NOTE IMDb
6,7/10
2,9 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueThe young girl Keetje moves to Amsterdam in 1881 with her impoverished family, and is led into prostitution in order to survive. In the process she sees the corrupting influence of money.The young girl Keetje moves to Amsterdam in 1881 with her impoverished family, and is led into prostitution in order to survive. In the process she sees the corrupting influence of money.The young girl Keetje moves to Amsterdam in 1881 with her impoverished family, and is led into prostitution in order to survive. In the process she sees the corrupting influence of money.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Eddie Brugman
- André
- (as Eddy Brugman)
Ab Abspoel
- Cop
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
This film is weighed down by its deeply inadequate ending which does not seem to want to connect itself with the themes of greed and hunger relayed throughout. Tonally, it's incomplete.
Whilst the record indicates that Rob Houwer is part of the problem as to why the ending is the way it is - it's frustrating to think that this can't be ranked alongside Verhoeven's more accomplished works like Starship Troopers, from what it could have been...
Whilst the record indicates that Rob Houwer is part of the problem as to why the ending is the way it is - it's frustrating to think that this can't be ranked alongside Verhoeven's more accomplished works like Starship Troopers, from what it could have been...
This movie details the struggle of young Dutch women,Keetje Tippel (Monique Van De Ven) from the countryside who moves with her family to Amsterdam in search of a better life only to find themselves living among filth, vermin and squalor in a slum. She finds work in various jobs where conditions are horrible and she is subjected to constant sexual harassment and eventually rape.
Finally she becomes a prostitute which ends up being her gateway to the good life as she becomes mistress to the banker, Hugo (Rutger Hauer) and later the respected wife of Hugo's wealthy friend.
This is an expose of the Dutch class-system in the 19th century and has socialist and feminist overtones. It ranks among the best of 1970's Dutch cinema and is easily the highlight of Monique Van De Ven's career.
Warning! Although there is some nudity and sexuality it is not done in celebration of sensuality but rather explores the dark side of exploitation of sex. This is a very serious film and not for those looking for light entertainment.
Finally she becomes a prostitute which ends up being her gateway to the good life as she becomes mistress to the banker, Hugo (Rutger Hauer) and later the respected wife of Hugo's wealthy friend.
This is an expose of the Dutch class-system in the 19th century and has socialist and feminist overtones. It ranks among the best of 1970's Dutch cinema and is easily the highlight of Monique Van De Ven's career.
Warning! Although there is some nudity and sexuality it is not done in celebration of sensuality but rather explores the dark side of exploitation of sex. This is a very serious film and not for those looking for light entertainment.
Seriously, judging by this film, you'll be molested and forced into prostitution the moment you step off the boat/plane etc.
If you have ever watched Robocop, Total Recall or Starship Troopers and thought to yourself "Man, I wonder what would this director would be like giving us some sort of period drama set in the 19th century Holland starring Rutger Hauer, and I'd love to see his arse, balls and especially him licking melted chocolate off someone else's tongue", then this is the film for you!
I mean if that doesn't sound funny enough already, you've got drowned puppies, mothers forcing their kids into prostitution, Jimmy Saville types trying to get young Jimmy to show them his tummy banana, and a woman dying of tuberculosis just after having been molested by a doctor. Jesus, what else do you want from a comedy? Maybe this film wasn't a comedy. I don't know. It was kind of worrying that every single person in Amsterdam wanted to molest Katie. Seriously, everybody wanted a bit. She was even molested by an orderly in the hospital so that she was clean enough for the doctor to molest her. Twice.
For me, the most worrying part was when Katie worked for the hat guy and was doing shadow puppets on the wall and I thought to myself 'wouldn't it be hilarious if the next shadow you saw on the wall was the hat guy's tadger' and then lo and behold we get to see the shadow of an erect slag hammer on the wall. Man, I have the same mindset as the guy who directed Showgirls.
This film is too well made and has too high of a budget to be crap and is in a certain kind of way entertaining. It's grim stuff, but I can see why Paul went on to be a hot shot director. Rutger also worth a look here but he's dubbed, which only adds to the madness.
And this was a true story? F*cking seriously?
If you have ever watched Robocop, Total Recall or Starship Troopers and thought to yourself "Man, I wonder what would this director would be like giving us some sort of period drama set in the 19th century Holland starring Rutger Hauer, and I'd love to see his arse, balls and especially him licking melted chocolate off someone else's tongue", then this is the film for you!
I mean if that doesn't sound funny enough already, you've got drowned puppies, mothers forcing their kids into prostitution, Jimmy Saville types trying to get young Jimmy to show them his tummy banana, and a woman dying of tuberculosis just after having been molested by a doctor. Jesus, what else do you want from a comedy? Maybe this film wasn't a comedy. I don't know. It was kind of worrying that every single person in Amsterdam wanted to molest Katie. Seriously, everybody wanted a bit. She was even molested by an orderly in the hospital so that she was clean enough for the doctor to molest her. Twice.
For me, the most worrying part was when Katie worked for the hat guy and was doing shadow puppets on the wall and I thought to myself 'wouldn't it be hilarious if the next shadow you saw on the wall was the hat guy's tadger' and then lo and behold we get to see the shadow of an erect slag hammer on the wall. Man, I have the same mindset as the guy who directed Showgirls.
This film is too well made and has too high of a budget to be crap and is in a certain kind of way entertaining. It's grim stuff, but I can see why Paul went on to be a hot shot director. Rutger also worth a look here but he's dubbed, which only adds to the madness.
And this was a true story? F*cking seriously?
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.
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.
"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/
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/
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDirector Paul Verhoeven had agreed to do the movie based on a elaborate synopsis, in which the story of protagonist Keetje Tippel was told in parallel with a period drama depicting the social circumstances and political unrest of the time. With pre-production well under way, he and screenwriter Gerard Soeteman elaborated the synopsis into a complete script, but it was vetoed as being too expensive by producer Rob Houwer. He ordered them to focus on the personal drama and remove most of the social issues, including several scenes of mass rebellion and revolt that were Verhoeven's main reasons for taking on the project.
- Versions alternativesA few more explicit shots of the rape scene were cut to avoid an "X" rating in the U.S. They are restored on home video in an unrated version.
- ConnexionsFeatured in De wereld draait door: Épisode #13.16 (2017)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Katie Tippel?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 40min(100 min)
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant