She was the favorite of Louis XV, commoner and gallant woman whom the king imposed on Versailles after having her marry a nobleman of the court. With Jeanne du Barry, Maïwenn tackles a big piece against a very convincing Johnny Depp as sovereign and a Benjamin Lavernhe who sometimes steals the show as a devoted valet. This deliberately classic film is as visually superb as it is rich in emotion. Maïwenn is not only convincing in the role, but the director of Be polite, my king Or DNA confirms that she has become an essential filmmaker. Maïwenn agreed to confide in 20 minutes a few days before opening the Cannes Film Festival.
How do you approach the presentation of the film at Cannes?
It depends on the times. I’m afraid people will leave during the screening. I don’t have the pressure of the competition this time, but the film is released the same day. I tell myself that after Cannes, everything will suddenly be over, even if I think of slipping into theaters incognito to see the reactions of the spectators. I hope they will laugh, because I like humor, and that they will also be moved by the love story. This film is a dream come true for me, an important step in my life.
How long have you been considering this project?
17 years ! I discovered Jeanne du Barry in Marie Antoinette by Sofia Coppola. The idea matured in my head for years. I even talked about the project to another actress. I then thought for a long time that the film would not be made with me as it dragged on and then I realized that if I wanted to make it so much, it was because I also wanted to play Jeanne. After years of experimenting with directing without me and then with me as an actress, I understood that I was ready for this role that resembles me. This waiting time allowed me to have this hindsight.
What attracted you so much to Jeanne du Barry?
This film is the story of my life! I see myself in many aspects of his personality and experiences. The temperament, the joy of living, the curiosity, the desire to learn, the taste for reading and culture too. Her freedom of thought, her choice of naturalness, her desire never to be sophisticated, to dress as she wants, to love whoever she wants speaks to me. Just like her way of evolving in a bourgeois universe, hostile to her social class and of loving a man of power older than her. Versailles could be a metaphor for the middle of the cinema which treated me with condescension for a long time.
Did you find yourself in her wondering little girl side?
This is something that I fully assume! I like material things, jewelry, luxury, levity… I can understand that Jeanne is venal, which doesn’t prevent her from showing depth and loving the king. She has a very natural relationship to what surrounds her and that contrasts with Versailles where everything is artificial. His life force is immense in a stuck environment. This is what seduces the king so much.
Is your film political?
It is by necessity because I adopt a feminist point of view. My film is feminist because it defends the memory of a woman and her freedom. Just because I don’t know anything about politics doesn’t mean I don’t have convictions. I just avoid talking about these subjects because you need to have a certain repartee which I would probably lack to defend my ideas. My film speaks for me, in particular of the condition of women, which I describe in an uncommon way by speaking of the power of seduction, an immense force and a subject that we no longer dare to tackle head-on today. However, it is a powerful weapon that is not limited to the physical: that of knowing how to use your charm to get what you want.
Are you not afraid that this point of view may shock?
It is true that this idea will not necessarily appeal to everyone, but it seems important to me to pass it on. Jeanne du Barry does not see herself as a victim: this is an essential point of the film as well as of her psychology. She voluntarily entered into gallantry because she preferred it to the idea of being a cook like her mother. She chose to use her body to benefit from a luxury she would not have had access to otherwise. Basically, she prefers to “sleep in” than do the dishes! I find modern and feminist the fact that she assumes to be a courtesan. She has her destiny in hand!
Isn’t Jeanne dependent on the king’s desire?
Everyone is more or less dependent on the desire of others, whether personally or professionally. She loves the king at first sight and Louis XV is said to have said to his valet: “It’s the first time that a woman has made me feel that I am a man and not just the king. Their relationship is very loving and rather balanced because they bring a lot to each other. I wanted to show that they were human beings. I also insisted on the Alice in Wonderland side of Jeanne by losing her in a labyrinth where the spectator follows her. I mainly adopt his point of view to show his reactions to the world around him.
Is that why, with the exception of the king, the other characters are less complex?
It was indeed a way to reinforce the “tale” side. The king’s daughters are deliberately close to Javotte and Anastasia, Cinderella’s wicked sisters-in-law. They are not realistic. Voiceover is also a way to accentuate this. I had even considered starting the film with “once upon a time” but I found that too dusty so I abandoned the idea. There is only the valet character embodied by Benjamin Lavernhe that I developed a lot, like a connection between the duo formed by Jeanne and the king on whom the film is centered.
Did this valet exist?
I mixed together several real people to create this character and I did the same for the whole film. I drew on all the anecdotes that historians told me in order to make them my own. I made quite a few visits to Versailles, sometimes alone, sometimes with my co-screenwriter Teddy Lussi-Modeste. I soaked up the place where it was oddly much easier for me to write than in Paris. I wanted to see everything and know everything to create my own 18th century. I wanted to make a fiction film that was beautiful. That was more important to me than historical veracity. I also called on heads of post from the fashion world to promote this aesthetic side.
How did you find your style?
I didn’t want to approach this story with a pop or candy style, as Sofia Coppola had done in particular. I modernized it in a different way than hers. I worked a lot on the dialogues which are not at all dusty. They are mine. None were written by a historian. It is today’s language, simple and timeless. I think it promotes the identification of the viewer. This is also why I chose a clean, classic, somewhat academic staging that was as close as possible to paintings or cinema from the 1970s.
How did Johnny Depp enter the equation?
I had first thought of two French actors with whom it was not done. After which no other actor in France made me want to film him in the role of the king. This may give the impression that I am jaded but I assume it: I then decided to privilege my desire to my nationality. I started thinking about foreign actors who were fantasy. I was torn between the idea that they would never accept and the “who tries nothing, has nothing”.
But why Johnny Depp?
For me Johnny is Cry-Baby by John Waters which was a huge slap in the face for me. I had seen it four times in theaters when it was released in 1990, and, believe me, for the teenager that I was then, four cinema tickets constituted quite a budget. I knew the film by heart, both the songs and the dialogues! I confess to not being familiar with his filmography afterwards. I don’t know the Pirates of the Caribbean.
Did you immediately know that he would be credible as a king?
Absolutely. When I met him before his first trial, I was convinced by what he brings out in life. He’s someone flayed, dark, tortured. He has a palpable feminine sensibility and a very strong form of romanticism. I had heard him speak French in interviews and I didn’t worry about his accent. He was easy to direct even if he often had questions, which is normal on a shoot that had to change his habits.
And as a partner, did he pose any problems for you?
No problem. I was just worried that he would think I was taking advantage of the situation during the kiss scene. But I had a second brain that started wondering if the camera was well placed and how it would look on screen. In fact, there was really nothing titillating about it. It was rather technical.
What conclusions do you draw from this experience?
To succeed in making a film is a miracle. Every time I make one, it’s so hard that I tell myself it’s the last. It’s such a fight where you constantly have to solve problems that I end up wondering why I inflict this on myself! Especially since I often have the impression that logistical concerns keep me away from creation. Then, I come across a subject that fascinates me and here we go again. It’s too early to think about that…