'Kadosh' is a tragedy; the tragic hero is Meir, who is induced or forced to divorce his wife Rivka because she is barren for 10 years. A lesser tragic hero is his sister-in-law Malka, who is forced into a loveless marriage with the fanatic Yussuf, who beats her because she is deceptive and unfaithful. The main actors did great jobs--the love of the sisters at the end was amazingly portrayed. The point of the film--that ultra-orthodox Judaism is misogynistic--is made with considerable nuance if not balance, and the world of ultra-orthodoxy is explored intriguingly, if not always clearly for a non-Jew.
I am writing this review mainly because of disdain for some other reviewers' defense of the ultra-orthodox practices and beliefs critiqued by this film. (Perhaps it needs saying that no, I'm not an anti-Semite--I even believe, despite my preference for separation of church and state, that a _Jewish_ state of Israel _needs_ to exist, as a haven from the deep-seated and contagious bigotry of other groups against Jews.) Reviewers complain that the film doesn't show the complexity or loving relations in ultra-orthodox families, and that it is biased toward secular or 'capitalist' (!) social currents.
Now, in some ways, I agree: the film oversimplifies, and Yussuf is almost a caricature. (I never saw/heard a truck with loudspeakers extolling services during my short stays in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, though I have--not extolling Jewish services--in Chicago.) Though I don't doubt for an instant that many powerful figures in religious and other institutions, in and out of Israel, are striking copies of him--for examples with less power, one need only turn on US talk radio. A work of art can be great and noble even though, and perhaps because, it makes characters overly simple and portrays actions unrealistically--I'll stop with 'Inherit the Wind' and 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.
But talk about a secular or capitalist bias reveals the blindness of these reviews: no, the real contrast point to orthodox religion is individualistic democracy: the right of each member to be treated as basically equal, to choose their own beliefs and family practices (absent harm to others) without facing organized oppression, exclusion, or condemnation, and the requirement that important social institutions forswear bias and exclusion insofar as possible. A religion (or political party) that says blacks or gays or even women are second-class should face legitimate condemnation based on the clear evidence of history that it inevitably is rooted in fears and even more shameful emotions, and that it has soul-corroding consequences for everyone it involves.
The problem with the negative reviews can be highlighted by comparing Kadosh with the recent film--'12 Years a Slave'. Defenders of slavery would surely complain that that film was very biased against the Southern plantation system, that many whites in it were caricatures, and that relations on Southern estates were complex, including lots of love and family warmth that nurtured blacks while ensuring that they fulfilled the important social function of producing more slaves to keep plantations going and free slave-owners for important cultural pursuits. I saw such arguments in the US even in the 1950s--vicious and ridiculous, surely, but more importantly they're beside the point--even if a social institution is a joy to the world, every human has the right to choose to oppose it, to live outside its norms if living so doesn't harm others, and every person has the right not to be brainwashed or mass-pressured into forgoing real alternatives to those institutions.
I am writing this review mainly because of disdain for some other reviewers' defense of the ultra-orthodox practices and beliefs critiqued by this film. (Perhaps it needs saying that no, I'm not an anti-Semite--I even believe, despite my preference for separation of church and state, that a _Jewish_ state of Israel _needs_ to exist, as a haven from the deep-seated and contagious bigotry of other groups against Jews.) Reviewers complain that the film doesn't show the complexity or loving relations in ultra-orthodox families, and that it is biased toward secular or 'capitalist' (!) social currents.
Now, in some ways, I agree: the film oversimplifies, and Yussuf is almost a caricature. (I never saw/heard a truck with loudspeakers extolling services during my short stays in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, though I have--not extolling Jewish services--in Chicago.) Though I don't doubt for an instant that many powerful figures in religious and other institutions, in and out of Israel, are striking copies of him--for examples with less power, one need only turn on US talk radio. A work of art can be great and noble even though, and perhaps because, it makes characters overly simple and portrays actions unrealistically--I'll stop with 'Inherit the Wind' and 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.
But talk about a secular or capitalist bias reveals the blindness of these reviews: no, the real contrast point to orthodox religion is individualistic democracy: the right of each member to be treated as basically equal, to choose their own beliefs and family practices (absent harm to others) without facing organized oppression, exclusion, or condemnation, and the requirement that important social institutions forswear bias and exclusion insofar as possible. A religion (or political party) that says blacks or gays or even women are second-class should face legitimate condemnation based on the clear evidence of history that it inevitably is rooted in fears and even more shameful emotions, and that it has soul-corroding consequences for everyone it involves.
The problem with the negative reviews can be highlighted by comparing Kadosh with the recent film--'12 Years a Slave'. Defenders of slavery would surely complain that that film was very biased against the Southern plantation system, that many whites in it were caricatures, and that relations on Southern estates were complex, including lots of love and family warmth that nurtured blacks while ensuring that they fulfilled the important social function of producing more slaves to keep plantations going and free slave-owners for important cultural pursuits. I saw such arguments in the US even in the 1950s--vicious and ridiculous, surely, but more importantly they're beside the point--even if a social institution is a joy to the world, every human has the right to choose to oppose it, to live outside its norms if living so doesn't harm others, and every person has the right not to be brainwashed or mass-pressured into forgoing real alternatives to those institutions.