I'm starting this thread because I have some very spoilery things to say about this film, that FroHam didn't get. But first, my non-spoilery overview:
Religion is the arena of popular, especially traditional, philosophy and ethics. Courtroom dramas push the envelope of ethics, displaying where law fails ethics, or the law can uphold ethics, depending on the story. Gett is the intersection of traditional and modern ethics in the midst of a curious courtroom drama.
The set up sounds like the Iranian drama from a couple years ago, A Separation, in which a woman desires a divorce from her husband, but obtaining that divorce isn’t at all clear cut. In Gett (which is the Hebrew term for “divorce”) it is clear that the husband is a righteous man, a scholar of Torah, who neither abuses nor cheats on his wife, and although it is clear that their marriage is far from a happy one, he refuses to give her a divorce. And he has the right to refuse her.
In a secular court, divorce, especially since the 1950’s, has been much easier to get. The trickiest part is if money or children are involved. In a religious court, such as Orthodox Jews or Catholics might have, a divorce is much more restrictive, and a level of unfaithfulness must be proven. Of course, one could always obtain a divorce through the secular court, but not if you want to remarry a Catholic or an Orthodox Jew. Then the right to remarry a religious must be obtained through religious permission. Vivian Amsalem is a religious woman, and wants to live her life at peace with a religious man. Thus, she must have a gett.
The ethical principle primarily being challenged in this film is patriarchy. Ancient Jewish culture is the oldest patriarchy based on a rule of law that considers all in the society, still in existence. Many Jewish cultures have set aside patriarchy, but many have not. Certainly, a strict reading of ancient Jewish law says that a divorce may only be obtained if the husband hands a written divorce to his wife. Thus, the husband has all the control of a divorce. A woman might sue for divorce, like Vivian, but she does not have the right to speak for herself, and if the husband refuses to give a divorce, then the judge’s hands are tied.
As a narrative, the great mystery is the marriage itself. All we see is the speech offered in court and in the anteroom. We have no idea how they lived or why Viviane is so desperate to get a divorce. And the courtroom proceedings, for the most part, carefully steps around the marriage, speaking of reputation and the public face of the marriage, only giving us small glimpses of the marriage itself. So we, along with the judges, are piecing together the truth and the motivations behind Viviane’s desperation and Elisha’s refusal.
While the hesitantly granted details are interesting, what is really on trial is the process itself. The greatest benefit of modern justice, in the instances when it is allowed, is the ability to speak one’s own perspective. An older male can never understand what it means to live as a woman. A wealthy person will never really appreciate the difficulties of being poor. The sane will never understand the way a mentally ill person undermines themselves without knowing. The white person won’t understand the limitations of being a black American. We can intellectualize the situations, even appreciate the difficulties, but the life of an oppressed person is much more difficult than any of us realize until we have experienced it ourselves. The life of a person of power is all the same, but each life of oppression is uniquely different. Thus, the oppressed must have the opportunity to speak, to explain, to give windows to the difficulties. And if there is a system in which the weak are not allowed to speak their peace, then no one can say it for them. No one will give them justice, because no one other than they even know what justice looks like for them.
Everyone must be given an opportunity to speak for themselves, to explain who they are and the difficulties they face. And people of power must be forced to listen to them or else justice will be thrown out the window.
The film is sparsely decorated, simply scripted, but the cinematography is interesting. Each scene is uniquely set up, with cameras seeking out different details. So we look at each time frame with different eyes, even though we are in the same rooms. It is clever and powerful and strongly reminiscent of 12 Angry Men in it's simplicity and power.