Scott Joplin (1977)

Scot Joplin

I was thrilled to acquire this wonderful film about a great black musician. I have played his music on the piano for years, so when I first saw this movie on TV many years ago, I was ecstatic. When I finally purchased the VCR, I took it to my workplace (in this case, a men's prison) and had it shown to the inmates during "Black History week" over the prison's video system. I was proud to show a quality movie to an inmate population that was beter than 50% black. They really enjoyed and appreciated seeing the story of the King of Ragtime and many had never heard of him, so this movie certainly enriched their knowledge of this famous historical personality. September 30, 2008

Scott Joplin Biography Motion Picture 1977

Scott Joplin (1977) is not a TV movie as described in another reviewers article below. This bio pic of the great ragtime composer was theatrically release in 1977 by Universal Pictures. It did eventually show on NBC TV in 1978. Scott Joplin was a joint venture between Universal Pictures and Motown Productions.

However the director Jeremy Kagan did do a lot of TV films. He also has worked with Art Carney in the film "Katherine". His best known film would probably be "The Chosen" with Robby Benson. This is probably why the film does have a "TV movie" type feel to it.

While "Scott Joplin" does not have the authenticity that the subject here deserves. In does actually have some unique and rare performances that are well worth seeing. I would recommend it based on the performances by Eubie Blake, Seymour Cassel, a small role played by Lionel Richie, as well as a special cameo by acclaimed director Samuel Fuller.





May 16, 2008

Tuneful, if inaccurate, biography of a musical genius

When writing Hollywood biopics, the unwritten rule seems to be, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Truth, half-truth and outright legend have equal value. It is, for some reason, particularly true of TV-movie bios, and this 1977 TV-movie version of ragtime giant Scott Joplin's life story stands as a glaring example.

If you're looking for the *real* story of Joplin's life, you won't find it here. To be fair, even more recent biographers have trouble with most of Joplin's early life, and can only agree on this much: at some point in the 1880's, he's probably an itinerant musician performing throughout the Midwest with his brothers, as part of the Queen City Quartet; at some indeterminate time he attends high school, possibly in Sedalia; he might have been a visitor to the 1893 Columbian Exposition, where he supposedly heard ragtime for the first time. He learns composition at the George Smith College in Sedalia, and publishes a few minor pieces until he hits it big with his "Maple Leaf Rag."

The movie version takes a safe route and sidesteps questions about his early life in a series of still pictures: young Scott at the piano playing music with his family. Scott tearfully viewing his mother's casket. Arguing with his father over whether he should pursue music or a more practical life on the railroad gang (this most certainly never occurred). Scott running away from home, taken in by what appears to be the madam of a bordello (this never occurred either--most sources agree Joplin didn't leave home for good until his late teens).

When we see the adult Joplin (Billy Dee Williams) he's still playing piano in the bordello, but he has bigger plans. While working on his breakthrough composition "Maple Leaf Rag," he meets the young, musically brilliant Louis Chauvin ("That's My Mama"'s Clifton Davis). "What you writin' that stuff down for?" Chauvin asks. "My ears tell me everything." Whereby he proceeds to play, note for note, Joplin's piece. Joplin is impressed enough to hatch a scheme with Chauvin to introduce "Maple Leaf" at a local "cutting contest" and split the prize money that's sure to be theirs. (A side note: look for a cameo by the then-90ish Eubie Blake, a man whose talent exceeded even that of Joplin).

Joplin handily beats all comers, frustrating them by deftly changing keys in mid-song. He "concedes" after Chauvin plays a raggy rendition of the "Poet and Peasant" overture, then segues to (what else?) "Maple Leaf Rag"--and stuns the house, including a white music publisher named John Stark (well-played by Art Carney). The next day, Stark meets Joplin, agrees to publish "Maple Leaf"--and the rest, we are led to believe, is history.

