Woody Allen’s Broadway Danny Rose: Dialoguing with Jewish Tradition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting contribution to Jewish American cultural history. I believe it will be good to add few words regarding the fact that the secular vision developed in the film uses many traditional elements while leaving God out of the picture. It is a divineless religiosity or traditionalism. The Exodus narrative is interesting in this context since, while Moses plays a major role in the biblical narrative the Rabbinic "Seder" narrative leaves him almost completely out of the picture and makes God into an almost single agent. In the film, according to the interpretation offered here, the human figure takes back full agency, leaving the divine completely out of the picture. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. As you will see, I used your suggestion about Moses versus Gd. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There is potential here and some good ideas. However, the scope of the article is limited and it requires significant revisions.

On page one, the introduction is sketchy, short and divided into brief paragraphs. This neesd to be improved.

Again, on page one there's an example of the speculative writing which often returns in the following pages: "He seems to be a descendant of a Hasidic Jewish lineage."

The following introduction to Exodus is disconnected from the argument of the artile and reads as a sketchy attempt to introduce the complexity of the story before moving on to the film.

This is followed by a detailed description of the plot with little analytical merit unfortunately.

On page 6, there's a review of the existing litarature which should have come as an introduction and set the basis for the argument presented by the author.

The main argument emerges in the final pages and is relatively limited in what it adds to the debate. The ending raises interesting questions which I feel I have not been answered entirely in the article.

Overall I'd reccoment restructuring the essay, introducing the debate on Allen's religious themes, stating more clearly the orginality of the contribution, merging section so that introduction to Exodus, review of the literature and analysis of the film can flow in a coherent argument in place of being relagated to specific section.

Author Response

Thank your for your excellent comments. I have tried to follow them. 

I followed your suggestions for the introduction

The following introduction to Exodus is disconnected from the argument of the artile and reads as a sketchy attempt to introduce the complexity of the story before moving on to the film. Shortened the description of the film and stressed the point I want to make, using some new secondary literature. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting take on one of Allen's lesser films. The big issue I note is that your references are quite out of date, especially in terms of Allen scholarship. I would expect to see reference to the Woody on Rye collection or the Schlemiel Theory work, Nathan Abrams' work, Jennifer Caplan's "Ba'al Sham Tov: Woody Allen's Hasidic Storytelling," and possibly Rachel Gross' Beyond the Synagogue for its work on Jewish nostalgia. Most of the scholarship cited seems to be 20-30 years old and there is significant newer work.

Additional questions and line notes below:

Ln 22, title punctuation (overall, throughout you sometimes italicize BDR, sometimes you don't)

Ln 35 where is the citation for Allen descending from Hasids?

It is unclear why the discussion of Hasidism is here, or why it comes before the discussion of biblical text evolution.

The example of the folk costumes of the Netherlands seems an unrelated example, or if it is related that relationship is not fleshed out enough.

Ln 101 change to 1960s

Ln 170-171 “where are the women” deserves more than a parenthetical. A lot has been written about women in WA films, as well a whole body of literature asking where the people of color are.

Ln 178 standardize your spelling of Hasidic/Chassidic

p. 5 Could use a discussion of WA working through his feelings around Mia Farrow’s relationship with Frank Sinatra here.

The recap of the film is FAR too long. That should be maybe 2 paragraphs and then other details can be woven in as needed, but we are almost 2/3 of the way through the article before we get to actual argument.

Ln 310-311 “as far as we know St. Francis wasn’t Jewish” is a bizarre and unnecessarily prevaricating way to describe a Catholic saint. And potentially offensive to Catholics.

Ln 372 Plymouth is not Boston

Is Danny Rose a schlemiel, or a nebbish?

Ln 455 what is “B.R.”? Should that be B.D.R, or is it something else?

Ln 486 is Chabad.com really the best academic source you could find for the idea of storytelling?

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed review. I was able to correct the relevant details thanks to you, and I also incorporated more recent literature into my argument. I shortened the summary as you suggested. I restructured the whole article in order to present my thesis more cohaerent.

Again thank you for your helpfull comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I think you made good choices in your restructure to make the paper clearer. It still reads as over-long and often bogged down in details from the film that don't feel fully necessary, but if no other revisions are requested I can chalk that up to a question of preference. If you do go through another round of revisions I would just encourage you to try to streamline some of it.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The paper has a well defined structure, with good arguments and it uses an adequate theoretical framework, as well as the existing literature on the topic. The approach of the subject includes original aspects and the arguments contribute to enlarging the discussions and elaborating new ideas, departing from the previous knowledge.
• The arguments are logically structured and the reader has no difficulties in following the argumentative construction.
• No significant problems were detected. The subject has a high potential of attracting the readers' interest and of stimulating new debates and research. 
• The conclusion section is well written, but it would be more suitable if the author/authors will reduce the number of questions and try to rework the form of presentation, leaving the topic open for new debates in a more subtle manner.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are a few things I would encourage you to consider:

1) Try to focus on the fact that Woody Allen is a Jewish writer and actor portraying a Jewish character in what you argue is a Jewish (Pesah) motif in what others who you identify have called Allen's most Jewish work. As such, maybe you should keep to a minimum (or eliminate) the various imported references to Christianity throughout the manuscript ("Jewish Easter"; Vulgate translations, etc.)

2) Try to engage the notions of Judaism a bit more deeply: how is this tale Hasidic as opposed to rabbinic (midrashic)? Is there a connection between Rose's belief that there can be no life without suffering and his name (Daniel: Hebrew, "God is my judge")?

