So much average

Good concept, poorly executed.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

When this film first came out in 1946, radio comics told jokes about it. The jokes centered on John Garfield, who had a filmography of nothing but tough guy parts, playing a classical violinist. These jokes were probably publicity plants, but they do point out a problem with the movie. Garfield carries with him a long established persona of a socially engaged tough guy and this history sabotages his attempt to play an ethereal, over-mothered, nerdy, self obsessed artist. I keep expecting him to punch someone. There is also the shadow issue of his sexuality. The childhood mentor with whom he lives, when asked about the nature of their relationship, answers that it is identical to the one between George Sand and Chopin. Huh? How did that one get past the censors? Joan Crawford does give one of her best performances, but it was a clearly a performance. I appreciated the effort Crawford put into it. She just misses. Part of the problem is the script. She is as much plot device as a fully fleshed out character. Why is she so over emotional? Her over-reaction at the end-and, boy, what an over-reaction- is not forecast by her earlier casual dismissals of her husband and her boy toys.But the film is very high level melodrama. The swelling music behind key scenes fits in. A compelling story is told well. Oscar Levant's one liners are great until they begin to grate. The cast does a uniform good job. Thus, Humoresque is well worth seeing, even if it falls short of being a classic.

Paul Boray (John Garfield) is a world class violin player. He chose the violin as a young boy despite his father's objections. They're a poor working class family struggling in the Great Depression. He can't get ahead on his talents alone. Cellist Gina Romany (Joan Chandler) is sweet and in love with Paul. He starts playing in a radio broadcast band to pay his share and befriends pianist Sid Jeffers who brings him along to play at a party. He meets Helen (Joan Crawford) and Victor Wright. Helen starts pursuing him and becomes his benefactress. He starts to have success as Helen pushes Gina aside.I love that a party guest asks if Boray's a prize fighter. Garfield looks like a prize fighter. He walks like one and acts like one. He seems stiff and unlike any violin player around. There is also a bit too much of him playing the violin. It's not as if he's actually playing. The music interludes takes up too much time and drains away some of the tension. Joan Crawford plays what would be popularly considered today to be a cougar. She's a master at it as she coolly prowls the movie screen.

Humoresque (1946) *** 1/2 (out of 4)Paul Boray (John Garfield) dreams of being able to play his violin for a living but he just doesn't have the right connections to make it. This changes when he meets a rich married woman (Joan Crawford) who takes a liking to his talent but soon the two fall in love as Paul's career takes off. Many people have compared this to GOLDEN BOY only with music and I think that's a fair thing to say. There's no question that this here is going to be very entertaining to film buffs due to a number of reasons but of course when you've got heavyweights like Garfield and Crawford you know you're in for a treat. Crawford was coming off her Oscar-winning role in MILDRED PIERCE and she followed that role up with another terrific character. Even though she's given top-billing she's mainly just a supporting player here but she delivers a remarkable performance. For someone who always played tough characters, the actress does a fantastic job at playing someone very fragile and weak. This is certainly the type of role that fans hadn't seen from Crawford and she is wonderful in it. Garfield is also someone fit with the tough guy roles and seeing him play a violin isn't what you expect from him but he's very much believable in the role. I thought he did a fantastic job showing the character's love for music and why a woman would be second. Oscar Levant is very strong as the piano player, Ruth Nelson is great in the role of the mother and the always dependable J. Carrol Naish. A young Robert Blake plays the kid Garfield. The music is certainly another highlight as it's constantly playing throughout the film and helps explain the 125-minute running time. Isaac Stern dubbed Garfield in the music and he certainly did a fantastic job. There's been much written about the ending, which I won't spoil here but it's certainly a wonderful sequence that is perfectly put together. The way it mixes the music with the actions of Crawford was very impressive.

A young boy from the slums grows up to be an arrogant violinist. He meets a wealthy neurotic married woman who drinks too much and she becomes his patron. Eventually the two fall in love. At least I think it was love. John Garfield starring vehicle, despite Joan Crawford's top billing. Whenever I heard people talk about this film it was always in the context of a Joan Crawford movie. So I was a little surprised when I watched it to see it is much more focused on Garfield. Joan doesn't even show up until forty minutes in! Garfield does fine but I was disappointed to learn he didn't play or even fake the violin scenes. As I was watching I was impressed by his finger work and was ready to give him props for learning that. But it was just Hollywood trickery as the hands you see in the closeups actually belong to two violinists standing on either side of him, one for the fingering and one for the bow. The shots where you can't see his face are all Isaac Stern. So that knocks points off of what is otherwise a typical Garfield performance.Joan's performance is good but I see a lot of hyperbole surrounding it. For example, Leonard Maltin's film guide refers to it as "perhaps Crawford's finest hour." I disagree with that. It's a good performance but I can readily think of five better off the top of my head. Not to get on my soapbox but sometimes it seems like all you have to do to guarantee critical praise as an actor is play someone with a drug or alcohol problem. Anyway, one note on the shallow side: this is one of Joan's first movies in her forties and she looks it. But several times in the picture she puts on glasses and I swear it took five years off. Maybe it was because it hid those unflattering heavy eyebrows she wore in her later years.The supporting cast is very good. Oscar Levant is terrific as Garfield's wise-cracking piano playing friend. He gets most of the film's best lines. Levant did his own piano playing, as usual. J. Carrol Naish and Ruth Nelson are very likable as Garfield's parents. Nelson in particular gives a wonderfully sympathetic performance. The always pretty Joan Chandler has a small part as a girl who loves Garfield. There's not much meat to the part but she does a lot with it. Robert Blake plays young Garfield early on. He's OK but his penchant for suppressing a smile during serious scenes is still there. I've noticed he did that a lot as a child actor.Overall it's a good drama with a memorable ending, despite its similarity to A Star is Born. I don't feel it was the best work of the lead actors or director Jean Negulseco but it was definitely good and worth recommending.