Gets _way_ further inside the world of the "Orthodox Jew" than anything I've ever even heard about before. The director and some of the actors really are Orthodox, so the portrayals of both home life and ceremonies that are seldom photographed are truly accurate, not just informed guesses. Yet this is not an "ethnographic record", it's a feature film. And the cinematography is excellent, about as far from an "amateur home movie" as you could possibly get.The glass-half-full description is "a character study" - the glass-half-empty description is "slow boiler". Those prone to getting fidgety will probably be tested beyond their endurance. The psychological nuances aren't trivial - this film is the official submission of Israel to the Best Foreign Language Film for the Academy Awards.The treatment of women looks "old-fashioned" to us: separate rooms, hair covering, emergency health care workers restricted if they might see something they normally wouldn't ...all the horror stories we've heard. This deeper look though shows us the considerable adaptation and flexibility around those rules-- architecture modified so those separate rooms aren't all that separate, a spinster covering her hair on the advice of her rebbe even though she'd never been married so people wouldn't ask so many awkward questions, the wife controlling the money in a rebbe's household, arranging clandestine peeks at potential mates via cellphone. The clumps of women standing in doorways reminded me powerfully of the clumps of servants in those Manor House period piece films like Gosford Park. The blocking of access to females in physical distress reminds me of stories out of Saudi Arabia. And the photo I saw later of a "fashion designer" Muslim hair covering looked so much like what these Orthodox women wear I did a double-take.No easy answers, no "good guys" and "bad guys". There are both pros and cons. Downsides include difficulty finding a marriage partner, great difficulty keeping widows and widowers within the community, birth defects apparently from genetic inbreeding, and almost complete loss of input into the direction of the surrounding society/economy. Upsides include very strong support from both family and friends, and unparalleled community closeness. Where else do non-relatives easily call other adults by their pet names when the going gets rough? And how often do family friends feel free to proffer a word of contrary advice at any time? And although someone's decision to move away is often somewhat painful to others, where else would people literally rather die? Beforehand I was ready to keep my distance and laugh at "those silly people". But watching it I realized the film applies equally well to _all_ communities that are "in the world but not of the world": fundamentalist Christians; even hippies who've resigned themselves to having zero political influence. There's a whole lot of space in the middle on the line with "modern society" on one end and "a cult" on the other end. Although on the surface this film is about a particular world that's about as familiar to me as living on Mars, the deeper story of gaining community but losing interaction with the surrounding society/economy still has me ruminating days later.

This was an interesting movie, as others have pointed out, because it gives a behind-the- scenes look at Orthodox Jews. But a big disappointment (for me, philosophically) was when Shira commented, "Maybe this is the way it was meant to work out." I can't remember the exact words, but that was the idea—that this marriage with her brother-in-law was somehow fated and her destiny. This school of thought legitimizes ANY action by dragging in fate. WHATEVER I do, it was "fated." Blah. Nonsense! Also, a little shiver went through me as I watched this because I was reminded of my junior prom in high school. I took the younger sister of my best friend. I was creeped out the whole time because (of course!) the younger sister had many of the characteristics of my friend...it was almost like dating him! Needless to say, I had no more dates with the younger sister. How much creepier it would be to marry your sister's husband! Kinky maybe, but definitely creepy. Inevitably he would call you by her name, attribute her qualities to you, etc. It's almost like you would be sacrificing your own identity to resurrect your dead sister. Yuk. And I think that's why the director ended the movie by showing them together in the bedroom after the wedding: What now? Was this really such a great idea? Another observation, which applies to Amish, Mennonites, etc. as well as to Orthodox Jews--why pick a period in time (the 17th c. seems to be a favorite) and pretend you still lived in 1650? If you were TRULY Orthodox, wouldn't you dress the way Moses did (for example)? Why seize upon Eastern Europe c. 1650? Those silly fur hats might be just the thing for a brisk Minsk winter, but they're just silly in balmy Israel. And surely Israel would be far more "authentic" and "Orthodox" than Minsk. Finally, I was reminded of my year living in a neighborhood filled with Lubovitch Jews. Occasionally the lady across the street would come over and ask me to turn on her stove on the Sabbath. No problem, I was happy to "help." Then one day I decided to check out the Sabbath regulations in the Old Testament. Sure enough, you weren't supposed to "work" on the Sabbath, which, if you stretched it, could include turning on the stove (how about the lights? And of course how about the effort required to walk across the street to get me to turn on the stove vs. the effort to simply turn on the stove myself?). But...wait! read a little further: these regulations also applied to "the stranger living among you." Surely I was the epitome of "the stranger living among you"! I still can't figure that one out.