3) Pesah is the retelling of the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage. Isn't there more of a connection between Rose's actions and the post-Pesah wandering of the Hebrews in the wilderness? Moses leads his own "flock" of outcasts, gets nothing but complaints, watches as some of them turn to other gods (the Golden Calf), and then enter the Promised Land without him.

4) Be mindful of the use of terms: the difference between "mammy's boy" (line 252) and "mama's boy" is just one. "Shmuck" is Yiddish for penis, and may not be the term you seek. "Jewish Easter" (line 171) may be moderately offensive to both Judaism and Christianity, and may require significant explanation.

I have MANY concerns, but here are the most pressing:

1) A command of English seems to be a problem, not only with spelling, punctuation, and word creation, but also with usage and comprehension: "Deli Carnegie" (lines 198, 303, 309); "mammy's boy" (252). This may also lead to an inability to understand subtle humor, as in the sarcasm of the film's line about declaring a "national holiday" when the notorious cheapskate picks up the lunch tab (307).

2) The author doesn't seem to employ a sufficient level of interpretive nuance. The introduction (21-31) is a bit too self-referencing, and there doesn't seem to be any distinction made between the analysis of a political scientist and an artist (131) or the historical processes in the construction of canons within Judaism and from Judaism to Christianity (passim).

This leads to the two fatal flaws in the work:

Christian interpretive bias:

It seems wrong to employ such a bias (see particularly 139-141) when analyzing the work of a Jewish artist who is self-consciously Jewish and employing a particularly Jewish motif in what even the author identifies as one of the artist's most "Jewish" works.

This appears where the author refers to the New Testament without contextualizing it with a Jewish interpretive context (166-168), or uses a Catholic (Vulgate) translation of materials (148-151).

"Tin Ear" for Judaism

In addition to those mentioned above, there are a number of references that are, at best, awkward with reference to Judaism: "Jewish Easter" (171); "...as far as we know Saint Francis wasn't Jewish" (347-348); and "people of schmuck" (431, 459; schmuck: Yiddish for "penis").

The real problem is that these references suggest a superficial understanding of modern (non-biblical) Judaism that is at different moments problematic or essentialist, or verges on anti-Semitism. On what grounds, for example, does the author base the suggestion that Woody Allen is connected to Hasidism? If made in jest or by analogy (and therefore a failure of English), this needs to be made clear. But I fear that it is largely based on the image Allen presents in Annie Hall in the very specific "Grammy Hall" scene (also, by the way, at the dinner table). The author's references to Hasidism are narrow, and do not reveal an understanding of the long history of Jewish story-telling from the beginning of the rabbinic period (100s BCE, or more than 1500 years before the establishment of the Hasidic movement) and canonized (at least in part) in the various works known as Midrash.

The author's limited understanding of Judaism results in a misleading presentation of Pesah, including a failure to notice that an argument presented as based in one of the sources is a near-verbatim line from the Pesah seder ("whoever elaborates the story of Exodus shall be heaped with blessings" 449-450), or the extraordinary claim that "eating together on Pesach is a religious duty comparable with eating together on Thanksgiving" (436-437).

While reasonable people may disagree over interpretations, it seems to this reader that the above identified limitations result in a conclusion about the film that falls far short of the mark. Why is this a "Jewish" movie (as posed but not really answered, 346-350)? The answer is not in the Exodus narrative, but in the author's observation that "He [Danny Rose] even believes that life without suffering is not life" (454-455). The author puts so much emphasis on the non-Jewish names ("Tina Vitale" 235; "Angelina" 287) but neglects the Hebrew name of the film's hero, Danny (Daniel: "God is my judge"). Danny is indeed Moses, but the narrative is less about the Pesah narrative (the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage) than it is about everything after that, from the crossing of the Nile to the entrance into the Promised Land; the 40 years in the wilderness, where Moses leads a rag-tag bunch of former slaves who do nothing but complain and (at one point) follow another leader (the Golden Calf). For all of his troubles, Moses is nonetheless forced to watch as his "flock" make it to the Promised Land without him - he is not permitted there (because, according to the tradition, God judged Moses for an indiscretion that jeopardizes his right to enter the Promised Land). Like Moses - but also like the stereotypical "Jewish Mother" - Danny leads his "flock" of misfits, doing everything he can for them, even sacrificing himself for them. Danny has suffered but still done the right thing, so like Moses, God judges Danny, who is also remembered for all time (such as it may be) by having a sandwich named for him in the Manhattan Promised Land, the Carnegie Deli.

There's more (is there really a need to bring in Crimes and Misdemeanors?), but these are my main reasons for rejecting this article manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This essay has excellent material but is badly organized.  He/she might begin with the Moses quote from Broadway Danny Rose and spin out from there,  At the beginning there seems to be a confusion between the Jewish tradition of midrash and Chassidic practice.  Some matters such as the Neussner criticism of Walzer should be in a footnote.  167. "Already" is misused here.  At 171 Passover as the "Jewish Easter"--No. I82.  Is it certain that Allen was not already in an affair with Farrow?186. The labored explanation of a frame narrative is unnecessary.  Just assume knowledge.  No need for a ref to Thousand and One Nights except in a footnote.  Deli Carnegie?  Everyone knew it as the Carnegie Delicatessen.  216. Repeat on Allen's activity in the Catskill comedy circuit. 322. Jeffry Rubin-Dorsky is not a "she." 359. Reference to Jewish tragedy needs work.  398. The explanation of how Thanksgiving resembles Passover--interesting in itself--is naive.  The one is sometimes called "Turkey Day," the other takes itself seriously as a religious holiday. 430.  "the leader of schuck"?   This is a good idea for an essay.   It needs work on the Jewish attitude about why bad things happen to good people, a problem raised in both of the Allen movies under discussion., as well as a consideration of "Tikkun" and "Tshuvah."