User reviews

There are some thoughtful and well-written reviews both at Amazon and the IMDb and elsewhere in which it is claimed that the type of Jewish Orthodoxy presented here is not accurate. There are quibbles about the unnatural way that Meir puts on his garments. There is criticism of the selection of prayers recited, especially Meir giving thanks that he was not born a woman.

Moreover, there is the assertion that orthodox Judaism does NOT require that a man repudiate his wife after ten years of marriage even though she may be barren. Furthermore, the character of Yossef is said not to be typical of orthodox Jewish men since he takes his wife sexually without love or tenderness, that he hits her when angry, and goes about the streets of Israel with a loudspeaker hawking his religious point of view.

First, it is a shame (if true) that the way Meir dressed and recited his morning prayers was inaccurate, because such details can easily be made accurate with some research. Certainly director Amos Gitai had access to many orthodox people who could have helped him. Putting that aside, the artistic point of the opening scene was to immerse the viewer into a world based on religious beliefs and practices that are strikingly different from the secular world of today. He also wanted to introduce his theme, which is that women in Orthodox Judaism, as in the other two great religions of the Middle East, in their fundamentalist interpretations--this bears repeating: in their fundamentalist interpretations--are not on an equal level with men.

Certainly in a realistic sense, Meir, since he dearly loves his wife, would have chosen something else to recite. However, I think we can give Gitai some artistic license here. The fact that such a prayer exits in the Jewish canon is not to be denied.

Second, the film does NOT claim that Orthodox Judaism requires that a man repudiate his wife after ten years of childless marriage. Instead it makes the very strong point that, from the point of view of Orthodox Judaism, such a woman is not fulfilling her role in society, and that there will be people outside the marriage who will try to persuade him to abandon her. Gitai's screenplay contains several textual pronouncements to that effect. The fact that Meir is torn between his love for his wife and his love for his religion is really the point. How he resolves that dilemma is an individual choice, and that is what the film shows.

As for the unflattering character of Yossef, whom Rivka's sister Malka is persuaded to marry (not forced, mind you, but persuaded) he is a foil and a counterpoint for the loving and deeply religious Meir. The fact that he is not a poster boy for Orthodox Judaism is not a valid criticism of the film, since all religions have their black sheep.

I think a fairer criticism of the film can be made by addressing the question of, was it entertaining and/or a work of art?

Here I have mixed feelings. Certainly the acting was excellent, and the theme a worthy one. Gitai's desire to show the underlying similarities among the conservative expressions of all three Abrahamic religions, through their shared patriarchal attitudes toward women and their estrangement from the postmodern world, was very well taken and appropriate. Where I think Gitai failed as film maker is in his inability to be completely fair to the orthodox way of life--his failure to show the joys as well as the sorrows of its everyday life which would help outsiders to understand why people adhere to such a way of life.

I also think that the film could have been better edited. In the documentary about how the film was made we see scenes that were cut that I think should have been retained, especially the scene in which the omelette was made and the scene in which the mother critiques the life choices her three daughters have made. Instead we have some scenes that ran too long. It is a fine technique that Gitai sometimes employs of letting the silence speak for the characters, of holding the camera on the scene to allow the audience to reflect and then to reflect again. However, I think this can be overdone and was overdone, and that judicious cutting of some of the scenes would have strengthened the movie.

Bottom line: a slow polemic of a movie that nonetheless is worth seeing because of the importance and timeliness of its theme, the originality of some of the techniques, and the fine acting, especially by Yael Abecassis who played Rivka and Meital Barda who played Malka.

One more point: yellow subtitles, please!

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

I would agree that this film progresses at a very slow pace but the story about the secretive world of orthodox Judaism is interesting. In spite of being traditionalist Hassidism is relatively modern to the long history of the Jewish religion being formed amongst Eastern European Jewry in the 18th century, partly as a reaction to anti-semitism and secularism.

The director Amos Gitai has taken on a very difficult task in portraying this sect of Judaism. What is put across well is the incompatibility of conservative traditionalism with a secular society and how suffocating and repressive religious strictures can be. A good story but one that could have shown in more detail the contrasts between the reality of secular Israeli society and the closed world of mysticism.

My big problem with this film is its view of the haredim (`ultra Orthodox' as they're sometimes called in English). Amos Gitai was called anti-religious for this movie. I don't know if he is or not. I DO know, as a modern observant Jew, that this film does not nearly portray the complexities of women's lives in haredi society. It simply chooses to portray them as victims. There have been cases of spousal abuse, marital rape, et cetera, in the haredi community, but it is not the norm. What happened with the divorce is extraordinarily unlikely in real life, yet he made it seem realistic. It's very easy to paint a picture of a society as an oppressive patriarchy if you only draw it as a caricature, and that's what Gitai did.

As a result, the good parts of the film, such as the performances, are almost meaningless, because the film's vision is so distorted and one-dimensional. This would have been a far more interesting film if it had portrayed haredi women's difficulties (which, like in any conservative society, are real) in a more complex way. There are many fascinating stories to be told about the haredi community, which combines rigid rules with an incredibly rich family and spiritual life. Kadosh shows you the pain haredi women experience, but never the joy.

Please, if you have no experience or familiarity with haredi or even Orthodox Judaism in general, take this film with a grain of salt. It's far from all there is.

Some have called this movie anti-religious, other argue that it shows Israel is a real democracy, financing movies which criticize all the aspects of its society, probably in a more abstruse way than European cinema today. More than the controversies and even the story, I remember the actors' talent. Especially Meital Berdah. In the movie, she plays the role of Yaël Abecassis' sister. I would think that in real life, she's Jennifer Connelly's sister. She has the same worrying strength on screen, the same charisma. When Connelly leaves her nightmares in Requeim For A Dream, we're both afraid and attracted by her eyes. The feeling is shared when Berdah leaves her neighborhood for a better life, trying to let a bitter marital experience slide, washed down the drinks of lowlifes who hang around the bar where her lover works.

I saw "Kadosh" when it was screened in Israel for the first time, following its participation in the Canne Festival. Amos Gitai, the most acclaimed Israeli film maker abroad, made me understand here why he is not exactly known inside his country. Well, "Kadosh" is a postcard. It shows the ultraorthodox jewish society in Jerusalem in an extremely stereotypic view, developing a story, that most of it looks too much "Hollywood like" to any person living in Israel. I must say the movie is totally uneven, moving between interesting and entertaining towards grotesque and melodramatic. Yael Abekasis, Yoram Hatab and Uri Klausner make wonderful parts, unlike the newcomer Meital Barda as an orthodox girl cheating her husband with a music band leader (Sami Hori). Both of them get mostly irritating lines, which often bring the movie towards being shallow and childish. Anyway, I wouldn't watch it again, but I guess it was worth spending a couple of hours in the movie theater. My Grade: *** (out of *****)

A great story and well-shot. But at times, things move too slowly for my taste. This inherently feminist critique is also the type of film that begs for theological critique, because the concerns of the depicted society are only understood within the context of their theology, an understanding of the documents they follow and where they and their subsequent traditions originate. Why can the women not stand up or fight back at all? Are they really that powerless? If they studied as the men did, they could, potentially (I have studied both the Torah and the Talmud as well as Hebrew and Jewish customs). What is the perspective of the filmmaker? An ex-Jew most likely? And what alternatives are there? This anti-orthodox, anti-tradition social problem film is a gripping story, even without background details. Well worth seeing.

This is a superb movie -- reminiscent of A Pearl Among Rubies in its depiction of a woman's plight in the Orthodox Jewish community. It may, however, be a more difficult film than a Pearl Among Rubies for a non-Jew to understand or credit. Kadosh focuses on the situation of two sisters in a religious culture that expects women to produce children and to devote all their energies to raising them and to caring for their husbands while the husbands spend full time studying Torah and Talmud. One of the sisters has been married for 10 years but has never conceived and is therefore considered a failure in her primary responsibility as a wife (though it's quite possible that the husband is the one who is sterile) Her younger sister is betrothed and soon married to a man she does not love and who is mainly interested in impregnating her, not in making love to her. I won't spoil the plot by spelling out what happens to them. I'm sure this will seem unbelievable to those who have never encountered the Ultra Orthodox communities [stress the plural; they are not identical] in Israel. Could this story happen? Among the more intransigent sects? I'm inclined to think so. Although the problem for the woman in A Pearl Among Rubies (Renee Zellweger -- the first time I ever saw her), the story is easier to comprehend, both because it is in English and because it is far more external and filled with incident than Kadosh. It is also more sensational and somewhat less believable. What makes Kadosh so effective is the silences, which often endure for minutes, leaving the viewer to imagine the thoughts of the characters on screen. The most serious defect of the film for those who don't speak Hebrew is the difficulty, especially on a small screen, of reading the subtitles (often set against a light background). That prevents it from being a 10. I give it a 9.

The story of two sisters living within the Hassidic community in Jerusalem. The film focuses on the suffering of women within Orthodox Judaism and how the two sisters each react to their different situation. A very powerful and emotive story, arousing strong emotions of pity and anger and even (I have to admit to myself) feelings of revulsion and intolerance towards such extreme Orthodox views and practices. At times slow and ponderous, it is nevertheless very much worth seeing.

