William J. Fickling 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.

Dennis Littrell 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!)

zardoz12 ...if those people watch movies, that is. "Sacred" is the simple story of two Orthodox Jewish couples living in Jeruselem who are having problems with the lifestyle. The first, Liev and Rivka, are childless with Liev silently blaming Rivka. The second, Yossef and Malka, are a miserable match made by Malka's mother; Malka does not want to be married, and Yossef would rather be more comfortable driving about town in a truck with loudspeakers on it, imploring Jews to come to the run-down synagogue while handing out Orthodox liturature. The source of Malka's dislike of marriage lies with Yaakov, who used to study at the yeshiva with Liev and Yossef, but joined the army and drove a tank around Lebanon. She loves him, but cannot leave the group, or so she thinks. On top of this, the Rabbi is pressuring Liev to annul his marriage because he thinks Rivka is barren. The problem with "Kadosh" is the same one that "The Holy Land" suffers from: once the film introduces all the characters, you just know what is going to be the end result. I have to agree with the reviewers that Gitai takes one point (Patriarchy is bad) and beats it to death. Like other reviewers, I wish that Gitai would have shown us a little of the joys of Orthodox living, unless that is the director's other point, i.e., that being Orthodox is a lot like being an Objectivist. Definitely the bummer movie of 1999.

George Parker "Kadosh" is a protracted telling of a meager story about two women (sisters) living in an Hasidic Jewish enclave in Israel under appalling religious tyranny. Little happens in the film which tends to tell its tale visually with minimal dialogue. Whether or not the film is representative of Hasidism is irrelevant. It's just a MOVIE! Ultra-orthodox anythings are usually a screwed up lot and fortunately not representative of the cultural whole. Overall, Kadosh is not luminous and not even very interesting though it is sensitive and provocative. Fast forward through everything but the subtitles and you'll get a good sense of what the film is about in about 30 minutes. Or, better yet, go find yourself a better film to watch. (C)Note - The VHS I watched had white subtitles with no outline making them extremely difficult to read.