This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Surely it is more based off La Traviata than the other opera? I mean, the bit where he throws the money out of her really clinches it. Perhaps La Traviata (etc) should be mentioned first and not as an afterthought. And I don't see the connection to the story of Orpheus. (Who goes down into the underworld to reclaim his bride, but looks back while leaving, thus she is stuck there, then he gets torn apart...you see where I am going with this)—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.233.22.3 (
talk)
05:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)reply
- The Orpheus motive, in literature, is about losing a beloved twice. Christian first loses Satine when she breaks up with him to save his life, then when he 'reclaims' her during the finale, she dies, and thus he loses her again.
Lunapuella06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
- A particular thing, by the way, that marks it as at least Orpheus-inspired is the fact that he (Christian) "looks back" and then she dies. It's kind of a stretch, but this wasn't my idea - some professor said this when I was at a Latin convention a few years ago; it was his big example of an Orpheus story.
Evanbro06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Kidman says in the DVD extras that she wanted the part only after she heard who was directing it (likely because of her other comments of being apprehensive about singing on camera). It says 'citation needed' so that's where she's said it on record.
NorrYtt (
talk)
15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)reply
03-Aug-2008: Because there are so many songs (over 30) in the film, this is a reminder that Wikipedia uses the system of
logical quotations, putting commas/periods outside of quotation marks, unless quoting an entire sentence. Unlike in English grammar, commas should be placed after quotation marks in listing song titles, such as: "Chiquitita", "Fernando", "I Have a Dream". Opera and film names have their titles italicized rather than quoted unless using teletype font. Excessive commas are termed "
comma splices" in formal punctuation rules. -
Wikid77 (
talk)
20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Cast
Forgot to tag this as a minor edit and leave an explanation for the edit. I added additional members of the cast some time ago, including the character of "The Unconscious Argentinian," the reason being, of course, that characters with much less screen name were included on the first cast list (such as Audrey, whom we meet at the very beginning, but never see again). Someone changed the character's name to "The Narcoleptic Argentinean." Technically, it's more accurate to refer to him as "The Narcoleptic Argentinean," since he doesn't spend his entire screen time unconscious, but he is listed in the movie credits and on various websites as "The Unconscious Argentinean," therefore he is mentioned in the cast list as such.
PatrickLMT (
talk)
16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The film's IMDb page refers to that character as "The Unconscious Argentinean." The article has been updated to reflect this, and a citation for the IMDb page has been added.
Msoul13 (
talk)
15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not a film buff but trying to sort out a dab page at
Martin Brown. There's a producer of this name listed for this film at
Academy Award for Best Picture and in IMDB, but not on this page. According to IMDB he also produced
Romeo + Juliet but isn't listed there. Is this an ingenious hoax, or should his name appear in this article? Or do producers just not get much of a mention? I've dabbed him as
Martin Brown (producer), a redlink.
PamD (
talk)
11:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I've now found that he was removed in
this edit, with no edit summary. Has anyone got a Reliable Source to verify whether he should be listed or not?
PamD (
talk)
11:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Is it just me, or has NO ONE got the obvious clue that this movie is a stylized rip-off of the movie Camille? The plot of Camille involves a famous courtesan who is dying of consumption, who is set up to meet a rich duke at the theatre but mistakes a poor guy for him instead and tries to seduce him, falls in love with the poor man after all, ends up meeting the real duke and becomes his possession and can't see the poor man anymore, sneaks out to see the poor man but is eventually caught by the duke, sends away the poor man and pretends not to love him for his own good, the poor man comes back disillusioned and throws money at her to "pay" for the love she gave him, and then in the end they reconcile and she dies in his arms.
THEY ARE THE SAME PLOT. I'm kind of outraged nobody has pointed this out. I mean I love Camille AND I love Moulin Rouge, but you can't ignore the blatant similarities.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.225.210.174 (
talk)
01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm only familiar with Cukor's version of Camille starring Greta Garbo, but I do also agree that the plot has some major similarities. I'd even go as far as to say that it must have served as an inspiration to Moulin Rouge! The inspiration part may very well be categorized under "original research hence inappropriate for inclusion", but the similarities in the plot for sure aren't. And: IMDb does cite Camille (i.e. Dumas' novel) as an inspiration to Moulin Rouge!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr077665884.55.221.17 (
talk)
11:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Since the subject is French courtesans from the turn of the last century, the movie bears similarity to the famous novel
Nana by Emile Zola. The novel is about the rise and fall to fame of a French courtesan/actress in Paris (about 1880). It's not widely read in the US, but it's very well known in France. Several characters even have similar names (Nini/Nana, Satine/Satine). Does anyone know if the screenwriter was inspired by the novel?
78.240.11.120 (
talk)
20:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Below section had been tagged for needing sources since 2010. Unsourced material has been removed from the current copy of the article. Feel free to reincorporate information in the below section with appropriate citations, though IMDb ratings are not considered noteworthy in any case.
