SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Nonureva Really Surprised!

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

blanche-2 From 2002, "Tipping the Velvet" is an adaption of a novel by Sarah Walters. It's the story of Nancy Astley (Rachel Stirling), who works with her family in their oyster house. She has a boyfriend (played by no less than Benedict Cumberbatch) and can't understand why she doesn't feel anything when he kisses her. I certainly didn't.One day she sees the performance of a male impersonator, Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) and falls madly in love with her. The two women become friends, and Nan accompanies Kitty as her dresser, never letting on that she's in love with her. Finally she learns the feeling is mutual and embarks on her first affair.Alas, it doesn't work out. Nancy continues her journey of self- knowledge, dressing as a boy and servicing men in alleys, becoming the kept boy of a wealthy lesbian, meeting a young woman, Flo, and finding her so honest and sweet that she can't bear to tell her what she really does.I wouldn't call this a lesbian love story, although that was done I suppose to get people watching. It's a beautifully done production with excellent acting. I think it's the story of a woman finding herself and incorporating who she is into her life.Keeley Hawes is always a delight, as she is here. Stirling sings better, and the two, when performing on stage together, do a very good act. Stirling is excellent but I don't think she would ever be mistaken for a boy. According to those who read the book, Nan could be taken for a man quite easily. There were also complaints from those who read the book about the character of Flo (Jodhi May) - since I didn't read it, I don't know. I thought the character as portrayed in this miniseries was well acted.Also as others have pointed out, with homosexual acts against the law, it's unlikely men would have been standing on the street waiting for a hustler. I get the impression that people - men and women - would have been more discreet than they seemed in this show."Tipping the Velvet" holds one's interest, is pretty look at, and full of distinctive characters.

SnoopyStyle It's 1890s Victorian England. Nancy Astley (Rachael Stirling) works at the family seaside restaurant as an oyster girl. She falls completely upon seeing vaudeville actress Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) who dresses as a man on stage. She leaves her boyfriend Freddy (Benedict Cumberbatch) to be with Kitty. The sisterhood turns into a lesbian affair as Nan joins Kitty on stage. Later, Nan catches Kitty in bed with manager Walter Bliss who then get married. Nan starts dressing as a man and working the streets. She's taken with the innocent Florence (Jodhi May). Wealthy widower Diana Lethaby (Anna Chancellor) takes her off the streets to be her lover. Nan gets tired of the life and gets into a fight with Lethaby protecting the maid Zena Blake (Sally Hawkins). Nan gets thrown out onto the streets. She finds a colder Florence with a baby living with her brother Ralph Banner (Hugh Bonneville).The first part sets it up as a lesbian love story. It doesn't follow through on that front. It turns into a melodrama of the Victorian London's lesbian scene. In fact, Kitty gets sidelined for the other two parts. The first part led me down one path and then I got thrown a bit going down the other path. This unusual world is fascinating. Rachael Stirling is quite compelling going from innocent ingénue to rundown weariness. This is an interesting TV mini-series.

cubus_nitrate At the time of its release, Tipping th Velvet got a lot of hype for being perhaps the most "raunchy" lesbian thing that had managed to get onto the BBC. Ho hum.I can see why people give it such rave reviews (well, sort of). With lesbian movies/TV shows/characters you can be hard-pressed to find a decent, fleshed-out representation without falling into ghastly clichés. So when this came out (no pun intended) I can 100% see why people went nuts over it.But we are a lot of representation later now... and as a fan of the book, I have to disagree with all the rave reviews on here. Tipping the Velvet doesn't stand the test of time.Firstly, I do not deny that the production value for TTV is brilliant. The stage shows are wonderfully directed, the scenes and costumes do not pose a problem for me. The acting is no great problem either.It's the story and the mashing up of the original book into some cheap, clichéd ending that bothers me the most. That and the weird and obtrusive editing and background music.The character of Nan, the main protagonist and heroine, is a far cry from her representation of the book. Racheal Stirling is not a bad actor, but she is too feminine for the role...and the voice? ...Hmm. The Nan of the original story could pass for a man. This nan walks around with slightly shorter hair slathered in make-up with a petite little body and we are supposed to believe she passes off as a man? Hmm indeed.The biggest let-down of the entire film however was the relationship between Flo and Nan. What happened? They literally gave the characters each other's lines and swapped their personalities around. It skewed the point of Nan's story. Flo is supposed to humble Nan by showing her how little she really knows...not by batting her eyelids.Lastly...aside from a cursory chase from a couple of cliché cockney thugs there is almost no mention of homophobia in the entire film. Without it, Kitty's betrayal makes little sense.A bit like this film. It makes me yell every time I see it.It's little but gaudy melodrama to me, if you want the best version of this film available on TV consult the French and Saunders parody.A huge let down. Especially for someone who loves the book.

zetpap This must be the worst thing I've ever seen. A soft porn movie for an audience who never watched a film before. The actors are terrible (in a bad way), the music is awful, the scenario doesn't exist really and no actual plot. After awhile you wonder if there's a X100 speed for fast forwarding, in your DVD player. It also seems that in the 1800s they were gay bars, gay women walking around kissing under the stars, old men making sexual offers to boys in crowded areas, that doesn't seem to be the case in 2000!!. Oh! Before I forget, they had didoes too in every house for everyone to use. This isn't the story of a woman evolving under cruel circumstances, this is the tale of a TV channel who wastes money in porn flicks. Don't ever watch this. Don't even think about renting it or pronouncing its title.