Katie Tippel (1975) Poster

(1975)

User Reviews

Review this title
15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Surprisingly Thoughtful Indictment of 19th Century Capitalism
archive125 March 2001
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.
31 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Solid period drama.
Boba_Fett11385 December 2005
"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/
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A qualified success
mentalcritic23 December 2004
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.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Appropriate for the History Channel not late night cable
mbdhound1 December 2000
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.
24 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Away with all your superstitions, Servile masses, arise, arise!
lastliberal2 January 2010
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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The wretched prostitution in the Lumpenproletariat
eabakkum6 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Quite often people land in circumstances, where all human dignity, sense of purpose and growth is stifled. These situations are horrific, and we need to know about them in order to be able to anticipate and find remedies. The film Keetje Tippel gives insight into the bottom of capitalist society at the beginning of the twentieth century. The stage is a family, which is part of the "Lumpenproletariat" of Amsterdam. They live under the poorest conditions in a damp basement of a tenement-house in Amsterdam. The father is perpetually unemployed, and so the family depends on the children for her income. The sister of Keetje is wretched and void of morals, and finds employ in a brothel. For some inexplicable reason Keetje is equipped with a certain pugnacity and does not succumb to the temptations. She starts to work in a laundry, but soon falls out with the other working women. She manages to find another job in a clothes shop. However misfortune dogs her (or is she just stupid?), and she is raped by the shop owner. Again she is out of work, and in addition she suffers from a pneumonia. She is taken to hospital, and she recovers thanks to a doctor, who supplies her with the appropriate physic in exchange for sexual favors. In the mean time the family lives in the most dire circumstances. In this situation Keetjes mother incites her to street prostitution. Soon Keetje meets a painter, who agrees to use her as a model. In a way this change from being a prostitute to becoming a courtesan is a promotion for Keetje. She gets acquainted with the friends of the painter, among others a bank official (oh! those banks ...). They live together for some time, but although Keetje apparently hoped otherwise, the engagement never gets really serious. Eventually the bank official announces his marriage with a woman of station. Back on the street Keetje is caught in a demonstration of socialists. When the demonstration is violently dispersed by the police, Keetje helps an injured man in the crowd (who she knows already from the circle of friends of the painter) to escape. It turns out, that he is an extremely wealthy person, and they live happily ever after. The film was inspired by the true story of Neel Doff, who however spent her life in Brussels. The film is not easy. It contains lots of pornographic scenes, which of course are functional. However they also fit in nicely with the sexual liberation at the time of the film production (1975), which for unclear reasons was particularly vehement in Dutch films. In fact the naked body of Monique van de Ven had already been on display in previous Dutch films. The described occurrences are by no means exceptional. Prostitution was relatively common with women from the Lumpenproletariat. In fact we know from contemporary novels that also rape by the employer and the keeping of courtesans and mistresses by the young bourgeois were normal and belonged to the daily life. Whereas the Lumpenproletariat may have been stupid and derailed, the ruling class was plainly inhumane and evil. It seems justified to qualify the abuses as a social problem and not a personal one. For me this message makes Keetje Tippel into a quality produce: people can be victimized by their living conditions, and in particular any abundancy of power invariably tends to corrupt. You need to stay in a position that allows to recognize the person in the other. Since these bygone times the reduction of poverty has diminished the class character of the abuse, but it has not completely eliminated the problem. This is apparent in films such as The Graduate, which shows the perverseness in the upper middle-class (not to mention the mistresses of presidents etc.). And in city ghettos the wretched life of the Lumpenproletariat perseveres until this day. This film helps to clarify the perverse sides of society.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I am never going to Amsterdam...ever
Bezenby20 September 2015
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?
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Atypical early Verhoeven is interesting but unfocused
gridoon202416 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Paul Verhoeven is not nearly as assured as he would later become in this early film; he was still finding his feet. Other than a lot of nudity, it is quite different from most of his later work: it's a socially conscious, politically charged period drama. Not without interest, but the script is far too episodic and unfocused. Monique Van De Ven offers a sympathetic, spirited portrayal of the title figure, but let's be honest: if this movie didn't carry the name "Verhoeven", it would probably never have become commercially available outside of his own country. **1/2 out of 4.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Beware of Inferior Video Copies
evolute4 August 2009
I recorded this movie a few weeks ago from our local community television station Triangle's night broadcast. I was surprised to see this on their schedule, as it's usually the lowest rate affair. The situation was another example of a great work getting lost in another vast video copy collection.

I was excited to be seeing an early movie from a director I always admired. I'd only ever seen his Hollywood work, and was especially fond of his Sci-Fi classics growing up. As others recognize, Verhoeven unashamedly puts into his films, his honest impression of the societal constructs we humans consistently find ourselves in. That regular criticism of the complexities of human nature, beyond the norms of each film's particular genre, has always resonated with my world view.