Doniago (
talk)
13:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Originally set for release on Christmas 2000 as a high profile Oscar contender,
20th Century Fox eventually moved the release to the following spring so director
Baz Luhrmann would have more time during post production. The film premiered at the
2001 Cannes Film Festival[1] on May 9 — making it the festival's opening title. A limited release on May 18, 2001 in the United States followed, and the film was released to theaters across the United States on June 1, 2001.
The film was a success in
limited release, grossing $185,095 in two theaters on opening weekend. The numbers continued to increase over the
Memorial Day weekend, with the film making $254,098. When it expanded into over 2500 theaters, it made $14.2 million in its first weekend of wide release. The film eventually grossed over $57 million in the United States. It had a brief re-release in October 2001 for
Oscar consideration, with Luhrmann stating that his intent was to get Kidman and McGregor nominated.
The movie was also successful internationally. It broke
box office records in
Australia where it was given a rare theatrical re-release at the end of 2001, and found an audience in almost every country. It eventually made over $120 million internationally, resulting in a worldwide gross of $179,213,434.
The film holds a rating of 7.6 at Internet Movie Database,[2] 66/100 at Metacritic based on 35 reviews,[3] and a 76% "Fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 187 reviews.[4]
The film made its home video premiere on Dec. 18, 2001 on DVD followed by a VHS release on March 19, 2002. A Blu-ray edition was released on Oct. 19, 2010.
"Release and reception" section has been expanded with reviews from prominent critics. Appropriate citations have been added. IMDb information has been removed.
Msoul13 (
talk)
16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: After nearly a month of discussion and a relisting, I'm going to have to close this as no consensus to move, let alone consensus for a move to either proposed title specifically. Though a majority of participants favored a move of some kind, several supported only one option but not the other. I understand there to be a solid consensus against "Moulin Rouge! (2001 film)", but no consensus for a move to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)" (without the exclamation point) over the current title.
Cúchullaint/
c01:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the "!" is sufficient to distinguish from the other films, and the only time the year is needed in titling is if there are exact name clashes with other films. The hatnote does a sufficient job of identifying the other possible "Moulin Rouge" hits that are given. --
MASEM (
t)
14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment:MOS:FOLLOW states, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration." However,
WP:NATURAL suggests that Moulin Rouge! could be sufficient here as natural disambiguation. It seems like readers get to where they want to go anyway. Even if we made the move, I'm sure we would be okay with
Moulin Rouge! redirecting to
Moulin Rouge (2001 film). In the long term, though, considering the number of topics with the same name, an exclamation mark seems like an awfully weak way to differentiate this film from the other topics. There will eventually be a generation that will know of this film as an old one, and I am not sure if they would recall this one with an exclamation mark like those of us who saw it come out and become popular in our time. What do you think,
Masem,
Hot Stop? (Late addition: I just noticed that
In ictu oculi wants to keep the exclamation mark in the move. If we moved it, I would want to drop the mark per the MOS. It seems to be a case where we mention the stylization in the opening sentence but just write Moulin Rouge in the article body.)
Erik (
talk |
contribs)
18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
User:Erik, thanks. I'm ambivalent about keeping/losing the ! before (2001 film). It is there in 60/40 of Books. In other RMs where there was x!(song) and x(song) there was an overwhelming case for moving. Here there is merely a strong case. Print sources don't remember the !, so it's likely readers won't either.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
To mean, it seems like an unnecessary issue, with the move creating one additional direct for those that are searching on "Moulin Rouge!"; anyone else searching on "Moulin Rouge" (sans !) will end up at the disamb page in either case (working on the argument that this film and, at minimum the 1952, are equally justified as candidates for the most common name, and thus neither article can occupy the "Moulin Rouge" spot). Also, compare this situation to
That's Entertainment! (where there are also punctuation-less topics too). --
MASEM (
t)
21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Moulin Rouge" is the most likely term people will use when searching this film; most people do not know either how our disamb system works or that off-hand that the film was made in 2001. "Moulin Rouge" (presently or after this move) takes the reader to the disamb page for that term, which includes all the films and other related topics. Even considering the drop-down box of possible search hits, the proposed title will not stand out as the film they may be looking for, and will still likely end up at the disamb page. Google, yes, might prioritize this version of the film over all other possible names, regardless of what we name the article, but we don't consider that aspect in our naming scheme. --
MASEM (
t)
14:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
In this case, however,
Moulin Rouge! should remain as a redirect to this film, the only usage that uses an exclamation point. It's very unlikely that someone searching for this term is looking for anything else. So to clarify, I only support this on
MOS:TM grounds, and would oppose the proposal as written. --
BDD (
talk)
22:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
No, "Moulin Rouge" is reasonably fairly the name of a well-known movie that is not this one, as well as a real place; no one of these (including this film) stand out as the primary topic. --
MASEM (
t)
06:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. My second question: who in the world is going to search for any other Moulin Rouge by typing in "Moulin Rouge!"? (For the proposer or a supporter to answer, obviously.)
