Proteus

This film, based on a true story tells of Rijkhaart Jacobsz and Claas Blank two men who were imprisoned and met on Robben Island 1718 and 1735. These two men met and fell in love on the island that would, many years later become the site of Nelson Mandela's life sentence.

Rijkhaart Jacobsz was a Dutch sailor that had been sentenced there for homosexuality. It is there that he met Claas Blank, a aboriginal (Hottentot) who had run afoul of the law and was acquitted of any crime because there was insufficient evidence of his committing any crime but was sentenced to 10 years hard labor because he had been accused.

The story also tells us of Virgil Niven a Dutch plant biologist who had come to South Africa to classify the plant life there but was afraid to return home after the Dutch in Amsterdam began a pogrom of homosexuals.

While this story is NOT well known in South Africa today one hopes that with this film it will become more widely known. South Africa has one of the most enlightened constitutions in the world with an equal protection clause for sexual preference in their Bill of Rights.

The film uses a creative approach to anachronism to help tell its story, mixing modern day elements with what is essentially a historical costume drama. Many of these elements were reported by the director to have special historical significance to those that know the full history of Robben Island, for the rest of us it just makes for an interesting device that adds a bit of spice to what some may think is a too-drawn out story.

This "art house" film, based on factual documents, depicts real events which are informative and provide a historical context for some of today's social attitudes.

Although the recorded events took place in the mid-18th century, the director has peopled his set with deliberate contemporary anachronisms. This is apparently to tie together time periods, showing significant similarities.

The film itself seems to have a divided audience, from those who love it to those whose reactions are the opposite. While the events covered are pretty grim and unpleasant, the production is well shot and the quality of the actors is uniformly strong.

In my opinion, though, here's a film that will probably have a limited general, together with an appreciative special, audience. It is commendable that the South African government has opened its political policy for more inclusiveness in artistic subject matter. Well produced by a Canadian company.

A handsome, classy gem of a movie, imaginatively shot on a very low budget by Greyson the way he did the uneven, yet interesting, "Lilies". I don't want to say much about the plot, which is based on facts, but be prepare for gorgeous scenery, some pointed nodes (to Todd Haynes' Poison, Tom of Fineland and Jean Genet) and completely believable performances by a first-rate, though unknown, cast.

A mixed bag of a love story (two men on a penitentiary island; one is white, the other is black; one is gay, the other is not; add a "curious", repressed warden and a definite taste for botanic and you'll have an idea) that actually works, thanks to a refreshing lack of camp. And, for those of you wandering, the title has nothing to do whatsoever with science-fiction, "Proteus" being the name of a beautiful flower used here literally and, most of all, metaphorically.

Definitely not your average "gay movie", and certainly not to everyone's taste, "Proteus" is challenging yet generous toward those who are willing for something a little different. Stick with this one.

So as not to repeat what other thoughtful reviewers have already stated, let me agree first that in many ways it is a very powerful film (though I would definitely not call it cinema), thanks almost totally to the remarkable acting skill and pathos of the two leading men, charged with the sin of loving each other and being quite physical about it.

However, especially during the first quarter, one gets the impression that you are watching a reject from educational TV due to overall filming quality (or lack thereof), which of course I'm sure is due to lack of funds, rather than lack of skill in directorship.

The glaring anachronisms look like goofs at first, but then again not even the worst Hong Kong director would send a jeep to look for thieves in 1730 (though he might make prisoners gather eggs with plastic bags and sound sirens in the background every now and then). You start to get the hint.

As other reviewers have pointed out, the modern costumes and props supposedly serve to tell us (wink-wink) that things haven't changed so much (or at least between 1730 and 1965, which is the period of most of the out-of-place costumes) and it still pretty much sucks to be homosexual. In 1965, at least.

While I realize the directors are trying to make a point, the presence of 1990s props and 1965 beehive hairdos with polyester suits just make the movie look cheaper, even satirical, especially in light of the fact that the photography basically resembles a home video on a tripod. To me, the intended anachronisms were just a distraction; and I don't need to be reminded that things are still very much the same, thank you very much. In any case, it just seems to underline lack of budget more than anything else. And lack of imagination.

Anyway, back to the film (not movie). Despite all the critical comments I have reserved for the directing and filming, the story of the happy-go-lucky "Hottentot" and sullen Dutch sailors' relationship was extremely well told and acted out, to the point where the hand-cam and plastic bottles and barb-wire fences didn't matter so much any more. It's a bit of a mystery why Shaun Smyth (the chatterbox botanist) got billing over Neil Sandilands (the sailor), whose few terse-but- loaded lines and facial expression spoke volumes more than one might imagine. In fact the whole film could have been made with just the two leading lovers and the rest as extras (the acting ability of most of the others left something to be desired).

As for the erotic part of the film, it could very well border on porn (again, due to the video look) except that it is much more human and realistic, and yes, touching. Anybody whose tastes run to lean-and-muscular men will definitely get their nickel's worth.

If this film was intended to get certain people thinking about humanity and justice more than they have been, it will probably not attain that goal, as it is so gay as it will probably fly over the heads of even some of the most understanding heterosexuals.

But it's great if you like to see proteas blooming fast-forward.

This film connected me to my anger. It reminds us how the evil of the establishment of monotheism and its cultural imperialism have been used to murder us and perpetuate racism. This film is a deeply moving experience.

The acting and writing are very good. One feels the tension among the characters and they are all believable. The tacit communications are palpable.

The film also addresses the absence of terms in the language for the love and relationship between the protagonists -- a problem that resonates to the current day.