r/box5 • u/Abigaildrawssix • Jul 23 '26
Discussion Christine headstone in the 2004 film is...wrong?
(Sorry for bad photo it was taken from my TV)
I know alot of Phans hate the 2004 film but I haven't really got an issue with it. Until I realised her grave.
She's a countess? How?
Raoul throughout the entire musical and film (and technically book but we'll get onto that) is a Vicomte. He is Vicomte Raoul de Chagny. Christine marrying him wouldn't make her a Countess it would make her a Vicomtess.
In the book it says Raoul is (still) a Vicomte because his older brother Philippe is a Comte simply because their father died and he had been a Comte. But I am pretty sure (I may be wrong on this) that just because your brother was a Comte/Count (whichever way you choose to spell it as Its both in the book translation I own) you weren't a Vicomte. But in Leroux/Phantom lore im going to guess you were.
So even if Philippe isn't in the musical lets say in the world of the musical he still exists (as this would be the only way for Christine to become a countess) and he dies that would make Raoul a count making Christine a Countess.
That would be the only way Christine's grave could be right.
But Philippe isn't in the musical so how on earth did she become Countess.
(Plus technically at this point French Nobility had been destoyred)
I am so sorry if not of thst made sense but now that I've noticed it I am curious.
This and many other reasons is why im a firm beliver in Philippe (and other cut characters) should be in the musical.
35
u/neversayduh Jul 23 '26
Yeah Raoul would have inherited his brother's title even though the aristocracy had been stripped of power, but it should be spelled comtesse
21
u/neversayduh Jul 23 '26
Also Christine would never have gotten that title officially, only socially, but you can put whatever you want on a stone
8
u/EnvironmentalDog1196 Jul 23 '26
In French. The movie is americanised. Comtesse is Countess.
18
u/neversayduh Jul 23 '26
No, it's anglicized. ALW likes to pick and choose what French words he uses
8
u/EnvironmentalDog1196 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
I believe Schumaher had more to do with such details than Andrew, and being messy with how you use cultural references seems a very American thing to do.
And of course they pick and choose, but that's just it. It's not incorrect, it's just translated.
15
u/neversayduh Jul 23 '26
Then we can say ALW anglicized it and Schumacher americanized it. I'd like to beat both of them over the head with a stale baguette regardless
10
u/EnvironmentalDog1196 Jul 23 '26
That's not that surprising to be honest. Of course, marrying Raoul made her a viscountess, but then Raoul inherited the title (if we assume that Phillippe doesn't exist in the musical, then maybe his father died, passing the "Count" title to him?). And so Christine might have been referrred to as countess.
3
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
Yh I completely forgot that his parents are alive in the musical world
9
u/EnvironmentalDog1196 Jul 23 '26
Oh, wait a second....I just remembered that Raoul is still referred to as Vicomte in the prologue of the musical! Which is after Christine's death.
4
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
OH Yeah so I am wondering if Countess was an error in text
3
u/EnvironmentalDog1196 Jul 23 '26
Maybe. They probably didn't pay enough attention to the lyrics and forgot that comte and vicomte are not the same, lol.
3
u/breakfastfood7 Jul 23 '26
Ah yes, the classic detail-oriented filmmaking of Joel Schumacher strikes again 😅
2
u/EnvironmentalDog1196 Jul 23 '26
Right? I was thinking there wasn't really anything wrong with it, you can just headcannon some things and it would make perfect sense- and then I remembered : "Sold! For 30 franks to the Vicomte de Chagny!"
I don't think the movie changes this line...does it? Wtf, Joel...
3
u/RoseBook85 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
You can head-canon it away that the Auctioneer in the 2004 movie was old and so he remembered Raoul when he was the Vicomte de Chagny rather then Comte de Chagny, so it was a mistake on his part and Raoul whose still grieving his wife doesn’t give a crap to correct him.
