There's no other way of putting it -- it's damn refreshing to see a director the caliber of Ridley Scott maintain the same sense of humility that he had in 1977 when he made his debut film "The Duellists."

It's no wonder why Scott's films have made indelible impressions on the world of cinema, considering he's only directed 12 other films in the 25 years since then. But whether it was on his earlier films like "Alien" or "Blade Runner," "Thelma and Louise" in 1991, or more recent gems like "Gladiator," "Hannibal" or "Black Hawk Down," Scott has always remained grounded.

That's because he made "The Duellists," making its debut on special edition DVD this week (Paramount Home Entertainment) for a mere $900,000. And while budgets for feature films have undoubtedly changed, Scott still approaches his projects the same way.

"Even if you're in excess of $100 million as a budget today, I still don't feel any better off than I did when I received $900,000 to make the movie then," Scott told me in a recent @ The Movies interview. "In a day by day process, every decision a director has to make with the film is relating to cost, and how long it's going to take, because time is money."

But in regard to the cost of films today, to put it simply, Scott doesn't get it.

"I don't know why a budget today has to be $140 million, because 25 years ago, I made all that for $900,000," Scott said. "The percentage that the costs have risen compared to the cost of living doesn't collate. The costs have risen to a ridiculous and astronomical degree. In those days I could get a screenplay written by a first-class writer for five grand. Now you can hardly buy lunch with it."

Set in the early 1800s, "The Duellists" stars Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel as Armand d'Hubert and Gabriel Feraud, two officers in Napoleon's army who violently confront each other in sword duels over the course of 16 years.

There's no doubt "The Duellists" is a beautiful film in terms of cinematography and style, but Scott also presents some stunningly choreographed fight scenes. However, Scott was hardly out to make an Errol Flynn-like swashbuckling adventure with "The Duellists," but rather a film with an intense, gritty street-fighting mentality.

"We had a great fight arranger, Bill Hobbs, who had done arrangement for the National Theatre Company. I wanted street fighting and he got that immediately, because he said that's what sword fighting is really about," Scott recalled.

The spark to the flame, though, was the subtext of the piece. That's because the reason the men started fighting in the first place, was really over a minor incident. What fueled the fire was their division in class, and the obsession and honor the men each possessed led them back to duel after duel, in a bloody game of trying to one-up each other.

"The Keitel character represents a person classified in those days as working class -- probably from the gutter -- and Carradine represents the aristocracy, which has been reintroduced into the army," Scott explained. "You have a class battle going on."

A Director's Obsession

Scott probably couldn't have picked a better film to make his debut with, than one of a tale of obsession. Based on Joseph Conrad's story "The Duel" and adapted for the screen by Gerald Vaughn-Hughes, "The Duellists" was the final result of four efforts by Scott to get his first film made. In a word, Scott was "obsessed" to make his film about obsession happen.

"I had done three years at the BBC on a drama series as a director, otherwise I had leapt straight into commercials and never touched long-form for 20 years -- So this was my first crack it," Scott recalled.

This coupled with the fact that Scott was just turning 40 as "The Duellists" was coming together. Sure, he was happy with his successful career in advertising in Britain, but he was more than anxious to see the idea for a film come to fruition.

"Was I obsessed with the idea of doing a film? Absolutely. I was right into the chase," Scott said. "By the time I did my first film I must have done in excess of 1,800 commercials, so I was very experienced with the process of pushing celluloid through a camera in all kinds of venues ranging from locations to sets. The process of stepping into the movie was relatively straightforward. The only tricky thing was telling a longhand story, as opposed to a 60 second one."

But there was an added benefit to exploring long form narratives: it presented Scott a greater opportunity to learn -- not only of the subject matter at hand -- but about himself as a person.

"I've grown up during the process of making movies. What you have to do, is you have to exercise your theories and thesis, and emotional securities and insecurities with people called actors, and that's how you learn how to direct," Scott explained.

"It's a matter of learning how to open up, and have these conversations with actors who will hopefully exchange their ideas and notions. Then you move forward," Scott continued. "In a funny kind of way, every film is like a sophisticated psychologist. And every time you finish a movie, you feel like you're a slightly different person. At least I feel I am."

Traveling Through Times, Themes

While Scott began his career in the 1800s, essentially with "The Duellists," he has since traveled through film to many different time periods and themes -- from outer space to ancient Rome, from war to horror, and drama to suspense. Needless to say, Scott doesn't want to pigeonhole himself.

"I try not to do that," Scott told me. "You have to keep moving into dangerous waters, because that's what makes you pay attention. I've just finished a comedy -- which I've never done before -- called 'Matchstick Men' with Nic Cage and I think we have a very interesting film. I probably had one of the better times of my life with Nic, who, apart from being a very talented man, is a real great guy -- a good man to work with."

And like his films before, Scott said he came out of "Matchstick Men" a slightly changed person. The film after that will likely change him again.

"I'm slightly different coming out the other side with this one because I thought, 'That was fast, God I enjoyed that, and thank Christ it's gone together really well," Scott mused. "But what I'm looking for next? I don't know, it will probably be 'Tripoli' with Russell Crowe, where I go back to 1803, which is 18 years after the republic of America was formed and the time of Thomas Jefferson."

There's no question another association with Crowe would be a winning combination for Scott, who directed the actor to a Best Actor Oscar and a Best Picture win in 2000. Scott, unfortunately, was aced out of the Best Director Oscar for "Gladiator," as well as for helming "Thelma and Louise" in 1991 and "Black Hawk Down" last year.

"That's the way the cookie crumbles," Scott laughed. In fact, he takes being overlooked for the Oscar all in stride. After all, he didn't get into the business of making movies to win awards.

"You get in this business to be allowed to explore. I think of the profession as being an explorer. I'm allowed to be given a budget and go away to make something that I want to make based on my passion," Scott said. "It's a wonderful privilege. I'm eternally grateful that I can keep doing it. And this is not in any sense bulls*** modesty. I really think 'holy s***, they're going to give me money to go to North Africa where I'm going to recreate the Barbary Coast, and I'm going to have the greatest fun of my life.'

"But within that, you have to deliver," Scott concluded. "You better keep your eye on the ball, because it could easily get away."