For those who are inclined to seek their pound of flesh from the extremely pious devotees of religion, director Rama Burshtein's intense dissection of how an Israeli Hasidic family copes with a domestic tragedy, may seem to be a just critique of religious extremism in general. But as a member of such a community, Ms. Burshtein's intent is not to criticize such a community but to show its humanity, warts and all.'Fill the Void' begins as we're introduced to the larger Hasidic Jewish community during the Festival of Purim. As the Bible says, 'Be fruitful and multiply'; as a result, Hasidic families usually end up having large families. It's a 'Mitzvah' for the head Rabbi to dole out wads of cash to the fathers who are having a hard time trying to pay the bills, given the numbers of children involved. But not all the issues involve economic need; one man complains about his 'mentally ill' wife. The Rabbi's solution: more cash. The man shoves the money back in protest and it's obvious that the head Rabbi's solutions can't always revolve around financial remuneration.The focus of 'Fill the Void', is the upper middle class Hasidic Mendelman family from Tel Aviv. The father is a kindly man, Rabbi Aharon, who's married to Rifka. The break into the second Act occurs when their 28 year old daughter, Esther, dies in childbirth, after giving birth to a son, Mordechay. After the funeral, the son-in-law, Yochay, is hesitant to accept an offer to marry a widow in Belgium, and bring the newborn with him to a foreign country. Rifka's solution is to try and convince her surviving 18 year old daughter, Shira, to marry Yochay, and become a good mother to Mordechay.Shira, a sensitive but tough soul, was expecting to be matched up with a young man her age. The idea that she should shack up with her brother- in-law, is repugnant to her, not only because of the subtle feeling that such an act is incestuous but because she's being robbed of the opportunity of experiencing being a newlywed with a partner who's also going in completely fresh.While Yochay has his doubts, things become more complicated when Shira insists that an older family friend, Frieda, would be a better match for her brother-in-law. Yochay is insulted but soon comes around to the idea of marrying the much younger Shira, at the strong urging of Shira's mother, Rifka.The pressure on Shira is subtle but Ms. Burshstein makes it clear that Shira is never forced into anything. When they go before the head Rabbi who asks Shira what are her "feelings" about her pending decision, Shira claims that it's not a "matter" of feelings but rather, a matter of expediency. Quoting the famed Rabbi Nachman, the head Rabbi, calls the wedding off as he realizes Shira's motivations for this marriage are negative. This decision plunges Shira's mother into despair.Shira eventually changes her tune. One factor is that she finally gets to meet the young man she originally was betrothed to. He turns out to be a complete dud. And then after she meets with Yochay again, he shows her his sensitive side, breaking down over his wife's recent death and trying to cope with all the pressure. Shira eventually changes her mind, recognizing that Yochay is worth shacking up with. Not only is it now for the good of the child but, she will go into this union with genuine affection for her brother-in-law.Ms. Burshstein paints a portrait of a community that also has its share of outsiders, peripheral characters who must find a way to fit into the insular community, despite having handicaps or flaws. One such character is Rifka's sister, Shira's aunt, who has no arms and never married. We're also introduced to a lonely widow, who interrupts the head rabbi by lamenting that she doesn't know how to choose a suitable oven for her kitchen.All the performances in 'Fill the Void' are spot on, particularly Hadras Yaron, as the tough as nails teenager, Shira and Yiftach Klein, as the sensitive and thoughtful brother-in-law, Yochay.Critics of religious fundamentalism may still interpret 'Fill the Void' in their own way. At first glance, the rules by which this community live by, seem awfully restrictive, particularly the way in which children are married off and women can't participate in the rituals, in the same joyous way, the men do. Nonetheless, Ms. Burshtein, through her sensitive story, proves that this community is a lot more open, than the average person gives them credit for.

Israel's official entry to the Oscars this year is probably too minimalistic and low-key to make it to the final five, but it's a film well worth watching and is in fact one of the best films I've seen so far emerge from the growing Israeli cinema. Fill the Void is of particular interest to Israeli viewers because it's a rare window into the very closed-community lifestyle of the Orthodox Jews, giving very rare insight as the film was made by an Orthodox director but with a secular audience in mind, which is something never seen before. For foreign viewers too, it may be a fascinating glimpse into an anachronistic, static religious community that hardly ever opens itself up like this to the general public.Cinematically, Fill the Void is startlingly minimalistic; the story is a very brief glimpse into a very simple lifestyle. The gorgeous cinematography compliments that, constantly focusing on the contrast between Hadas Yaron's white face, the black clothing and the gray-brown backgrounds, but with a soft focus that makes it very easy to get lost inside. The cinematography itself is so aesthetic that it often conceals just how simple the story and the characters are - the film revolves around one moral question without giving too much insight into the thought processes of any of the characters. Its real achievement however is in enabling the viewer to be immersed in the environment and the lifestyle of a culture so different from what we're used to, and in that sense it's a triumph.