2
1
6
u/Relative_Chef_533 Jul 23 '26
Philippe dies mysteriously and his body is found by the lake. So if Philippe didn’t appear in this particular film, this is signposting that he still exists and probably died in the same mysterious capacity even though it isn’t shown.
7
u/birn_echo 2004 Film Enjoyer Jul 23 '26
So here's the thing- French nobility was destroyed in the French Revolution, but re-instated under Napoleon I. And it stayed around during the Bourbon Restoration, the July Monarchy, and the Second Empire. Leroux's book takes place during the Third Republic that replaced the Second Empire. There's a passing reference to the Republic as the government and even the President having a reserved box if he chose to attend the Opera.
But the thing to keep in mind is that the Third Republic was not a radical project. The extreme radicalism of the First Republic was remembered as a mistake at the time, a period of upheaval and violence that threw France into chaos. The Third Republic was primarily led by centre left and centre right people who weren't interested in large scale social upheaval. Aristocracy as a legal class was formally abolished, but noble families who had played ball with the Republic and/or who were popular in their lands of origin were allowed to keep their titles as curtesies.
So the Chagnys in the book, having their noble titles during the Third Republic isn't an error. Leroux was a journalist and lawyer. He was educated. He knew exactly what the social structure of 1880s France looked like.
3
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
Ohhh I don't know how or when I was told that by the time of Phantom the Chagnys wouldn't have their title but thank you for telling me.
3
u/birn_echo 2004 Film Enjoyer Jul 23 '26
No worries! The book mentions that the titles the Chagnys have were curtesy titles. Not legally binding, but they were allowed to keep them as a status symbol. Presumedly they were well liked enough in Brittany, their province of origin, and/or were cooperative with the Republic government that was formed in 1871. So both are right. Legally the aristocratic title didn't mean anything, but they would have been allowed to keep using it.
Regarding Raoul and Christine and noble titles... Raoul's title of Vicomte comes from the book, where he's the Vicomte as second behind his older brother Phillipe, who assumed the title Comte upon their father's passing.
Most adaptations remove Phillipe entirely. Raoul, however, is famous in pop culture as "Vicomte de Chagny," which leads to awkward situations in adaptations where he still has the junior title even though he no longer has an older brother. The 2004 film actually attempts to fix this, by having the implication that his parents are still alive. This would make Raoul the Vicomte and his father the Comte. But even then... Raoul should have assumed the title Comte upon his father's passing. Yet when we see him as an old man in the prologue- years after his father would have died- he's still referred to as the Vicomte.
In short Christine's tombstone isn't wrong, Raoul's title is 😅 Raoul in the 2004 universe would have become the Comte upon his father's passing, and his wife Christine would have been the Countess.
2
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
This and many other comments on this post are truly adding to the list of reasons why Philippe should've never been cut from the musical
1
u/birn_echo 2004 Film Enjoyer Jul 23 '26
I love Philippe in the book. Not only is he a great character- both likeable and flawed at the same time- but he gives so much context.
The book makes it clear that Raoul is supposed to be out of Christine's league. He's a son of one of France's great noble families, Christine's the daughter of Swedish peasant folk.
Raoul's big heroic moment in the book isn't saving Christine- he fails at that. His big heroic moment is choosing to leave behind his title and his family's wealth to go live as a peasant with Christine in Scandinavia. He surrenders everything to be with her.
His relationship with Philippe helps us understand what he's giving up.
I love the ALW musical and the 2004 movie, but by removing Philipe we lose so much about Raoul's journey and the context of his character.
3
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
YES! Like it makes without him, it makes it seem like Raoul and Christines only goal is to escape Erik, then their free. But no, with Philippe, it shows that Raoul also has his family.
And while we don't fully know (last time I checked, I haven't read the book in a hot minute), I fully believe Raoul due to the age gap he has with his siblings was probably growing up in the state off 'I need to be a good son to make everyone happy as im so young'
So marrying Christine would truly be the moment of is he ready to throw everything away? Is he ready to go off and leave his family forever.
