The Philadelphia actor born into the first family of American theatre who possessed the finest classical instrument of his generation, the most celebrated profile in stage history, and the most complete commitment to its own destruction the industry has ever witnessed. The genius and the waste were inseparable: each required the other, and the combination produced a legend that no merely disciplined career could have equalled.
Portrait · John Barrymore
Born John Sidney Blyth Barrymore on February 15, 1882, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — the son of Maurice Barrymore and Georgiana Drew, both celebrated stage actors, the brother of Lionel and Ethel Barrymore, and therefore a member of what was universally acknowledged as the first family of the American theatre. The dynasty was a gift and a burden: the expectation was formed before the actor was, and the actor spent his career simultaneously inhabiting and escaping it.
His early career was largely in light comedy — he was better looking than his talent required him to be, and the theatre was content to use the looks without the intelligence beneath them. The intelligence emerged in 1920, when his Richard III on Broadway established him as the finest classical actor in America, and confirmed in 1922 with his Hamlet — 101 consecutive performances, a record that stood until John Gielgud broke it in 1936 — which critics compared favourably with any Hamlet of the previous century and which he left to make silent films rather than tour, a decision his later self would recognise as the first of many choices against his own best interests.
Hollywood received him with the awe due a classical actor of the first rank, and he repaid the reception with a series of performances that demonstrated his screen gifts were equal to his stage gifts: more naturalistic, more intimate, more aware of what the camera could find in a face that even the gods had designed with unusual care. Edmund Goulding's Grand Hotel (1932) — opposite Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, Wallace Beery, and Lionel Barrymore — and Howard Hawks' Twentieth Century (1934) are the peaks: the first a romantic drama of exceptional elegance, the second a screwball comedy of such complete physical and verbal abandon that it invented a genre.
The decline was spectacular and documented. Alcohol removed the memory first — by the late 1930s he was reading lines from cue cards pinned around the set — then the physical instrument, then the ability to appear in any production that required sustained effort. He died on May 29, 1942, in Hollywood, aged sixty. His friends sent his body to Errol Flynn's house the night before the funeral, propped it up, and let Flynn find it in the morning, which was the kind of tribute only Barrymore's friends could have devised and that he would have found entirely appropriate.
Critics in 1922 reached for Shakespeare's own contemporaries to find adequate comparisons — Burbage was mentioned, which is either the highest compliment or the most extravagant hyperbole, depending on your confidence in theatrical memory across three centuries. What is not in doubt is that the production established a standard against which every subsequent American Hamlet has been measured and most found wanting. He left for Hollywood rather than tour the production, a decision he spent the rest of his life explaining and never satisfactorily explaining.
Oscar Jaffe is a monument to grandiose self-deception — a man who has constructed such a complete mythology of his own importance that he has lost all contact with any reality that doesn't confirm it — and Barrymore plays him with a physical and verbal abandon that could only have come from an actor who had already proved he could do the other thing. The train scenes — Jaffe pursuing Lombard's Lily Garland through the carriages, scheming, declaiming, threatening, pleading — are the funniest sustained performance in 1930s Hollywood, and they required Barrymore to deploy the same instrument that had played Hamlet twelve years earlier in an entirely different direction.
The Baron's courtship of Grusinskaya — the gentle persistence of a man whose charm is genuine rather than calculated, who recognises in the exhausted dancer something that cannot be acquired and cannot be performed — is the most romantic thing Barrymore put on screen, and the most restrained. Against the extravagance of his stage reputation and the coming extravagance of Oscar Jaffe, the Baron's quiet warmth is the evidence that the instrument's range was as wide as his admirers claimed. He and Garbo filmed their scenes privately, after hours, because she found public performance difficult; the result is unlike anything in the rest of the film.
Svengali requires an actor whose physical presence is so complete that the hypnosis is plausible — whose eyes alone can communicate a will that overrides the will of others — and Barrymore's face, particularly in close-up, delivers exactly that. The film was made at the moment when he was still in full command of all his powers, and it is the purest demonstration of what the Profile could do when the Profile was all the role required.
The good die young — because they see it's no use living if you've got to be good.
John Barrymore's legacy is the 1922 Hamlet and the cue cards — the two ends of the arc that the legend requires. The finest classical actor of his American generation produced the greatest Shakespeare performance of the century's first half, then made a sustained set of choices against his own best interests that ended with him reading his lines from cards pinned to other actors' foreheads.
The waste is inseparable from the achievement; the legend required both. What is clear across the distance of eighty years is that the talent was real — that Twentieth Century and Grand Hotel and the 1922 Hamlet record are not the work of a man who could have been great but wasn't, but the work of a man who was great and chose, with complete self-awareness, to spend it.