Truly Dreadful Film

Purely Joyful Movie!

Good movie but grossly overrated

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Tipping the Velvet is the film against which I measure all other lesbian dramas and I don't know if it's merely nostalgia for my first film in the genre but I have never found another that touched me so profoundly as this. Yes it is a very adult film and it will deliver on titillation if that's what brought you to it (and no judgement, that's what brought me) but it also a very meaningful and powerful exploration of character and human growth. Not to be missed.

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.

In short, this is one of the worst of the so-called prestigious BBC-series. I'm not a huge fan of the "big gay movie" of these days, Brokeback Mountain (a good movie, but not a masterpiece), but after having seen this series, I must say that that film at least tried to understand the relationship between two people. This series is a mockery of all things lesbian.First of all, the directing is the worst thing about the film. Whatever emotional impact could be expected of this soapy script, director Sax ruined it. This guy seems to think this story needed a Guy Ritchie approach. I mean, come on, we're talking lesbianism at the end of the 19th century here. What's with the endlessly repeated "focus" shots then? Or the short cuts? The fast forward-ism (worked well in Requiem for a Dream, about drugs, here it doesn't make any sense)? And does this guy even know how to get a better performance out of an actor (see below)? Secondly, the acting. I have no major problems with the way everyone acted, save lead Rachael Stirling, who was absolutely not up to this role. But then again, the role itself couldn't really be anyone's cup of tea. With Stirling's over-affected way of acting and misplaced intonations however (not to mention her strange voice), this character was anything but believable, let alone interesting.And in the end, the entire cast was simply defeated by a terrible script and lousy dialogue. I don't know if the book by Sarah Waters is any good, but if it's anything like this piece of bad soap opera, I don't understand why it ever was considered to be essential women's literature, and why it should be turned into a movie. The rags-to-riches, riches-to-rags and rags-to-riches-again story isn't even the main problem. This has been done a thousand times before, and often with much better results. But not a moment did I believe these characters; often I even got embarrassed by the cheesy words they spoke at each other. And do some people still think falling in love is best shown by one person gasping at the other from scratch? And what's with the oysters? Was that supposed to be a lesbian metaphor? And really, couldn't they have come up with a better title? No, I really can't understand why this series is rated above 8 here on the IMDb. This is a downright embarrassment for anyone who 's gay or lesbian. This ain't a film about the Victorian era, this is film making as if it still wás the Victorian era!

I have nothing but praise for this mini series. It's only about a year and a half old but I have seen it twice already; with greater enjoyment the second time than the first. I'm seriously thinking of watching it again soon since I find it spiritually uplifting.It is a very tender romantic drama with such beautiful performances, sets, costumes, music and scenes that it has a resonance which places it almost in a league of its own among mini series.Some others have commented on the difficulties of living as a lesbian in Britain in the 1890s. Nothing especially difficult about that; it was only male homosexuality that was against the law as poor Oscar Wilde experienced to his great cost and as a great loss to the literary world. Anyway, I digress.In my view, this is essential television. It is perhaps one of the greatest tragic romantic dramas since Romeo and Juliet, although not in the conventional sense.10 out of 10 from me.JMV