I finally watched this film this morning. As it started it was obvious the image quality was very poor, not helped by early scenes being predominantly in the dark. Not surprisingly the character's voices were dubbed into English, but were often mismatched or exaggerated, unfitting for the film. It seems to be the UK version I saw, yet some accents were American. I always try to watch a film in it's original intended language, but it seems the foreign films on the local community station are only ever poorly dubbed video copies.

Despite the poor quality of the copy I saw (the video company's logo even popped up irregularly in the bottom corner of the image), this film really amazed me. Much of the reasons why have been detailed by the few other comments on this site. The biggest flaw of the story for me was that the film ended too suddenly. This seems a common element to films the further back in cinema history you go. I actually appreciate a well crafted credits sequence, easing the viewer out of the film's world, and allowing reflection. Even at nearly 2 hours long, I felt my interest would have been sustained for a little bit longer.

There is a DVD listed here with 5 of Verhoeven's films in their original Dutch form, with English subtitles. I'd like to see this one again, and the rest of his early creations, which others consider even better. Rutger Hauer is also a great, varied yet charismatic actor, and it seems his best work might be with Verhoeven.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Deeply frustrating but not awful
freddiemurfin19 December 2021
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...
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Early Dutch film from Paul Verhoeven
Red-Barracuda17 October 2016
In 19th century Amsterdam, a young woman begins work as a prostitute in order to survive and ascend the social ladder.

Katie's Passion is quite notable for being an early Paul Verhoeven film. At first it seems like an odd choice for him seeing as it is a period film with a social message. But as it transpires it is also quite healthily loaded with nudity and sleaze too, so it ties in a bit more with Verhoeven's more typical stuff. It also features an appearance from Rutger Hauer, although in the version I saw he was dubbed with an upper class English accent which was somewhat jarring. The film itself is interesting enough to an extent in that it gives an insight into the hardships migrants from the country experienced in urban areas in the Netherlands at that time. But in the main, this is a fairly minor effort and aside from a few notable aspects it's not all that memorable.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The classic Verhoeven touch in a relatively early film.
rlcsljo2 September 2002
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?
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Only money is valued in this world
nogodnomasters12 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Based on the true life of Cornelia Hubertina (Neel) Doff (Monique van de Ven) born into poverty and worked her way into the gentry class as a model for famous Dutch artists at the turn of the century...and that prostitution thing. Her work as an author for the working class is left as an end note in the film.

I watched the film as part of a 50 DVD collection. The restoration wasn't there and the dubbing left much to be desired. Katie has a passion for life and wrote about her poverty as an autobiography. We see her posing for the art world, but even that was glanced over as they crammed her life into 100 minutes. It is worth a watch from an historical perspective, but the film is not overly entertaining.

Guide: No swearing. Sex, rape, FF Nudity
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievable Awful Story
Rainey-Dawn28 October 2015
Another film from the Drive-in 50-pack collection under the title 'Katie's Passion'. I very much disliked this flick... it's just an excuse for soft-porn and overall an unbelievable awful story.

This is suppose to be a "true story"? More like "the true story of someone's fantasy or dream". Seriously! I cannot swallow this so called "true story". Everybody wants to molest or rape Keetje Tippel? Really? Even her doctor - twice? Someone needs to re-title this film "Everybody wants to do Keetije" because that is the core theme of this film.

I have never read Neel Doff's book but if it anything like this film then I'll pass on it. I'm not buying into the "everyone wants to harm, rape and molest Neel or Keetije". I'm sorry but I can't.

I'm also not buy into the Indictment of 19th Century Capitalism either... she appeared happy with her rich soon-to-be husband at the end of the film. Not sure about the book though.

Sorry but this film is not for me. It's a soft-porn fest with a story that I cannot believe to be true.

1/10
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Katie Tippel
movieguy8100715 May 2006
Katie Tippel is very similar to Turkish Delight. This film has tons of nudity in it. This is one of Paul Verhoeven's early Dutch movies. Rutger Hauer stars in this movie. This movie is also shocking like most Verhoeven movies. This movie was cut to avoid an X rating. I saw the unrated version from Netflix. I have never seen this movie cut. All of Paul Verhoeven's movies have nudity in it. Jan De Bont was the cinematographer for this as with other Paul Verhoeven's films such as Turkish Delight, The 4th Man, Flesh + Blood, and Basic Instinct. I have only seen this movie once. I wish I can own it. I also wish I did not throw away Basic Instinct. This is a very well done Dutch film.
6 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed