The Illusionist and the Ventriloquist

Rating: Null/10 (7 May 2000)

Two things about this film intrigue me: the novel integrated talents of Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe.
We are creatures who depend on idea fragments in everything we do. Virtually everything is a rehash, sometimes creative but mostly not. When someone or something comes along and adds to the vocabulary, something essentially new, it is a big deal -- that's my definition of genius. Today, a major force in defining our basic vocabulary is cinema, the visual element of filmaking. But all the easy stuff has been done as we leave the first generations of the art.
So when someone comes along who can conceive a world that is new and unfamiliar, and who can actually deliver the illusion of being in that world, it is notable. Scott does that here (and in Blade Runner). Kubrick did it once or maybe twice; Polanski had the skills when he had an edge, but this is exceedingly rare. Note here how little quoting Scott does of prior battle in his battle scene, how Ben Hur (and all the lesser period pieces) are not at all referenced. How new this all is. (The only concession is the annoying British accent of the Romans.)
What is remarkable is that it is all visual. It is not in the writing, the effects per se, or the acting, though they are all good enough. I intend to see this film several more times for just the visual experience. I suspect that because of the coherence and advance of the visual vocabulary. this will be seen as a landmark film long after Private Ryan and Titanic become footnotes.
But there is also Crowe, and there's something notable here. I don't see great acting in the normal sense, but there is something else, and this seems new to me as well. To check this, I reviewed LA Confidential and The Insider. Crowe has the ability to develop tension, a normal enough skill, but he also has the ability to project this tension into the environment of the film. Watch how the scenes flow as his acting in one scene is tossed into another; it's remarkable.
When he did this in The Insider, he seems to use as his resonator the unwitting, ever-bombastic Pacino. Here, He uses the similar exaggerated scope of the story, both the setting and the violence of the context.
WARNING! Spoilers follow:
Both Scott and Crowe seem to know what they are doing. So they have eliminated many of the elements normally required: there is no backstory, no explanation of what went before, no comic relief, just the barest of scaffolding. But in that, it is made of huge, strong girders. In another film, we'll have revenge driven by the death of the Hero's wife. Here, she and their child are gang-raped, burned until nearly dead, then crucified. In another film, the bad guy is conventionally bad, but here we have patricide and incestual rape.
In another period film, we'd have lots of street scenes (which are cheap) to convey a sense of place: not so here. Nothing not essential to the core projection and resonant backdrop are used. So instead of parading the effects (as with Titanic or Jurassic Park), they are handled casually, incidentally as background. Just a huge visual sweep through which tension is passed.
It is early to know, but this could be one of the great films.