Scott Joplin (1977) User Reviews

More fiction than fact, but the music makes it worthwhile

[rnewstead · 6/10 · 29 July 2004]

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.

A film that gets harder to watch as it progresses.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 25 August 2013]

"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.

E Flat is not quite Flat

[JeanPPolitoff · 6/10 · 7 August 2020]

As a fit to feed historians and musicians alike into the world of early american music, this made-for-television movie may start grandiosly on one of the greatest musical scenes at the piano duel where we can even find the great Eubi Blake (living Rag time era pianist at the time, 1883-1983) BUT the films lacks in Billy Dee Williams a realistic portrayer of what it means to sit in front of the Keys, unwillingly failing to delivery the right feel at the performances and this my first sad turn off.

Yet the films carries on introducing the unknown Louis Chauvin (Clifton Davis) who actually steals the performances and this, in defence of history, stands out for the more accurate records of the time, whereas it's been read that Scott Joplin was not a great performer, as he was a genious writer (quote: ¨the king of ragtime writers¨) and this is perhaps the films more greatful achievement, to do justice to the forgotten legacy of Louis Chauvin (1881 - 1908) in the dem of american piano performers, and his subsequent fall down due to the abuses of the time (second in the ¨27 Club¨ unfamous membership) then on what the film starts to lack is a more story teller direction as the viewer has to determine what actually happens in the life of our main character, who only grows distant from his origens for the film over shortet script purpose, missing much of his unfortunate life struggles that when around at the time, (one can not be sure wheather his first and only daughter really passed away, because of the so poorly directed scene and nearly unconnected dialogs, where we only get his first wife Belle Jones simply walks away) we never get more details of his later marriages, including the passing of Freddie Alexander, whom he married in 1904 and died only 2 months later, from this period we know the song ¨Bethena¨ but the film writers decided to overpass all this in favour to make only The Maple Leaf Rag the most memorable theme, Good thing we get a bit of ¨Cascades¨ and the image of Joplin at work for the St Louis 1904 World Fair at the very least, and another scene shows us a very sick Scott Joplin finally unable to perform for possibly new backers during his very unfortunate Treemonisha period, hence we don't get to know if this acually resembles his only and last rehearsal presentation in a hall in Harlem that was according the time records, so poorly staged and with only Joplin on piano at the accompaniment, that this last call for finantial support went so wrong that even caused some of them to walk off, this sadly sealed his fate until his final days....and to the movie porpose this sort of poorly staged key points on his life is what really pulls down the good will of the film production to its best biographical goal.

The film cast well a portrait of the era and the struggle for musicians to be heard, respected and ¨save¨ at the dem of their craft and history despite all mayor divisions, human flaws and vices, but to the respect of enhancing the legacy of the The King of Ragtime Writers, a finer tuner could have delivered a more accurate E flat note to make us enjoy more the Maple Leaf Rag, and all its Cascades afterwards.

The TV movie of Scott Joplin's life emphasized what was most important about Joplin and his music.

[edieb-1 · 25 June 2006]

It has been written that the TV movie of Scott Joplin played loose with the facts. However, the most important aspects were emphasized: That this Master of Classical Ragtime Music wanted to be taken seriously and not have his music debased with improper playing and dismissed as low-class. He literally gave every ounce of his life's blood to the composing of his opera, Treemonisha and died in despair, feeling his music was never recognized the way it deserved to be. However, the movie omitted that the European musical establishment DID recognize his music as an indigenous, classical art form, akin to waltzes by Brahms, or mazurkas by Chopin.

Another Hidden Genius

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 6 December 2019]

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.

Joplin Opportunity

[pzznrd3 · 9/10 · 8 July 2006]

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.