Red Slash02:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Geez, I didn't realize that the suggested target was with the "!", making the specific move even more inappropriate. There is a small bit of logic to move to
Moulin Rouge (2001 film) (transforming the "!" to the disabm. phrase on the basis that the title, with "!" may not be the most common name) but retaining the "!" and disamb is absolutely inappropriate. --
MASEM (
t)
14:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The "!" is not a special character, though, in light of the most. It is punctuation as part of the title, and as there's no other "Moulin Rouge!" name, no need to move. --
MASEM (
t)
15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)reply
To Moscow Connection and Papyrus's points above, "Moulin Rouge! (2001 film)" is a completely unnecessary disambiguated title. There is no other work named "Moulin Rouge!" to require this type of furthering disambiguation and thus improper. Moving to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)" is at least reasonable. --
MASEM (
t)
07:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, I read everyone's comments before casting my !vote. I disagree entirely with the points you mention which is why I !voted the way I did.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak07:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To quote
Red Slash, "who in the world is going to search for any other Moulin Rouge by typing in "Moulin Rouge!"? I believe a disambiguating title is necessary and that it should contain a "!". Therefore, I believe
Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) is the way to go and I'm unlikely to be swayed from this opinion.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak08:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
You're missing the point. The article, right now, sits at "Moulin Rouge!", so yes, someone searching on "Moulin Rouge!" will land exactly on this page (no redirects) and if they search on "Moulin Rouge" they will go through the disambiguation page. It is precise enough without having to add "(2001 film)" to this name. If you did add it, now someone searching on "Moulin Rouge!" will go through a redirect to get to this page, and that's what we want to avoid. --
MASEM (
t)
08:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I do not agree with you. I already stated that I've already read everyone's opinions (that includes yours) and that I'm unlikely to change mine.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak15:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
At least I'm saving the article from being moved to an incorrect title (without the exclamation mark). As for "(2001 film)", it can't be helped cause there are similar discussions (look:
Talk:Wonderful World!!#Requested move,
Talk:Happiness?#Requested move) and almost everyone agrees on the idea that punctuation marks are not enough for disambiguation... If I were the only person to decide, I would probably prefer to leave the article where it is now... --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
11:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Those haven't closed yet. Ones that have closed that show that it is unnecessary to disamb further include
That's Entertainment!,
That's Entertainment! (song) (the song from that film) [Talk:That's Entertainment (The Jam song)#Requested move] , and
Scandalous! [Talk:Scandalous!#Requested move]. The ones you point to all have the same problem - the punctuation is a natural disambiguation and thus further disambiguation is not needed. --
MASEM (
t)
15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
But what can I do? I think the page will be moved anyway (and all the Japanese songs too cause there isn't enough people to defend them), so I'm just choosing the least evil of the available options. --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, on those other ones, it is fair that the inclusion of the punctuation is not consistent enough to consider it integral to the title (whereas here, it's pretty clearly consistent). So it is reasonable on those to ask if the punctuated version is clearly the common name. Even if we took that logic here, that the punctuation is inconsistent, then the move target should be "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)", but that's not what is being supported. --
MASEM (
t)
15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If the punctuation is consistent, then the exclamation mark can't be removed. If some people think that the exclamation mark doesn't disambiguate the title enough for an average person, why not add "(2001 movie)"? By the way, I think all the five cases are completely the same and the randomness of the outcomes only shows how everything is Wikipedia is amateur and should not be taken seriously. --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
15:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
We aren't adding the disamb parts of titles for the reader's sake, its to avoid naming conflicts on WP. The disamb should be clear to distinguish between the various options if disambig is needed (so if the title was just "Moulin Rouge", we would need to add "(2001 film)" to make it clear from the actual building and the other films of the same name. But when there's no natural naming conflict to start, the guidelines say to avoid disambig. --
MASEM (
t)
16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know anymore... I also thought the way you do, but people on the Japanese music-related discussions convinced me that I was wrong... If you really care, you should start a discussion about it somewhere else... For example, on the talk page of the disambiguation rules. I came here by accident, I can't fight 1000 people to save one page (this one)... --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Production
Under the topic "Production"
This article states "The movie also features editing that several critics compared to a music video, involving swirling camera motion, loud music, dancing, and frenetic cutting."
A more explicit way to describe this statement would be to use the precise film terms. For example "Swirling camera motion"= panning camera motions or "Frenetic cutting"= jump cut editing.
Mariaquijano (
talk)
16:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)reply
It is unclear whether that statement came from the liner notes to the Special Edition DVD or a different source. It has been removed and replaced with information from cited sources.