It's so sad that some people still live according to religion, or what they know as religion, in the 21st century. We always see and hear about the extremism in Islam and Christianity, but this film manifests the fact that extremism in Judaism is not so innocent either. Being a big fan of Israel in international arena, I was astonished to see how mediocre some people can be even in my favourite country. The religious extremism virtually wrecks the lives of two women in this film, and nobody's quite happy about that except for the rabbi, nor does anyone benefit from the women's dreadful situation. There comes the question: Those of you stuck with religion dedicate their lives to doing favours to God, but does your almighty God really need your favours at innocent people's expense? Of course the women in question apparently tend to rely on the ultra-orthodox society and don't make a sufficient effort to break away. But all this is still very very sad and disturbing. And there's the segregation of "real God's people" and "the others". Israel is not the only place with that phenomenon for sure, but it's a country with a good amount of both types so it's more obvious there. One group regards the others as profanes and those "profanes" think the others are unnecessary losers who have no lives. Unfortunately people tend to remember such sad facts only when films like this are made. So it's a good idea to watch this film and grab some culture.

As for the film itself, I think the acting is brilliant, and the plot is outstanding. Typical Amos Gitai style, emphasizing some scenes and leaving them on screen for way longer than 99.9% of the viewers would find necessary. Most young people and superficial people regardless of age would find this film to be fairly boring. But I think it's right next door to being a masterpiece. If you enjoy films dealing with social issues in different cultures, and if you prefer enabling yourself to empathize with different peoples and cultures to seeing naked bodies, then do not miss this film. 9/10 from me.

First jewish movie i have seen , even im muslim . there are really some things are common, especially this ARRANGED marriage.

The film is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox lifestyle and practice. NEVER will a Jewish court enforce a divorce between childless couples. Although the concept exists in Jewish law, the conditions are too numerous for it to actually ever take place. Childless couples do find it difficult to cope with their childlessness in a community where children are a very important part of life, but nowhere are they "rejected" by their community as depicted in the film. They are treated with extreme sensitivity. In fact, many great Rabbis have lived their entire lives without children and never considered divorce.

The depiction of Yosef, a horrible human being, is meant to - perhaps subconsciously - show the behavior of a typical orthodox male. In reality, it is as typical as a violent drunkard rapist is typical of secular society. Both exist in their own worlds and both are despicable.

It is surprising that so many people form their opinions about a society based on a MOVIE (by someone who is personally biased against a community). I have always thought that it is only the Orthodox, because of their narrow-mindedness and insular lifestyle, who judge all secular people based on the violence and immoral conduct they read about in newspapers or see in the movies.

Judging from the number of comments, KADOSH seems to have received more international exposure than many better Israeli films have. I would hate to think that the reason is that KADOSH encourages the audience to feel superior to the Orthodox Jews, because as other comments have pointed out, the film misrepresents the lifestyle of Orthodox Jews in both big ways and small. I understand there is a tiny industry of ultra-Orthodox Jewish video dramas in Israel, and it would be interesting to see in contrast how these people portray themselves; but few outsiders are likely ever to see those productions because of their commercial appeal is nil. The portrayal of the ultra-Orthodox is left to well-intentioned distortions like THE SECRETS (a more recent Israeli film) and to viciously intended distortions like this one, in which the camera moves from a dead body to a shelf of Jewish books and a Jewish candelabrum as if to say "The blame lies here."

This is the best film I have seen in recent memory, perhaps the best ever, to lay bare the stupidity and cruelty of fundamentalist religions, especially in their attitudes toward and treatment of women. That the milieu in which the story unfolds is that of Hasidic Judaism is secondary; this story could have easily been told using a community of talibanic Muslims or ultra-fundamentalist Christians as its milieu. The essential point the film is illustrating is the inhumanity of rigid adherence to dogma and religious texts no matter how severe the human cost or the toll it takes on its members.

The film centers around a couple who love each other but who have been unable to conceive a child after ten years of marriage. Most well-informed people know that when a couple has difficulty conceiving it is usually the male who has the problem, usually a low sperm count. But this ignorant community blames the woman, labeling her "barren, and insisting that the husband must find a new wife. The wife, unknown to her husband, consults a female gynecologist outside her community who assures her that there is nothing wrong with her reproductive system and that she is fully able to conceive. The gynecologist suggests that they submit a sample of her husband's sperm for analysis. The wife says her husband would never do this because he is not allowed to "spill his seed." For similar religious reasons, artificial insemination is out of the question. (I am reminded of fundamentalist Christians who, in spite of overwhelming evidence for evolution, still insist that the biblical account of creation is correct.) The wife and husband are forced to separate, with tragic consequences. There is also a secondary story regarding the wife's sister and her forced arranged marriage. This is a very powerful film that is a howl of rage at fundamentalist stupidity.

