Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** In the musical version this is explicitly called out by Toulouse-Lautrec, reminding the Duke that they live in a republic. Of course in that version, he claims the title of Duc de Monroth.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, according to Wiki/TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy, it's basically just a title your family happened to have that you inherited. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
to:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, according to Wiki/TheOtherWiki Website/TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy, it's basically just a title your family happened to have that you inherited. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Added DiffLines:
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
just putting this here for future editors
Added DiffLines:
'''As a Headscratchers subpage, all spoilers are unmarked [[Administrivia/SpoilersOff as per policy.]] Administrivia/YouHaveBeenWarned.'''
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Given that Christian introduces them as "Zilder and his notorious girls," this seems like the most obvious interpretation. They're jewel-seeking hounds, willing to climb all over you as long as you've got something they want.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Not correct usage
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
* Why were the prostitutes at the Moulin Rouge called "Diamond Dogs"? I know it's supposed to be a reference to the song of the same name, but I read that in the past, such as the 19th Century the movie takes place in, calling someone a dog was considered a harsh insult. So in that case, wouldn't that sort of be [[SnarkBait giving the people who don't like prostitution a free pass to make fun of them]]? Zidler [[DidntThinkThisThrough didn't think that through]].
to:
* Why were the prostitutes at the Moulin Rouge called "Diamond Dogs"? I know it's supposed to be a reference to the song of the same name, but I read that in the past, such as the 19th Century the movie takes place in, calling someone a dog was considered a harsh insult. So in that case, wouldn't that sort of be [[SnarkBait giving the people who don't like prostitution a free pass to make fun of them]]? them? Zidler [[DidntThinkThisThrough didn't think that through]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's been said that Nini is intensely jealous of Satine and likely did it out of spite. There's at least one fan theory that suggests Nini was the original "Sparkling Diamond" before being demoted back to Can Can girl and replaced by Satine. She could've thought that ruining both Satine and Christian would mean that she could go back to being a Sparkling Diamond again.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Why didn't she tell Christian? He's a hopeless romantic who would probably insist on either trying to nurse her back to health or completely break down and subsequently find a way to follow her after she died. He didn't exactly handle her death well when it was a complete surprise to him; if he'd known it was coming, the knowledge would have just festered in him and he'd have likely responded in the worst possible way. Why didn't she or Zidler tell the Duke? He was paranoid enough to question how long they'd have known and would either have accused them of trying to swindle him out of his money, or he might even have believed, as someone else said, they were indirectly trying to kill him. Either way, again, he'd probably have handled the news in the worst possible way. Why couldn't she have told Christian the truth? Because again, Christian is a hopeless romantic - worse, he's a hopeless romantic who has virtually no idea of the reality of the situations he finds himself in, or how to handle it when the reality starts breaking up his view of how things are. When the Duke questions the ending of his play, what does he do? Immediately give the game away. His entire idea of being in love is like a fairytale - he'd probably see them running away together across the mountains and living a penniless but happy life ever after with the Duke and all his money and henchmen never finding them. Satine, on the other hand, is more knowledgeable enough to know that that kind of ending isn't going to happen even if she wasn't dying and, more importantly, that isn't the ending ''she'' necessarily wants. She's happy with Christian, yes, but she doesn't want to be constantly looking over her shoulder for the Duke to show up and worrying how to survive with practically no money.
Added DiffLines:
*** This is the most likely explanation. "Consumption" was, to most 19th century writers (especially the romantic types like Christian seems to be) and by all accounts the wider public at that time as well, the equivalent to the IncurableCoughOfDeath trope we have now - it was a sort of catch-all explanation, especially if it came down to a...potentially less civilised cause of death, such as an STD. Consumption just became a quick and easy label to use - if they were coughing blood, they had consumption, no more questions. Nowadays, a lot of people who were said to have died from consumption would probably be diagnosed with all sorts of other more specific illnesses.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 37 (click to see context) from:
** They're hustlers. They'll sniff out all the money you've got on you and try to get it all before the night is over.
to:
** They're hustlers. They'll sniff out all the money you've got on you and try to get it all before the night is over.over.
** It could also be referencing the idea of the Moulin Rouge girls being like fancy, high-class pets to those who hired them.
** It could also be referencing the idea of the Moulin Rouge girls being like fancy, high-class pets to those who hired them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
** It's possible it was an AppropriatedAppellation -- calling people dogs, especially women, isn't such a terrific idea now (cf. "bitch" as an insult) or in David Bowie's day, but paired with the glamorous and beautiful associations of the word "diamond", it might have been an insult slung at the women of the Moulin Rouge that stuck, or a self-deprecating moniker referencing both the dance hall's glitzy aesthetic and the women's harsh way of life.
to:
** It's possible it was an AppropriatedAppellation -- calling people dogs, especially women, isn't such a terrific idea now (cf. "bitch" as an insult) or in David Bowie's day, but paired with the glamorous and beautiful associations of the word "diamond", it might have been an insult slung at the women of the Moulin Rouge that stuck, or a self-deprecating moniker referencing both the dance hall's glitzy aesthetic and the women's harsh way of life.life.
