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.

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.

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!

When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection.