Scott Joplin

The man who gave us the Maple Leaf Rag and the Entertainer, Scott Joplin, once said that he would not become known until fifty years after his death.

He wasn't off by much--it took fifty-six. In 1973, Marvin Hamlisch used the then-largely unknown Joplin's music in the movie "The Sting," spurring a ragtime revival and a renewed interest in Joplin specifically. Joplin's work received long-overdue attention from music scholars, and he was awarded a posthumous Pulitzer for his body of work, some fifty known rags, waltzes, marches--and one opera, Treemonisha.

This movie rode the wave of his renewed popularity, but plays so loose with the facts of his life that we end up knowing little more about him. Billy Dee Williams is a superb Joplin, as is Art Carney as his publisher, John Stark. But the movie either ignores or glosses over certain details, such as Joplin's longtime friendship and collaboration with Scott Hayden. Hayden is not even mentioned in the film, which prefers to focus on Joplin and the tragic, unsung musical genius Louis Chauvin, who Joplin barely knew. Chauvin in his prime would compose beautiful rags on the spot, never to be heard again, because he could not write them down. The movie implies they were friends from the earliest days, which they were not. They did collaborate on one piece, "Heliotrope Bouquet", when Chauvin was dying and no longer able to play--this the movie gets right.

It also touches on the growing animosity between Joplin and Stark, but this too is sugarcoated. The movie implies they reconciled, which in reality never happened.

Yet the movie is worth seeing if only for one thing--the wonderful, brooding music of a man for whom recognition was long overdue.

I love watching films about historical figures that have made positive and memorable contributions to the world. I especially like such films about figures I'd never heard of before. Even though this movie came out in 1977 I'd never heard of it or Scott Joplin for that matter. And what's so funny is that when the movie started I was thinking, "They're using the same music as The Sting." Little did I know that The Sting was using Scott Joplin's music.

Scott Joplin as a biopic was not as creative as the man himself. It was slow and even uninteresting at times. I'm happy to know of him and his work I just think this docudrama lacked something. I don't know if it needed more conflict, more drama, or just a more compelling figure--I just know it lacked something. I would never call it a bad movie and I'm still glad I watched it.

"Scott Joplin" is an unusual made for TV film in that it was, briefly, released in theaters just before it aired on TV. It stars Billy Dee Williams as the famed composer. It's also unusual for its choice of Joplin as a subject for the film because the guy died from syphilis (something folks RARELY talked about in 1977) and his later years were spent deteriorating more and more--a tough sort of film to put over to the viewing audience. However, the film DID find an audience and won a Writer's Guild award.

The film picks up with Joplin an adult and playing music in brothels. Soon he meets and befriends Louis Chauvin (Clifton David) and they come to the attention of a music publisher/promoter (Art Carney). For a while, things look great--Joplin marries and he achieves moderate success. But because of his syphilis (which was pretty much untreatable at that time) his career and marriage slowly spiraled downward. His final years were A LOT worse than they show in the movie and his decline lasted far longer--but regardless, he died young in a mental institution--committed due to his dementia.

If you think this movie is a giant downer, you are right. The first half is quite enjoyable and I loved the music. The second half was a chore to watch--and the music portion of the film suffered because Joplin was no longer functional. Well done but hard to watch.

Scott Joplin (Billy Dee Williams) grew up in a musical family. After his mother's death, his father kept his music in church and nowhere else. He runs away and starts playing in a bordello. He would become one of the greatest composers during the ragtime era. He would be dead in 1917 at the age of 48 from syphilis.

The movie becomes a long downhill slide after an early run. Billy Dee Williams delivers a reserved performance and then some overdramatic work. Both of which results in a dour-noted tough watch for the second half. It feels rather flat and the pacing becomes slow. I don't know if this is all strictly true. The movie could be well-served with some dramatic fictionalization to make a more compelling film. It is still interesting history and worthwhile material.

I agree with the previous 2 reviewers, but I feel Joplin is still largely unappreciated within the USA. His music will last like that of Chopin, Verdi and the other sublime masters. I have been a professional musician for over 50 years and find Joplin's music as addictive as Bach or Mozart, especially since I am an American with classical, jazz and ragtime chops.

Any producers that can read this might consider a movie of Joplin's opera, which I have heard live and still get chills from thinking about it. In the same vein, the great American composer, Louis Gottschalk is also not widely known and appreciated. Gottschalk out ranked Chopin in Paris, France at one special time in the history of music. Perhaps the Indie film folks might also consider a film on Gottschalk, who was larger than life as was Joplin.