GETT: THE TRIAL OF VIVIANNE AMSALEM

Israel, 2014, 115 minutes, Colour.
Ronit Elkabetz, Simon Abkarian.
Directed by Ronit Elkabets, Shlomi Alkabetz.


This is a very challenging film from Israel, for people in Israel itself as well as Jewish people around the world and all those interested in Jewish traditions or may be puzzled by some of them.

Ronit Elkabetz is a distinguished Israeli actress who is made quite a number of striking Israeli films and has appeared in some French films. She has written and co-directed this film with her husband, and takes the central role.

It is a film about divorce in Israel, Get, and the processes whereby a woman applies to be divorced, to a tribunal of religious leaders, with her defence lawyer, but all the time dependent on the consent of the husband or no divorce is granted. This is a civil-religious situation, drawing on traditions, very much mail-oriented, expecting husband and wife to live out traditional marriage, and often ignoring the experiences of the wife in terms of the dominance, physical or psychological, religious and moral, of the husband.

Perhaps it is necessary to give a warning that audiences will experience the situation of a wife who is trapped by her husband’s non-consent, appearing in court over several years, with gaps of some months where she tries to obey what the tribunal orders her, to live with her husband. The only locations on screen are the courtroom and the anti-room where people wait. It is particularly cut claustrophobic for the audience as they are confined to the limited and small locations.

The couple in question have been married for many decades, the wife, married in her teenage years, subservient to her husband, bearing children and rearing them, but finding her husband’s superior attitudes and his domination so taxing that she feels she needs to get away and for him to grant her a divorce. In the meantime, she has moved from the house to live with her sisters, yet still cooking every day for her husband and children, with herself or her sisters delivering the meals. When the tribunal, despite her pleas, insists that she still fulfils her home duties before they will consider hearing her case again, we are told, rather than seeing, that she complies with the wishes. What we see is the toll that it takes on her.

The husband is a significant character, of course, well played, unsympathetic to the audience, by Simon act barrier. Not only does he refused to grant a divorce but he often refuses even to come to the court. He is commanded to appear, even sentenced to a time in prison for his non-compliance, but one of the most stubborn men one could encounter. Is respectable, a community leader, leader of music in the Temple. He demands that his wife fulfil our obligations.

To help us understand the situation, two of the central characters are the lawyer for Vivianne’s defence, a reputable lawyer whose father had a strong reputation and who argues his case with some emotion. defence lawyer for the husband, is his brother, a shrewd and rather smooth-tongued lawyer, able to take advantage of any looseness in remarks.

Then there are the witnesses over the several years, neighbours who think the husband is respectable, and neighbouring wife who, as her testimony goes on, is clearly under the same often insensitive dominance from her husband. There are people from the choir who can testify that the husband can give people a hostile silent treatment, and for many years. The wife’s two sisters also give testimony, when giving the rabbis the rounds of the court in her vigorous defence of her sister.

And, the tribunal itself is very interesting, a very dominating Rabbi overseeing proceedings, and his two assistance, trying to get into the developments of the trial, as well as the clerk of the court.

Ronit Elkabetz portrays Vivian with great bearing in dignity, holding up under very difficult circumstances, month by month, year by year, living the frustration of her husband’s continued refusal to consent to her divorce.

Anyone in the audience has been involved in an Australian divorce situation will be caught up, moved, and frustrated by their sharing in this is rarely experience.


1. A film from Israel? Religious background? Secular background? Traditions?

2. The title, the issue of divorce, the applications of the law, tradition and customs, the roles of men, women? The rabbis as judges? Prosecuting lawyers and defence? The Israeli settings? The focus on the court room, the anti-room – and the rest of the action off-screen?

3. The title, the focus, the religious background, the focus on Vivianne? Where did audience sympathies lie?

4. Vivianne, the character, age, her life, background, the early marriage, the children, expectations of her as a wife, her expectations of her husband, his status, religious background? Her wanting a divorce, the process taking years, the judges and their listening? The behaviour of Vivianne, her husband, the lawyers, the judges? The talk?

5. The court and the ante-room, confined experience for the protagonists, the audience? The effect of the confined space? Vivianne sitting at the desk, sometimes standing up, in the outer room? Elisha opposite her, sometimes present, sometimes absent, standing in the corner? The presence of the lawyers, the judges, the witnesses, the clerk?

6. The plea for divorce, the request by the woman, consent or not by the man? The marriage situation, 20 years, incompatibility, the attempt to do the right thing? Vivianne wanting to leave, going to live with her sisters, cooking the meals, their being carried to the husband and children? Hurt and feelings of oppression? Wanting freedom?

7. The three years of the process, the captions indicating the passing of time? The audience not seeing what happened off screen, the explanation, Vivianne’s obedience, growing desperation?

8. Elisha, character, age, righteous, refusing the divorce, not coming to the court? His life, the long marriage, his children? Sexual duties on not? Absent from the court, present? His hard stances? His being sentenced to jail and serving the term?

9. The defence lawyer, the reputation of his father, his skill in the court, his appeal to the judges, his speeches, accused of love for Vivianne, his interrogations, producing evidence? The clashes with Shimon?

10. Shimon, smiling and ironic, Elisha’s brother, his stances, his interrogations, his playing the legal games?

11. The judges, the head, severity, wanting order, the two assistants, their interventions? The role of the clerk, things in order?

12. The range of witnesses? Revelations about Vivianne and Elisha, their marriage? Some sympathetic? Others respecting Elisha? The witnesses and the questions probing their own lives, their own marriages, the dominance of the men? The unmarried sister, the testimony? The contrast with the married sister and her assertiveness and verve? The neighbours, their testimony, the man, the interrogation of his wife and his continually intervening, the revelations about his dominance?

13. How much of Vivianne’s character as revealed through the testimony? Of Elisha’s?

14. The testimony about Elisha, his righteousness, at the Temple, the music, his clashes with some of the members, his severity, not speaking to them the years?

15. The judge, interventions, his being absent, the return?

16. The deal, Elisha and his refusing, the effect, the dismissal of the case, waiting, the final decision and his axes into the divorce? The repercussions for
Vivian?
17. Insights into Israel, the status of men and women, marriage and family, the status of religious leadership? Decisions about divorce?