Yuku free message boards

He did turn down 'Body Heat' as too sleazy (despite its being a remake of 'Double Indemnity'). There's a story, apparently massively exaggerated that he was offered 'Star Wars' but said no.

A Lee Hern wrote:

---

BODY HEAT is only a poor man's homage to DOUBLE INDEMNITY, without much purpose. Perhaps most critically it also lacks the moral anchor that is Edward G. Robinson's Barton Keyes character, something Rózsa surely understood when he declined the opportunity to score Lawrence Kasdan's film.

Not really. Firstly, the Ted Danson (the 'dancin'' lawyer) character who is Hurt's best pal but needs to investigate him reluctantly, is the equivalent factor, as is the police character. These are the 'moral' elements, even though they aren't noticably behaviourally different people to Hurt, superficially. In the original, the Robinson character is the moral 'intuition' or conscience, 'I got this little man inside me, see?', whereas in the later film, the two buddies represent the 'law' and where the line is drawn. The film represents the state of affairs nowadays, where older mentors like Eddie G. really aren't so present in professions as once they were. That's called updating. That the story seems aimless is just the point. In the old film, they all moved inexorably along the 'line', always a railway somehow, to the inevitable Greek denouement. In the newer film there's a mist of heat that the 'hero' gets lost in. That's how modern life seems to people. Neff followed the line of his own desires to doom. Hurt steps OFF the line of conformity to his own doom.

They're both good moral lessons, and the fact that the femme fatale in the newer film gets away with it is all the more poignant. That's what can happen. We only ever find out about the ones that DON'T get away with it.

Just looking at this again, I'm not sure that the parameters of 'gentlemanliness' account for this.

I have a strong feeling that 'Green Berets' really did for Rozsa in the 1960s. The film was not only a political pariah, but also one of his most mediocre scores. That was (even had it been a decent film) an opportunity for a newer more versatile approach, perhaps everything from atonal passages, to modern pop idiom, to serious dramatic music. But it didn't develop musically beyond just a run-of-the-mill style of almost WWII Pathe style documentary scoring. There were great moments like the actual theme (not that title song), the pseudo-VietNamese music, and the death chords, but it wasn't inspired, and was a dud out of time, as was the movie. Anyone in doubt, or wondering if the maestro was history would then have had fears confirmed.
Did he score this grim film because he was a 'gentleman'? Elmer Bernstein was also a consummate gentleman in all his dealings, but he turned it down. Rozsa liked to say he scored 'Sodom and Gomorrah' as a 'favour' of some sort.

Especially in this day and age, for the sake of youth, it's necessary to be more precise about these definitions.

Let's be clear about it. A Victorian or Belle Epoch gentleman was no softie. He probably had discreet mistresses, carried a derringer, and had little time for his 'inferiors'. As has often been said, 'Chivalry is a compensation for unexpressed cruelty'. Your mediaeval knight had no respect for peasants overmuch, though he needed them in their place. The aristocratic bearing was not all it seems.

Now was this really Rozsa? He sometimes conducted himself in an 'aristocratic' way. If you insulted him (see the 'Lost Weekend' theremin affair, and the 'Long Duel' competition proposal), he would refuse to speak to you, until an apology was forthcoming. (God knows what he'd have made of some of the vitriol on internet boards. I can think of a few 'fans' whose comments would certainly have made him distance himself). He also displayed loyalty to friends. But the dark side? Well, this is a man who could turn his nose down at things. Had he followed his 'aristocratic' leanings, he might never have been a film-composer at all, since he looked down on it all until Honegger enlightened him. There's the limitation.

But he was no prude. His sexual force is in his music for all to hear. Dr. Johnson said, 'Music is the only form of sensuality without vice!' Rozsa was not above cracking 'tit' joke anecdotes in his autobiography re the 'Fertility Dance'.

The simple fact is that he was multi-faceted like most people. And, as with all fan-club mentality he will be enlisted (like poor Michael Jackson) to whatever cause the fan wishes to identify with, as a projection. 'Pinch of salt needed.

As regards 'Body Heat', the opportunity to expose his talents to a new generation might well have yielded more assignments, and, more importantly CRITICALLY WORTHY assignments that would have assisted his crossover TODAY with his concert activities. His desire to keep the two separate meant that he compartmentalised. Had he not done so, he might have been more cautious as to how the two sets of choices might impact on one another. Compartmentalisation always has the opposite effect to that intended. It means that the right hand doesn't then see at all how it is affected by the left.

Avie mentions Tiomkin. Tiomkin is not well thought of in some Rozsa circles, not so much for any musical shortcomings perceived, as for the tendency to GRAB ASSIGNMENTS and make himself an American self-promoter. Now, my problem with this analysis is that the SOURCE of these criticisms is supposedly what Dr. Rozsa said about Tiomkin to Society members in meetings. Now ask yourself TRULY ... is that REALLY the act of a 'courteous' gentleman? In a 'lesser' man, wouldn't we call that gossip? We see what we need, no?