As a french person I feel I can tell you why they didn't cast a more beautiful actress to play La Dû Barry. It's because the producer couldn't bear to not be the center of attention, so she gave herself the role. She's known for that.
@@ElberethOhGilthoniel Ah I've been thinking about watching this show, how is it ? (And you're less critical of this Du Barry than I am, personally I think she looks like a horse)
I’ve been thinking the same since I saw the trailer, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder nonetheless I was disappointed when I saw her portrait madame Du Barry, for me she’s not pretty enough to play that role!
Historically Madame Du Barry would not have had hair like that. In this scene she is wearing the pouf. The pouf wasn’t actually made popular, and worn routinely by woman at court, until the late 1770s. Marie Antoinette popularised the Pouf as Queen of France.
Therefore, it is unlikely that Madame Du Barry would have been wearing a pouf hairstyle in this particular scene, as she was executed in 1793 and the pouf hairstyle did not become popular until after her death. It is important for historical accuracy to ensure that the costumes and hairstyles of characters in period dramas are consistent with the time period in which they lived.
Just so you know, the lady at "1:10" don't say "what a slut", she says that the Countess made the others waits for her, in a not so pleasing way but not insulting :)
I don't know why they've made this out to be a love story. She was his mistress for only five years. And before he could sleep with a commoner she was made to marry Lord du Barry.
I feel this Episode, as cosplay between Depp and female director, rather than a proper historical drama film. They satusfy themselves more then people craving for feeling of authetic historucal enviroment. Still, they do enjoy their work. Depp is genuinely happy to be in this role. Considering his life experinece, its good for him.
truth, my problem is why they still use the real historical events tho.... like the whole thing that Marie Antoinette finally spoke to her was a real history
@@renatovonschumacher3511 If a film attempted to be a History lesson, then it had to become a Documentary. The reason being, History is not a collection of straightforward facts, but a combination of evidence and interpretation. The history lesson should be an exposition of the facts known to the present and a scholarly discussion of the possible interpretations of the things that we cannot know for certain. Such a presentation would not always make for a compelling story, at least not for the broader public. Story telling is a difficult task, even if we are only dealing with fiction. In telling stories about historical facts things get even more challenging. I respect the efforts of film makers even when sometimes their presentation of historical events does not depict historical facts.
@@solucionalternativa2 Historical films are ALSO history lessons, otherwise they are worthless kitsch and belong in the trash. History lessons are not, as you say, a presentation of the facts known today, but always depend on the level of knowledge of the teacher, his respective ideology and what he wants to underline. The same also applies to so-called scientific discussions. History is life - not cold science. It always depends on WHO or WHAT IDEOLOGY is discussing. What we cannot know, we must grasp INTUITIVELY. Poetic freedom is also permitted (where sources are missing), provided it stays within the framework of the given facts.There is source-based teaching alone (stays as a fragment and thus does not reflect the truth) and source-based teaching combined with intuition. The latter is the best, provided the teacher (or film-maker) can empathize with the relevant time period without (!) prejudice. A very good example of this is the film "Barry Lyndon". Yes, history-telling is a difficult task, even if it is just fiction. Anyone who cannot do that or wants to abuse it for political or ideological reason or just for entertainment, should leave it, otherwise they'll be acting irresponsibly.
@@renatovonschumacher3511 Could be, but it's naive to expect commercial cinema to be educational. They are in the business of making money at the end of the day.
Depp great as Louis XV Du Barry was actually very beautiful in real As Depp said afterwards on the scene of the movie with 200 plus dressed to the teeth extras “ I felt like I stepped back in time” Great movie btw even if not all is accurate. A lot is!
Countess Jeanne du Barry I Jeanne Du Barry was the mistress of King Louis XV of France from 1768 until his death in 1774. She was known for her beauty and charm, and had a significant influence on the king during her time as his mistress. However, she was unpopular among the courtiers and the French people, who saw her as a commoner who had risen to power through her relationship with the king. After Louis XV's death, she was exiled from the court and eventually executed during the French Revolution in 1793.
