Proteus

Post-apartheid cinema is characterized by the emergence of new voices and a diversification of themes. For the first time South African audiences are exposed to certain marginalized communities, including gay and lesbian subcultures. An important milestone in South African feature film-making is Jack Lewis's Proteus, the beginning of a visible gay/lesbian cinema in South Africa. Under apartheid gay and lesbian voices in film and television were also silenced. In a seven year study of the depiction of gays and lesbians in African, Asian and Latin American cinema I have noted that homosexual experience is unique in South Africa, precisely because of our history of racial division and subsequent resistance. Based on a true story, PROTEUS is a period film that raises issues still of enormous relevance today. Historian and filmmaker Jack Lewis was fascinated by a court record in the Cape Archives, dated 18 August 1735, giving judgment in the case of two Robben Island prisoners. Dutch sailor Rijkhaart Jacobsz and Khoe convict Class Blank received extreme sentences for what the court called 'the abominable and unnatural crime of Sodomy'. It is an extremely moving experience and forms part of a very small number of South African productions on homosexuality. Despite a new constitution which prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians, our images of gay men and women are limited and still on the margin of the film industry. One ends up with less than fifteen short films, a few documentaries, less than five features with openly gay and lesbian characters and virtually no television programmes during the past hundred years of South African 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.

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.

When the film began the flat DV photography and poor subtitling made me wonder if this was going to be worth the effort. With its anachronisms and stylised start it would be too easy to write this off as sub-Jarman. But, it is worth sticking with this 'historical' inter-racial love story set in South African as its themes of intolerance are still relevant today.

Although the low budget is very obvious, so is director Greyson's imagination and belief in this project. An interesting film which almost scuppers itself with its bad start but which redeems itself as it progresses.

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.