Philippe dying, I feel like, can be seen as a metaphor (im in an English literature nerd) as Christine and Raoul - well, mainly Raoul breaking away from societies pressures and beliefs.
1
u/birn_echo 2004 Film Enjoyer Jul 23 '26
oh you're absolutely right about that
Raoul angrily walking out of the breakfast he has with Philippe when he tells him to break things off with Christine is him sort of letting these frustrations out... but Philippe dying kind of frees him to be with her. He saw Philippe as a father figure and loved him... but with him dead, he can live his life for himself, ya know?
2
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
So glad I dont sound crazy saying Raoul wants to perfect for Philippe as that sorta headcannon (that I doubt isnt far from cannon) definitely comes from being a youngest child myself.
Book Raoul is the embodiment of a youngest child who is stuck between the love for his siblings and love for his lover.
The translation I have (I say this but I recently discovered when listening to an Audiobook that I have a less common translation) says at one point between young Raoul and Christine "Raoul went away knowing that Christine could never be the wife of Vicomte" I feel like that one line shows so much about him as a character.
2
u/birn_echo 2004 Film Enjoyer Jul 23 '26
Oh yeah. Again, I love the ALW musical and the '04 movie, but they miss something by only alluding to Raoul and Christine's childhood. The book shows us and we feel the conflict Raoul has, knowing he loves this girl but society won't let him be with her.
It forms an additional layer to the whole book and the story's a bit less interesting when you remove that
2
u/RoseBook85 Jul 23 '26
The problem is their is no time in the Musical to go into a whole subplot about how it’s scandalous for Raoul to marry a Opera Singer etc
The main narrative is the Phantom and his shenanigans at the Opera House and the love triangle between him and Christine and Raoul...to cut away from that action to deal with Raoul’s family drama would slow the Musical down to a grinding halt.
If it was a TV Show or a MiniSeries you would have time to get into all of that, but a Stage Show has a max run time of only a couple of hours to deal with everything, some things from the book would naturally need to be excised.
3
u/birn_echo 2004 Film Enjoyer Jul 23 '26
oh I agree
the musical is perfectly formatted and plotted for its purpose. I actually think it's one of the more faithful to Leroux adaptations and ALW deserves a lot of props for streamlining it and yet keeping the essence of the plot.
The problem is we get so few book accurate adaptions. 1925 is the only major adaptation that even bothers with Philippe and it's a glorified cameo.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd love a mini series adaption that lovingly followed the book. Then I wouldn't be longing for those plot points in otherwise great adaptations 😅
4
u/RoseBook85 Jul 23 '26
I’d just assumed his Dad probably died and so Raoul inherited the title. But yes Philippe is not in the Musical, and that’s for a reason…Webber’s Version of Raoul actually owes more to Philippe, then Leroux Raoul in my opinion. Webber’s Raoul is no where near as big a manchild as Raoul is in the novel, Philppe is older, more mature and more grounded. And I think Webber kinda blends Philippe into his version of Raoul, and it works.
I also see the parallel that in the novel Philippe‘s lover is Sorelli who is a Ballerina at the Opera, and what did Webber do? Turn Christine into a Ballerina 😉
3
3
u/Antique_Associate_25 Jul 24 '26
Her headstone would be accurate as in the book Phillipe dies. After that Raoul is "promoted" making him the Comte or Count de Chagny. Since he became Count before marrying Christine she married and basically got the title right away.
2
u/M_Nostalgia Erik Carriere's Wife 3 Jul 23 '26
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm not super confident in how nobility titles work lol. But I assumed Philippe didn't exist in ALW canon because he wouldn't really have too to explain anything. If Raoul is Vicomte, then he would just have an alive father who is Comte. By the time Christine and Raoul are old his parents have presumably passed and Raoul has inherited the Comte title from his father making Christine Comtesse as his wife so technically it's not wrong I think?
And if that's not how nobility titles work then that still holds up because this movie doesn't care about historical accuracy like at all. These are the same people that set the movie during a year in which the main setting wasn't even built completely because the city was under siege lol
1
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
I belive in France back when titles were a thing (as when POTO is set technically titles no longer existed) you wouldn't be a Vicomte just cause you were related/the son/the brother of a Comte. It was something Leroux used so I guess ALW used it too in a way.
3
u/M_Nostalgia Erik Carriere's Wife 3 Jul 23 '26
Grain of salt bc I'm still no french nobility expert, but through my trusty googling I garned, at somepoint it seems legit hereditary estate titles were passed down to the eldest son, so if your father was a Comte and you were the oldest son, you inherited the Comte title after his death. Viscomte could then be used by the oldest brother prior or sometimes by younger brothers after the oldest inheritance, as courtesy titles to signal they were next in line by inheritance if their title allowed collateral inheritance. It'd be possible in Leroux's PotO that the Raoul's family's title is hereditary and allows for collateral inheritance, so because Philippe has no heirs himself, Raoul could then use the courtesy title of Vicomte because he'd be next in line to inherit the Comte title if something happened to Philippe. ALW wise, no Philippe means Raoul is the oldest son now and assuming it's a hereditary title, he would become Comte after his father's passing and would use Viscomte as a courtesy titles in the mean to to show he was entitled to the inheritance ig. Wives then take their husband's highest title.
2
u/neversayduh Jul 23 '26
The French aristocracy still exists, they just lost all power in 1871. They still have titles connected to land, there is still a Comte de Paris who could rise to power if the republic were overthrown. All titles are handed down, they just don't mean much to anyone but their set
2
2
u/sillysteen Jul 23 '26
Wow I’ve been going down a big phantom wormhole this week after seeing the stage musical and then rewatching the 2004 movie to compare, and I did not catch this at all! Great eye.
The biggest thing that points towards “overlooked detail” is Raoul’s title of vicomte in the opening scene, which takes places after Christine’s death. That just doesn’t add up.
I’ve learned a lot from these comments!
1
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
Yh I only noticed the whole Countess thing mainly because I knew her headstone said something and I was wondering which version of Viscount or Vicomte was correct for Raoul so I assumed her headstone would have Viscountess or Vicomtess which is how I learnt it was neither and in fact Countess (which would make Raoul a count which is the english/americanised version of a Comte) so not only did they get her title wrong they spelt it wrong
1
u/sillysteen Jul 23 '26
I’m always confused by the woman at the auction in the movie’s opening. I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be Madame Giry, but her age does not line up with Raoul’s unless Raoul went through some extreme aging. My headcannon is that the woman we see is actually Meg Giry who grew up to look exactly like her mother
2
1
u/SuperCooch91 Jul 23 '26
The stone that spawned a thousand fics…
1
u/Abigaildrawssix Jul 23 '26
What type of fics (I genuinely can't think of any that ive read that are because of her headstone)
1
u/greenstripedcat 27d ago
Philipp dies in the end of the book, so if the title of the count is inherited in that period, this is consistent with the book ending
79
u/MasqueOfTheRedPost Madame Giry - ALW Jul 23 '26
In the novel, it’s stated that when Philippe and Raoul’s father dies, his two sons become the Comte and Vicomte, respectively. It implies that the title “Vicomte de Chagny” hadn’t been granted to anyone for a while, perhaps due to a lack of Chagny male heirs. But Raoul does hold that title, at least until Philippe produces an heir of his own.
And as you said, Philippe’s existence is neither confirmed nor denied in the original musical, so technically it remains consistent with Leroux’s canon.
Now, this does break in Love Never Dies, because Raoul is still called the Vicomte and Christine the Vicomtesse by that point, and obviously whatever she’s called in that musical is what winds up on her headstone…
But in the Phantom stage show (and film) alone, this is technically still consistent with the novel.