The important thing to know when going into this film is that it's first an art film; second, an historical drama; and finally and interracial gay love story.As an art film, it meanders and intermingles elements of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries - from 1725 to 1964 - as a cinematic illustration of the maxim plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - the more things change, the more they stay the same.As an historical drama, it is based on an actual case and uses the names of the two men. The real relationship, however, began about 1715 (not 1725, as presented in the film) when Rijkhaart Jacobsz and Claas Blank were about 16 years old. They had been together 20 years when they were executed in 1735 about age 36. Their relationship was not particularly secret, and apparently not particularly shocking - so the reason for their trial and execution can only be speculated. The most likely explanation is that the sodomy panic that gripped The Netherlands in 1731 made its way down to Cape Town by 1735.One of the amazing things about the real court case is that the testimonial evidence of the Khoi defendant, as well as the Dutch one, was recorded. Usually, there's just notes as to what the Black defendant said, not his (or her) actual words. So, for some reason, Claas Blank sufficiently impressed the Cape Colony authorities that he was treated essentially the same as a white convict.Proteus is a poignant film, and a fine example of contemporary South African (and Canadian) cinema.

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 "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.

While a brief description of "Proteus" may not make it sound particularly appealing, it's a surprisingly good work dealing with a time, place, and situation rarely covered in the movies. The anachronistic appearance of modern clothes and devices is only occasional and is probably meant to emphasize that the problems dealt with in "Proteus" are still with us today, in various forms. This insight, however, probably isn't worth the breaks in the movie's fabric these appearances cause. Also, the subplot involving a Dutch botanist, though given a lot of footage, never quite gels into a satisfying story.Acting honors belong to Rouxnet Brown as the imprisoned "Hottentot" but viewers may be equally impressed by Neil Sandilands as the Dutch sailor-turned-inmate who becomes his lover. Sandilands may be half-a-notch below handsome but he has a good face and a good body and one can well imagine prison guards staring at him whenever he takes a shower. Unfortunately, his flogging scene is joined only after the final lash has been struck.Neil Sandilands is a virtual newcomer at this point but he has about him the look and manner of a young Sam Elliott and could, with the right exposure, go places.Those who go to this movie expecting lots of nudity and graphic sex will be disappointed. The sex scenes are frank but non-exploitive and, by current standards, almost modest.