Katie Tippel

I came across this film under the title "Hot Sweat" at my local video store, and rented it out of curiosity; I had seen many movies by this director, and always thought his work was severely underated. The movie really surprised me with it's unsensationalistic style and well done cinematography. Although the female lead is very beautiful, and manages to get undressed frequently, there is always a tension to her sexuality...she is forced to rely on it only because the audience is clearly made aware that on the other side is the penniless abyss. Rutger Haur plays totally against type as a foppish young bank officer who adopts her as his mistress.

I think most people today think of Holland as a totally liberal and affluent country. This film goes a long way towards dispelling that stereotype, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a (sometimes brutally) realistic picture of 19th century life among the underclass in Amsterdamn. I liked it.

"Keetje Tippel" is one of Verhoeven's lesser known movies but it really deserves to be seen and better known, all over the world. Reason why it isn't known better is I think because of "Turks fruit" from 1973. After that movie people expected this movie to be a sort of "Turks fruit 2", also because it was once again directed by Verhoeven and had Monique van de Ven and Rutger Hauer as the two main leads. "Turks fruit" and "Keetje Tippel" (and in a way also Verhoeven's earlier movie "Wat zien ik") show some similarities in the way the story is told but it are in fact of course two totally different movies.

The movie provides a pretty good and insightful view of life in late 19th century Amsterdam. The atmosphere of the old Amsterdam is perfectly captured by Jan de Bont's cinematography and by the costume design and art direction.

What makes "Keetje Tippel" better than the average period drama is the directness of the story telling. This is of course thanks to Verhoeven's typical style of directing that always is very direct and straight to the point. Once more the movie features quite some nudity and confronting scene's. But it all works well because it serves a purpose in the movie and it's obviously not only put in it to simply shock the viewer in a cheap way. The movie however is quite short and it didn't feel that the movie covered the entire story and the ending is abrupt and not entirely satisfying because it still leaves a bunch of questions unanswered.

The acting isn't always top-class but this is more because of the simple dialog, rather than its the actors their fault. Rutger Hauer however deserves credit for his role and he plays his character in a very believable way. Monique van de Ven is good for about 70% of the time but her acting really pushes it at times and her character at times goes a bit too much over-the-top. The movie further more features a good supporting cast.

The story is always interesting and you never know what is going to happen next, thanks to the unpredictable and realistic characters that are being portrayed in this movie. The movie is based on the real life of Neel Doff, which gives the movie an even more realistic and confronting feeling.

Better than your average period drama's. See this movie if you get the chance.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I was recently given the Anchor Bay DVD release of this title as a present, and I have to say that while I am impressed with the usual European frankness about things that would never make it into American films, this is probably among the least of Paul Verhoeven's work. Not that this is bad from the get-go. I would far prefer to watch a bad film from Paul Verhoeven than what could be considered good among the stables of directors like Peter Jackson or Jerry Bruckheimer. They say that the key to artistic success is being honest with yourself, and Verhoeven is a big example of the principle. More on that in a moment.

The story of Keetje Tippel concerns itself with a young woman named Keetje, who migrates from one end of Holland to another during the nineteenth century. The name might be obvious from the title, but one thing that should have been made clearer is that Tippel is not her family name. Tippel actually refers to the profession she winds up taking in order to fuel her rise from the gutter.

At the beginning of the film, Keetje is an idealist with little, if any, idea of how the capitalist society she enters actually works. She starts out going from one crappy job to the next. The first of which makes it clear that worker health and safety was a very minor concern at best in this primitive era. We see Keetje and numerous other workers dipping textiles into lye, no gloves or any other kind of protection, and we see its effects at various stages in the film. From there, Keetje falls into working as a seamstress, and eventually, as a prostitute.

One touch of Dutch cinema that I've always liked since I have become acquainted with it through Verhoeven's work is that there isn't always a happy ending. In Keetje Tippel, our titular hero does nothing to help the poor that she was once a member of. In fact, one of the many things she winds up doing in the latter part of the film hurts them very badly. This can be understood when one looks at some attitudes to what people feel when they get out of a situation they cannot stand. For example, were I to leave Australia and live somewhere like England, the only way in which I would lift a finger to help others who are unhappy with the lot Australia has is by helping them leave. Like rats from a sinking ship, as it were. That's the attitude of the character, and it is even more understandable in the context of nineteenth century social conditions.

The thing that keeps Keetje Tippel from obtaining the unqualified ten out of ten rating I normally give Verhoeven's Dutch-language films is, ironically, the same thing that normally prompts this rating. For once, the brutal honesty and unflinching depiction of reality counts against the film. Rather than the stomach churning for a second before expressing amazement, I found myself asking if the depiction of bodily functions is really necessary. Those who have seen the uncut versions of Soldaat Van Oranje, Turks Fruit, or even De Vierde Man, will understand what I am talking about here.

During the audio commentary Anchor Bay had recorded for the DVD release, the difference between Verhoeven and many a Hollywood director becomes obvious in a big hurry. Where other directors will attempt to put a spin on every aspect of their films, or even try to congratulate themselves, Verhoeven is so frank and honest that his commentaries could be used in film-making schools. Unlike Peter Jackson and his vapid writing staff, you won't hear Verhoeven trying to justify his artistic decisions from a position of arrogance. It's not "how do you expect me to do this? do you think you can do better?", but rather "I did this this way because... and I am pleased/disappointed with the results, so I will do it again/try something else next time". If all directors in Hollywood were this brutally honest, American film would be much more palatable nowadays.

I gave Keetje Tippel an eight out of ten. Its realism earns it a ten out of ten for the most part, but there are times when it either goes too far, or lets its ambition exceed its ability enough, to deduct two points. Jan Wolkers, the author of the novel on which Turks Fruit is based, had similar feelings about Turks Fruit, so this is quite easily viewed as a case of a new director faltering a little as he learns his craft. Still, with early pieces like Keetje Tippel and Turks Fruit, it is not a surprise that Verhoeven would go on to such masterpieces as Total Recall or RoboCop. The DVD is well worth the Amazon asking price.

From this movie, it is easy to see how the director made it out of Holland and landed in mainstream Hollywood. He takes a very serious subject, extreme poverty and how it leads to social uprising, and adds his personal light touches that almost make you forget the political subtext. The "finger shadow" scene before the rape was a touch of cinematic genius that I almost missed the first time around.

The ultimate lesson seems to me to be, of course, that we are all whores, it just depends on how much we can afford to spend on clothes.

One question, if she was so poor, how did she keep her roots died blonde?

If you like Paul Verhoeven's later work (Robocop, Total Recall, Black Book), you should take the time to delve into his Dutch language work.

This is a serious work showing class differences in 19th Century Holland, and the total lack of concern for workers. The title character takes a slew of meaningless jobs after the family is forced to move to the city, eventually ending up as a prostitute to survive.

Hearing the typical "streets paved with gold" dreams that were typical of America at that time, we can totally relate to those driven from their farms.

Women were certainly toys for men, even doctors, to play with, and rape, if they chose.

It was interesting to see Rutgar Hauer in a role as a gentlemen, and the experience of Monique van de Ven was not to be missed.