** They're hustlers. They'll sniff out all the money you've got on you and try to get it all before the night is over.
** They're hustlers. They'll sniff out all the money you've got on you and try to get it all before the night is over.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, according to TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy, it's basically just a title your family happened to have that you inherited. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
to:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, according to TheOtherWiki Wiki/TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy, it's basically just a title your family happened to have that you inherited. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, according to TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy anymore. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
to:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, according to TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy anymore.aristocracy, it's basically just a title your family happened to have that you inherited. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, actual hereditary titles were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished at the same time, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy anymore. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
to:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, actual according to TheOtherWiki the hereditary titles themselves were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished at the same time, since, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy anymore. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** FWIW although the nobility as an institution was abolished in 1870, actual hereditary titles were restored in France in 1852 and weren't abolished at the same time, so you could still have the official title of 'Duke' in post-1870 France; it's just that it doesn't really mean anything anymore in terms of political power and authority, and the government doesn't award such titles or create new aristocracy anymore. But that's kind of academic since the Duke himself is pretty clearly suggested to be British.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
*** I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the original troper thought that Toulouse and intentionally set up the situation and intended Christian to be mistaken for the Duke - my interpretation was that Toulouse had set up a meeting for Christian as a writer, and Satine/Zidler had forgotten or just ignored this as the meeting with the Duke was far more important. The mistaken identity was a happy coincidence as far as Toulouse was concerned. The hanky confusion was just that - confusion. It's a bit far-fetched to think that Toulouse could somehow have orchestrated the hanky mess up, and the reason he switched after apologising and called the Duke and his minder "Bourgeois pigs!" was because he was drunk on absinthe and they were being obnoxious. One person's suspicious timing is another's serendipitous, story-starting coincidence...
to:
*** I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the original troper thought that Toulouse and Zidler intentionally set up the situation and intended Christian to be mistaken for the Duke - my interpretation was that Toulouse had set up a meeting for Christian as a writer, and Satine/Zidler had forgotten or just ignored this as the meeting with the Duke was far more important. The mistaken identity was a happy coincidence as far as Toulouse was concerned. The hanky confusion was just that - confusion. It's a bit far-fetched to think that Toulouse could somehow have orchestrated the hanky mess up, and the reason he switched after apologising and called the Duke and his minder "Bourgeois pigs!" was because he was drunk on absinthe and they were being obnoxious. One person's suspicious timing is another's serendipitous, story-starting coincidence...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, keep in mind that the Argentinian claims the main part during their pitch of the show to the Duke. During that scene, everyone is clearly flying by the seats of their pants trying to convince the Duke that they have a project that's worth his investment. Everyone's probably just too busy trying to keep ahead of the Duke while they're making the pitch to argue with who's claiming what part and then they'd be too busy actually getting the show and theatre conversion together to worry about it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** A deleted scene helps explain this, adding the electric lights and such to the Moulin had sunk Zidler deep into debt, and the profits from the nightclub weren't cutting it so in order to pay off the old debt AND have enough left over for the conversion to a theater he needed an outside investor. Satine was the bait for Duke and her job was to convince him to invest in the club to theater scheme.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The club has electricity, which wasn't at all cheap in the early 1900s. The Moulin Rouge could have barely been scraping even. They need the Duke to both be the financer - giving them enough money to convert to a theatre - and their patron - getting respectable, wealthy names in the seats once it's open.
Added DiffLines:
** The Duke shows himself to be a {{Yandere}} and it's entirely possible that he would have thrown the deal out if he knew Satine was dying. Presumably Zidler was hoping that Satine would survive long enough for the initial performances of the new theatre.
Added DiffLines:
** They're not exactly able to set aside time to find new performers in addition to all the other work that needs to be done. The Argentinian just might be good enough to justify keeping him on while money is scarce. Maybe he never fell asleep during a performance before.
Added DiffLines:
** It's also possible she was jealous and wanted to knock Satine down a peg or two.
Added DiffLines:
** Maybe consumption wasn't what she had? Christian is the one telling the story and - like ''many'' writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries - didn't quite know how the disease worked. Given that she was a high class prostitute, it's possible she had an STD of some kind. Christian of course would know nothing about those kinds of diseases (no TV or internet to let him in on the facts), and just assumed consumption was what she died of.
