Sorry, this movie sucks

The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It is no wonder that this film's title is not on the lips of young gay circuit boys. It is a glimpse of our heritage as gay men, however. It reminds us of our own struggle for human rights for centuries in Western culture and in many other cultures of the world. That struggle is not over. In Iran, these atrocities, like the ones depicted in this film, are perpetrated against consenting gay lovers. In Moscow, gay marchers cannot protest without being physically attacked. I find this film profound in that it comes from a country which is struggling with its own economic survival. Yet, this film, of high quality and low cost, was made there. It shames American gay producers, who would never find financing for such an important story. I have tremendous admiration for the makers of this film. Its minor technical failings are negligible, when its overall value to global gay culture is considered. I think it should be required viewing in high school classes on human sexuality. The fact that the film also clearly associates class issues with human rights issues is a refreshing dose of reality.

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.

At the heart of Proteus is a great story - actually two great stories - about the oppression of homosexuality during the 18th century. The main "love" story between Claas and the sailor has the makings of a very dramatic story if told well.Where the movie went wrong, IMO, was mixing costuming, sets and props from different eras. I "get" what the director was trying to do - show us that these problems exist today as much as they did 300 years ago. But the visual jarring of seeing the modern next to the historical kept knocking me out of the plot. Halfway through the movie, I was wondering if this really was a directorial choice or simply a way to reduce costs by using readily available stuff rather than recreating the time period.The secondary story about Virgil never takes off. We are supposed to juxtapose his life with Claas' and see how Claas becomes more accepting of his homosexuality, or at least "love" for another man, while Virgil becomes more closeted as the oppression begins. I never could figure out if Lorenz was Virgil's lover or just a gay friend. In many ways, this movie would have been better served as a straightforward historical drama than attempting to take on multiple plots and risktaking direction.

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.