Msoul13 (
talk)
15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The Analysis subsection focuses exclusively on the interpretation of Moulin Rouge! as a postmodern film—no other frame of analysis is mentioned. It seems to be based entirely on the views of three individuals: Mina Yang, Kathryn Conner Bennett, Marsha Kinder; it uses needless and confusing jargon, and is quite long at almost 600 words.
I don't think the templates are really fair to the article. It wouldn't surprise me if postmodern analysis is the only kind of academic analysis the film has gotten due to time period, and it provides links for most of the 'jargon.' Three individuals seems plenty to me to establish that this kind of analysis is common in the academic sphere. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove all the templates except perhaps the one for length. --
Yellow DiamondΔ Direct Line to the Diamonds22:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but I'll have to object to removing the templates at least until other editors express agreement that they are no longer appropriate. I'll happily consider striking my objection at that time, but I don't feel this is a situation where the templates should be removed based on the opinions of a single editor. Cheers.
DonIago (
talk)
01:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I understand your rationale here. There's
no deadline, and if the templates are there, there's a chance editors will address the issues (or join this discussion), while if they're not there then there's much less of a chance that matters will improve.
DonIago (
talk)
17:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
You could work to resolve the issues rather than simply removing the templates? Alternately, I already said I'd have no issues with removing them if other editors agreed that they're no longer appropriate, so you do have a path forward here.
DonIago (
talk)
12:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose Again, same as above, the "!" with the disambiguation is unnecessary. I would weakly support the move to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)", though even with the song's use in the Olympics, some still list the film as "Moulin Rouge!", hence only weak support. I'd rather not think there's enough to move this. --
Masem (
t)
19:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support because Google Books shows both Moulin Rouge! and Moulin Rouge in reference to this film, which shows that the exclamation mark is not universally included in secondary sources. Even
this film periodical's recent article does not use it when mentioning the film. With this in mind, when typing Moulin Rouge in Wikipedia's search box in the upper right as seen
here, which item is the 2003 film is not obvious to someone who may have learned about the film's name without its exclamation mark. I see it as no big deal to de-emphasize the purported distinction that the exclamation mark makes and to instead add the relevant disambiguation term.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Proposed title is less concise, less natural and overly precise (
WP:AT). There's no point to the move if
Moulin Rouge! were just to continue to redirect to the proposed title. If the film's title does have a exclamation point, the current article title is not in conflict with any other title and a hatnote is sufficient disambiguation. If the film's title does not use an exclamation mark, the article should be at
Moulin Rouge (2001 film). See
Talk:Hate Me! for a somewhat similar case and interesting discussion.
Station1 (
talk)
23:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose mainly for the reasons given by
Station1, although it is a weak oppose. There is no enough information about how the general knowledge of the "!" in this film's title to justify changing when the "!" does act as a disambiguation.
Shadow007 (
talk)
06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Per
WP:CRITERIA, "!" is insufficient to disambiguate.
WP:SMALLDETAILS is a relevant guideline, and it gives the
Airplane vs
Airplane! example, but in that case the two articles are fundamentally different types of subjects - one is a vehicle, one is a film. And searchers given those two choses can easily determine which article meets their needs. In THIS case, it is a film, and so are the other articles it is ambiguous with. I don't think any reasonable searcher who isn't already very knowledgeable about it would find this article on the first try. They would very naturally click through the other (YYYY film) first because, and might totally overlook the punctuation thinking its another kind of topic altogether. We must err on the side of convenience for sake of the readers. Keep in mind also we have to disambiguate not just from the other films, but also the soundtrack article for this film
Moulin Rouge! Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film, which, though using a subtitle for natural disambiguation, can also reasonably be called simply "Moulin Rouge!" too. --
Netoholic@08:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above comments. The "!" in the name of this well-known film differentiates it from the other productions and edges it into stand-alone common name status among similarly named films. In fact the number of readers who seek it out every day is enough so that a hatnote on the
Moulin Rouge page seems justified (I've added the hatnote).
Randy Kryn (
talk)
08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually, without the "!", this page would be by far the primary for the name "Moulin Rouge". So the stand-alone title has that added justification.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
08:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Yes, adding the year would be "helpful". Adding "Oscar-nominated 2001 Best Picture film starring Oscar-nominated Best Actress Nicole Kidman" would be even more helpful. But that's not how we roll on WP. Generally, we use the name of the subject as the title, and only disambiguate when that same exact name is used by another subject covered on WP, and even then only when the subject in question is not the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. Here we have a reasonably well known Oscar nominated film with a unique
WP:COMMONNAMEas reflected at imdb. There is no need to disambiguate, and the exclamation mark in the name is a sufficient
small detail to distinguish this use from others. --
В²C☎17:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.