When bankers put on Caesar

Classical abridged Shakespeare, staged with the backing and clout of the Hong Kong Bank was generally projected as the bank's unique cerebral enterprise. Therefore, it was an invitation to the mercantile world to forget bottom lines , debit and credit in order to imbibe some culture.

So when bankers put on Julius Caesar, it was bankers putting on Julius Caesar. There is no such thing called professional English drama in this country in any event, so Julius Caesar could not be a whole lot different from drama staged intermittently by certain theatre groups. But between dedicated thespians and bankers doubling as actors, there necessarily is some chasm, which to some extent handicapped the producers of Caesar.

Julius Caesar with all its blood and thunder blood is dependent heavily on the ability of the actors to live their roles, obviously because the plot itself would be known to any tyro or neophyte .

Living the role, as opposed to acting it, is not an enterprise that can be easily inculcated, which is why staging Caesar is at any point of time an ambitious exercise. But for actors who generally crunch numbers or whet credit proposals, last week's performance was probably an enlightening experience. Shakespeare is still one of the finer things of life.

Though a customary review of a play done by a group of bankers would be unfair, a few observations are done here with malice to none and charity to all. Julius Caesar has only a minor part to play in Julius Caesar, as he generally gets despatched in the play. But, Caesar has to be played imperiously but with some nonchalance, which is an amalgam difficult for any actor. In this respect, this Caesar (Dineth Nanyakkara) wasn't bad at all, especially compared to some earlier Caesar's in the remembered past at the Wendt, who overplayed their roles.

But, others such as Casca didn't quite bring off the pathos inherent in their roles, which meant the play was what it was expected to be — a good amateur effort. Obviously, the weaknesses of the play were not for the want of trying, but for reasons somewhat beyond the control of the producers. It was a diversion for theatre lovers who had had a surfeit of ennui.

Can the Titanic be sunk?

Only one significant question remains to be answered about the 70th Academy Awards ceremony to be held on March 23. Can any film get a look in against Titanic? With a staggering 14 nominations, James Cameron's blockbuster has equalled the record set by All About Eve in 1950.

Titanic now seems set fair to emulate another record - the 11 Oscars won by Ben-Hur in 1959.

The nominations are an extraordinary accolade and purists may argue it has been rewarded beyond its merits. Indeed, in future years other US films from 1997 such as The Ice Storm, LA Confidential and Donnie Brasco, may be judged as more enduring works of art.

But these are nominations for the here and now - and just at this moment Titanic looks well-nigh irresistible. In a mere eight weeks it has grossed $350 million in the US, where it is already the fourth most popular film ever released.

It is also on course to become the first billion-dollar movie in world-wide takings. Even the soundtrack of James Horner's nominated score has topped US album charts with sales of five million.

Because of this film there is a lot of extra money washing around Hollywood and those of its denizens who decide the Oscars have shown their gratitude. Last year's Oscars were dominated by smaller, independent, non-American films. Had that trend persisted it might have forced Hollywood to change the extravagant way it does business.

Titanic's success is all the more remarkable given its appalling pre-release publicity. Its opening was delayed six months and director James Cameron was accused of ill-treating his actors and crew. (Kate Winslet, now nominated as best actress, memorably told me that during shooting she nearly drowned. You'd have to pay me a lot of money to work with Jim again," she said).

Its budget spiralled crazily to $200 million, making it the most expensive film ever made. That unpleasantness is now forgotten, and suddenly $200 million looks a snip. The message to Hollywood? Back to business as usual, boys.

Still, getting a nomination is not the same as receiving an Oscar. All About Eve provides the precedent, it only actually won six statuettes.

So where is Titanic vulnerable? In the technical categories its case looks unanswerable.

But this was a film in which spectacle and visual effects dwarfed the human beings on screen. In the acting categories its male lead, Leonardo DiCaprio, has not even been nominated and its two actress nominees, Winslet and Gloria Stuart, are both in tough categories.

Winslet's opposition will come from Dame Judi Dench's magisterial Queen Victoria in Mrs Brown and the winsome American actress Helen Hunt in As Good as It Gets.

Stuart, now 87, was a star of the 1930s and Oscar voters like to revere the industry's part - yet they still snubbed Lauren Bacall's claims for The Mirror Has Two Faces last year. And Stuart is up against two stellar performances, Kim Basinger in LA Confidential and Julianne Moore in Boogie Nights.

As usual it is the acting field in which the British have acquitted themselves best. Reliable Anthony Hopkins is nominated as a supporting actor for Steven Spielberg's largely overlooked Amistad. And the momentum of Minnie Driver's career continues with her place in the supporting actress line-up.

Still, the British challenge undoubtedly centres on the phenomenon of The Full Monty nominated four times, including nods for best film, best director (Peter Cattaneo) and best original screenplay (Simon Beaufoy). It may have been financed by the US company Fox Searchlight, but otherwise this good-hearted crowd-pleaser is British through and through.

It was made with no stars for a pittance $3.5 million. To put it another way, you could produce 57 Full Montys for the money it cost to make Titanic.

A cunning underdog campaign in Hollywood's trade press has helped The Full Monty to this point. That campaign will now attract Academy voters appalled by the notion of any film costing $200 million. Would it not be delicious if a Titanic backlash allowed The Full Monty to go the full monty on Oscar night?

The Weekly Telegraph

More Plus * End these lies about Diana