problem, a secular state still throttled by religious orthodoxy. Hence the assault on women riding buses with the haredim, presuming to pray at the Wailing Wall, daring to take office in the outcast Reform movement. In short the Jewish orthodoxy is as inhumane and dangerous as the Moslem orthodoxy. In fact, the traditional misogyny is not limited to Israel or even most powerful there. It holds worse sway over the Arab nations around her.But the film has a larger address still. At one point Vivian says "It's easy to blame the one who yells. Those who whisper venom are innocent." Even in our more liberal societies women are seriously disadvantaged in marital matters. The genders are wired for us to expect the men to be rational, quiet, unemotional, and when their wives turn emotional, express their feelings, want to be heard and heeded, they're dismissed as hysterical. This was the key issue in Vivian's marriage. Her husband's detached silence drove her to throw crockery at him. It's apparent in the three judges' anger and disdain at the two women who speak with emotion. We may have a better justice system but our marriages are rarely free of the dynamic targeted in Gett. Here divorces may be easier to get but mutual respect in marriage? Not that much.