Marie Kreutzer’s “Corsage”
First off, the decision to market the film using its original title is odd given it has a different meaning in English. In truth, the title means “The Corset” which makes more sense as the restrictions on the Empress as a woman, mother and head of state are at the core of the movie. Even the subtitles translate corsage as “corsage”.
At its core, Vicky Krieps excels at playing a version of the Empress Elisabeth who is sympathetic while also being extremely privileged. It’s that privilege which makes it quite difficult to connect to the character. For example, she visits hospitals and injured soldiers which is nice in a tokenistic way but where her husband the emperor offers her whatever she wants, the option is put forward of an extension to the hospital or a Bengal tiger; it’s up to him. Likewise, the way she treats her handmaids is reprehensible though the implication is they gossip so perhaps they deserve it? Furthermore, when she’s getting a check up, the doctor informs her that her age(40) is the average lifespan of her subjects. It’s all a bit uncomfortable.
Then there are the anchronistic elements. While waiting for a steam train to pass, a pair of horse drawn carriages wait at a rail crossing behind a diesel engine. Integral to the story is a French inventor who captures the empress on a cinematic camera in 1877 (a year before Muybridge’s “The Horse in Motion”). There’s also an electric tattoo needle buzzing away despite the fact that tattoos were manually achieved in the 19th century with a single needle.
The music is also odd from a bard singing an oddly modern song(but not quite) and a soundtrack that detracts more than it enhances. Lyrics are also sung in English which perhaps works from the perspective of a non-English speaker but felt uncanny to me. It’s all quite distracting. Another odd production point is when the empress visits England despite it clearly being the same architecture and landscape of the previous scene in central Europe not even remotely resembling anything in Britain.
All this might seem like quibbles but there’s a lot of time to think over the course of its 112 minute running time and there’s a languid pacing and lack of momentum saved only by Krieps’ efforts. Equal parts frustrating and fantastic; I’m not sure how the balance will tip for most, but overall, this left me disappointed.