She is quite attractive. I think the criticism is that she’s far too old to play the part (47 vs 25). Also, I believe that her style of beauty is very modern and would not be so admired in the court. Her features and jawline are very strong and leaning towards the masculine, which is very popular today. A softer more feminine beauty would have been preferred during that time period.
I am not French or a Historian, but I have seen the paintings of Du Barry and she was at the time of her prime in court in her twenties, very feminine and blonde, think young Marilyn Monroe. This lady, the director, is interesting, but she would not in anyway become the King's mistress.
Don't think I'm going to watch this adaptation, Johnny Depp or no Johnny Depp. Du Barry was 25 when she met the 58 year old Louis XV. The actress is lovely, but she's too mature for the role. And if I remember the trailer correctly, they had this as the first meeting between Du Berry and the king? To be presented at Versaille was an incredibly formal affair. She was already his mistress for months before she was presented. If you want an entertaining and well researched depiction of Du Berry, you're better off reading the Versailles series by Sally Christie, she features in the third book in the trilogy. The audiobook's narration by Elizabeth Wiley is also exceptional.
@@Ryan-tf1uw Her first bow would have been obligatory. I take the second one as, I ride you (or otherwise fornicate), and agree with your interpretation of the third bow.
yes and no. She was looking him in the eyes and positioning herself flirtatiously. Though im sure they knew they were porking it up, she was publicly flirting in front of everyone
She !! Is ! SOOOOO!! MISCAST!!!!! Jeanne! Was , known !! For ! LOOKING ! Like ! A BLUE EYED !!! BLONDE !! ANGELIC !!!!!!!!!!!! YOUNG !! Woman !!!!!; 😂😂😂
@@everyonesalittlemad1608 Well it was good enough for a movie date which I was on 😂 I know all the characters excisted historically, but I dont know if everything in the movie happened the way it did in real life.
Неужели нельзя было найти актрису посимпатичнее? Это же Людовик. Он бы даже не посиотрел на такую. Все женщины были у его ног. А тут трансгендер в юбке
Ну, почему же? Я думаю, по тем временам, такая внешность была бы даже очень красивой..раз..и два, настоящая дю Барри не была прям писанной красавицей, судя по сохранившимся портретам..Да это и не так важно было для короля, думаю... Именно потому,что мог иметь любую, фаворитка должна была обладать гораздо большими качествами, чем кукольная красота..Харизмой и сексапилом,к примеру 😊
@@sofie-ps1gzпортреты портретами, но прикол в том, что, по отзывам современников, в том и был смысл ДюБарри, что она была ангельски красивой и, зараза такая, НЕ СТАРИЛАСЬ) А это что? Это лицо даже с Францией не ассоциируется, не то что с красотой
Tiens...it seems it's going to be another fun movie with historical inspiration but à la Johnny Depp...mostly for americans (and american lovers!) 😅😊...But well, it's just a movie...not an educational history lecture...or what did you expect!!!😂
……actually holding court at Versailles wasn’t so pleasant as almost ALL the suits did NOT have toilets and filled chamber pots lined the corridors which made the whole place smell like stale urine & shit!
Oh yes, it is. Unlike presidents of United States or Germany, French presidents have a lot of power while the Prime Minister is here to balance. If the president is nationalist (which is often the case), the Prime Minister will be socialist.
@@lindildeev5721Democracy/monarchy is not about how powerful the head of the state is. It's about whether the head of state is elected or inherited. The French presidency is elected. That makes it a democracy not a monarchy.
@@christineyoung8345 A democracy is a government when only people decides, which is not totally the case in France (and not only in France). So, even if the president is elected, it still is a little bit of a monarchy.
There is a story that when Edward VII of the UK went to France he saw a french actress that he knew and wanted to say hello. But since french feelings towards the english were hostile at the time, his security said it would be a bad idea to mingle in the crowd. The King went anyway to say hi and the actress said, among other things, that "France is a Republic today because we don't have royalty like you." By the end of Edward's visit he was cheered by the French, and it led to the Entente Cordiale
