Talk:Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Forking stage and screen versions

As per the recommendation in the Musical Theatre WikiProject I've forked this into two separate articles, one covering the stage musical and the other the film. Still some work to do, but hopefully most of the relevant bits have been moved to their respective articles. Jean Prouvaire (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not mention NOFX covering "Wig in a Box"

NOFX did an awesome tribute to "Wig in a box" called "The idiot son of an asshole" which is an attack against the most homophobic pResident in history.

Aristophanies, yes, but what about Gnostics?

Everyone is pretty familiar with the Symposium speech that Hedwig refers to. But I think that Tommy's character, in his Adam and Eve speech is refering to Gnostic teachings. His position in rebellion to his father might be associated with this? Also how he is fostered by Hedwig but succeeds elsewhere is similar to how Gnosticism was influenced by Plato and the Stoics. Does anyone else have any comments on the matter? Sethwoodworth 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig reference

I believe the "Hedwig" logo thats shown on the posters, etc. is a reference to the Ludwig Drum Company logo, a major manufacturer of drums that were especially important in the classis rock scene. look at this http://www.2112online.com/ilud/logoblk.jpg Might this be included in the misc. info section?--Atticus2020 07:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yitzhak - man or woman

"It is unclear whether Yitzhak was originally male or female; in the film's DVD commentary, the cinematographer calls a kiss between Hedwig and Yitzhak the movie's "heterosexual moment," to which Mitchell responds that this isn't necessarily so, since Yitzhak's gender is never specified. (Hedwig and Yitzhak are "married," but Hedwig's legal gender is never specified and so Yitzhak could possibly be Hedwig's husband or wife.)"

I was under the imperssion that he IS a man - infact, I remember reading somewhere that he is supposed to be a man (making the scene at the end of the film where she is dressed in womens clothes again poignent...when they got married Hedwig said he could no longer dress in drag...something along those lines) but is played by a woman because Mitchell or Trask wanted the high vocal range. I beleive it's on the Wig In a Box FAQs somewhere. :: ehmjay 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean to refer to this as a "heterosexual moment"? It seems like referring to a moment as heterosexual requires us to be able to identify the genders of both characters involved, and given that Hedwig's is unclear...Pstinchcombe 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Mitchell wrote the story. So he would be in the best position (better than Trask who wrote the music) to know it Yitzhak was a man or woman. It took the statement to mean that either he intentionally left it up to each viewer or he just didnt think Yitzhak's actual gender was important. Afterall, does it really matter if he's a woman trying to get back to her female self or a man trying to get back to his true female/drag queen self?

So I just went to the Hedwig in A Box FAQ and this is what I found: "Stephen Trask wanted to have the high range back up vocals, and with a girl in the man's role, this could easily be accomplished. Since Miriam Shor's (original cast) portrayal it is now tradition to cast the part to a female. It's also helps mess with the wonderful role of gender-bending on stage. Yitzak is a man, who used to be a drag queen (Hedwig made him promise never to wear another wig again once they got married) and dreams of becoming one once again.". So perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? --:: ehmjay 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A thought about Analysis

This is probably a really dumb comment, but hey - I'll say it anyways. I was reading the analysis and it's pretty in depth and very well written however to me it feels a little too...forward? What I mean to say is that Hedwig is extremely hard to judge in the end - my interpritation is completely different from the one in the article as are many other peoples. Which the article mentions the open endedness of the end of the film (I dont know the play so I can't speak for it) the article goes so in depth about one possibility for the ending that I feel either one of three things has to be done.

1) list other interpretations of the end (possibly the most ideal) 2) delete the analysis and just leave a synopsis (not the best idea) 3) emphasize this view as being just one view...but emphasize it strongly (this is not ideal, as it is mentioned this is one version its not strongly pointed out or mentioned enough)

perhaps a combination of the three?

I just feel that because the film's end is so unique and does leave so much for the individual - to have such a well written analysis it may sway casual viewers to think this is the ending.

Anyone have any thoughts? :: ehmjay 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot anaylses are based on opinion and are not encyclopedic. This section does not cite any sources and unless it can be made to do so, it should be removed. Olivix 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Information

It seems pretty clear to me that this section is a Trivia section in disguise. A number of the items could be integrated into a "production" section describing the filming process, and others could be incorporated into either an article or a section about the stage version. (I cannot, alas, find a place for the Phyllis Stein pun.) Polymathematics 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)