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.

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 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.