Well...partly, anyway. The film completely ignores Joplin's early friendship and collaboration with Scott Hayden (with whom he wrote "Sunflower Slow Drag", "Kismet Rag", and "Scott Joplin's New Rag," among others). They and their respective wives even shared the same house at one point (Joplin had married Hayden's sister-in-law Belle) but Hayden's name is not even uttered in the film. The movie mentions Belle while curiously omitting any mention of her relationship to Hayden, but at least covers the loss of her only child (and subsequent abandonment of Joplin).

The film nonetheless gets a few details right. Joplin's obsessive quest to elevate ragtime to the status of high art is a recurring theme. His ambitious ragtime opera ("Treemonisha") gets the proper amount of attention in the film, as well as the opera's ultimate failure, which left Joplin a broken man.

Joplin and Stark became bitter enemies in real life after Stark's refusal to back "Treemonisha", but the film soft-pedals that somewhat, throwing in a reconciliation scene. (They never quite reconciled, in fact, though Stark did publish some of Joplin's later works).

The later scenes with a dying Chauvin, now barely able to play, are fairly close to what contemporaries of Joplin said had happened. That later meeting, in a dingy room in Chicago, led to Chauvin's only published work, "Heliotrope Bouquet." (We should have been allowed to hear more of the piece--it's beautiful, and only hints at the full extent of Chauvin's genius).

If you're a ragtime fan, however, these discrepancies will mean little. The tape, up to now very hard to find, is worth the price for the music alone. The cutting contest is perhaps the best moment of the film, as it seems to perfectly capture the spirit of the era. A particular favorite of mine is the musical "duel" between Joplin and Stark in Stark's music store, as they both play the "Maple Leaf Rag." I often found myself fast-forwarding to both these scenes again and again.

Ultimately, Joplin deserves to be remembered for the music, and in that sense, at least, this film is an invaluable asset. October 19, 2005

Williams can do SO much better!

I got this tape in an attempt to find something worthwhile to show my Jazz History class. Sadly, there's little here of factual "history" about Scott Joplin. The dialogue and direction were pretty poor, events jump from one to another with little explanation of what happens in between, and Billy Dee Williams' acting is terrible. I grant that he's pretty young here, but still...I'm going to chalk it up to a poor script, because I know he can do MUCH better than this stinker. Add to that the fact that he is awful at faking his piano playing, and there really isn't much that's believable about this film. As a history it's worthless, and as entertainment it's stilted & dry. If you like Joplin's music, buy a CD and a book biography, you'll get much more out of them. January 26, 2005

The quest to be better than a clown.

I was particularly impressed by the constant reference to professors in this film. In the setting that Scott Joplin was coming from, where big money was looking for fun and the music was incidental, the guys who played the piano were called professors, and they called their competition a cutting contest. Scott Joplin's music was good enough to win a contest, but he did best when he teamed up with a young professor who could give it zest. Taj Mahal appears in this film as a musical clown in a series of performers on two pianos who duet rambunctiously. Whoever was playing when Scott Joplin hit a long modulation went down with the question, "What key are you in?" a fate which is similar to what most college professors in the humanities are sure to endure in light of the Law of Small Numbers as explained in Randall Collins' book, THE SOCIOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHIES/A GLOBAL THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL CHANGE. As the ending of this film makes clear, Scott Joplin beat the odds by achieving success in 1975, long after he died in 1917. There is some concern in this film about professors who are pianists that can't read or write sheet music, much as the concern in THE SOCIOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHIES is about intellectuals who can't get anyone to read their articles. Toward the end of the film, the effort to convince Scott Joplin that he could still be the life of the party, when playing that role has turned to a bitter performance, gives some indication of how sad the ending of this film is going to be. The music is authentic, but it may seem like bits and pieces to anyone who knows the originals well enough to expect the whole song whenever a familiar little ditty gets going. There are some real musicians in addition to Taj Mahal, and the videotape says this is a Motown production. I happen to like Taj Mahal enough to think that his performance is one of the best parts of this movie, but Art Carney, as a musical publisher and business man, is also excellent in representing the link between Scott Joplin and the monetary popularity contest that makes American society (usually depicted as the Saint Louis, Mo. John Philip Sousa lovers in this film) the exciting spectacle that it always strives to be. May 3, 2002

More reviews at Amazon.com ...