This is the first movie I watch from Amos Gitaï. At first I was not so impressed and during the five first minutes, I thougth I would switch to some US blockbusters. Also, the trailer is terrible and lets you think you will go through some Bergman-like movie without the appalling.

Actually, Kadosh is quite good. The movie is about the condition of women parting their life with orthodox Jews. It does not mean that all women are necessarily victims. Rivka is strongly bound to her life, and when she is rejected by the community because she is sterile, against her husband's wishes, the only way for her is the death. On the other hand, her sister is eager to find another life, and will eventually leave.

The plot is quite traditional but actors are very good, and the painting by Amos of this almost-tragedy is magnificent. He never tries to condemn anyone, but wants to highlight that in spite of social conditions, choice is always possible. In the end, it is quite a positive. Images are beautiful. Main flaw is some useless scenes. But OK. Go for it!

The movie opens with a scene that simply could not be. A man wakes up and while his wife remains in bed, he begin his morning prayers in his bedroom while his wife sleeps peacefully. Morning blessings are recited, but only the ones Gitai finds controversial. the rest are conveniently omitted. then while in philactories and a tallis he kisses his wife good morning!! This is not an accurate depiction of jewish prayer in any home, let alone a chassidic home. Amos Gittai is not interested in accurately portraying chassidic life. He is interested in adding to his ever growing list of melodramatic and empty films. The mikka (ritual bath) scenes are far from accurate and his jewish wedding was laughable as it does not even approach the atmosphere of a chassidic wedding. I have many problems with the chassidic way of life, but i have no use for Amos Gittai's commentary on these issues. He would have you think that the chassidim are all dense comformists with severe bouts of depression. I may not agree with the chassidic lifestyle, but i acknowledge that chassidic life has many layers. Amos Gitai is blinded by his own secularist pseudo-intellectual stubborness and is therefore, incapable of portraying an accurate depiciton of chassidic life. Aside from his poor research and unbalanced portrayal of chassidic life, Gitai fails in other aspects as well. The plot is full of holes, the dialogue loaded with silence, the soundtrack is too repetitive and the acting while at times powerfull was too often loaded with melodrama. The movie drags on and on and the ending is not worth sticking around for. watch if you must, but be warned. If you want to learn about chassidic life go to the communities and talk to chassidim. Do not rely on Gittai's film!

It is obvious that those who dislike this film are quick to say it is an inaccurate portrayal of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. This is somewhat like the way that many Moslems are quick to defend Islam at its worst. Apparently too many Jews (and non-Jews worried about being called anti-semitic?) feel that criticism of this most fundamentalist form of Judalism is a terrible thing. It's a good thing and the more criticism there is the better it is. There are other forms of Judaism. There are also many Jews who are not fans of religion (as in my case). There are too many films by Jews and non-Jews that tend to equate being Jewish with being Orthodox and Ultra-orthodox. This includes the obnoxious use of Hassids at the beginning of the credits for "Schindler's List". Then there is the silliness of "A Stranger Among Us". "A Price Above Rubies" was an improvement. "Kadosh" represents the next step. Well done technically. Beautifully acted. It's harrowing but certainly not boring. (This review is by June of joejune.)

As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.

Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.

I have many ultra-Ortodox cousins in Jerusalem. As much as I love them, I will be forever uncomfortable with the status of women in the community. One of my cousins, who was in a way the younger sister I never had, is now stuck in what I view as a terrible marriage that would never last in most Western societies -- rightfully so, I think. Yet, there, it is accepted and she must live with it. (Just one example of many...)

Having said that, this movie does not portray this world with any truth, actual or figurative. This is not a story as it might have happened. Sad in a way, as the truth could have been used to make some aspects of the point Amos Gitai seems to wish to make. He also neglects the warm, loving and spiritually nurturing environment that the haredi world can be.

So, if you watch this cardboard movie, please remember it has nothing to do with the texture of reality.

A simple film condemning religious fanaticism, and how the loving bond of a married couple is indestructible, despite the society's condemnation.As an admirer of Israel, this part of Israeli society was interesting to observe in its cultural and anthropological perspective.Too much slow paced at times with unnecessary love scenes is the only criticism I can add, otherwise a worthwhile film to see for global villagers.

Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.

An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, "Kadosh" clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)

There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural "shifting objects in space", and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget "Kadosh" is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.

It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found "Kadosh" way too Nadosh (Hebrew for "trite").