John Barrymore in silent movies
-
zpzjones — 18 years ago(May 17, 2007 03:28 PM)
I get a kick out of that line dquick every time I watch it. It has a certain sexual connotation 'if you know what I mean'. I also like the line in Beau Brummel where somebody(?the King of England) asks Beau "dont you want to fight for your country?" and Barrymore/Beau(through title card)responds by saying "yes, but not in Manchester!"
-
JenniferLynne73 — 19 years ago(June 02, 2006 06:34 AM)
I just ordered Sherlock Holmes (1922). I've heard mixed reviews but I don't care. Besides the Great Barrymore, it also features a young William Powell in his first screen role. It's a small part for him, but oh well. I can't wait to get it! Barrymore AND Powell, pure heaven.
-
metalman091 — 13 years ago(July 29, 2012 12:28 AM)
It is unique that Barrymore was able to be a big star in silent films, as well as a big stage star at the same time considering that most stage actors looked down on films. It would have been hard for an actor, known for a wonderful speaking voice to succeed in that medium at that time. Can you imagine Laurence Olivier as a star of silent films?
That wonderful Barrymore quality was evident in DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE [1920], especially during the scene were he murders Carewe. He was creepy in that scene. -
398 — 11 years ago(December 31, 2014 11:46 AM)
I think one can make a strong case that Barrymore was the best silent actor of them all,
there of course are the straight comics Chaplin and Keaton who were unmatchable in what they did,
but of the others
Fairbanks did the swashbucklers, but Barrymore was good at that also.
Valentino did the great lover roles, but Barrymore could do those also.
Chaney did the macabre character roles, but Barrymore could do those also.
I can see Barrymore in something like West of Zanzibar in the Chaney role. I can't see Chaney as Don Juan. I can see Barrymore as Robin Hood, but I can't see Fairbanks as Mr. Hyde. I can see Barrymore as The Eagle, but I can't see Valentino as Hyde. I can see Barrymore replacing Conrad Veidt as Louis XI in the Beloved Rogue, but I can't see Veidt playing his role.
Barrymore was just much more versatile than his peers. -
metalman091 — 11 years ago(February 07, 2015 12:02 AM)
You make some great points about Barrymore's versatility. It just goes to show you that every great performer is limited in their own way. A lot of people think that great actors cannot be good looking but it isn't true.
What's more, if a great actor is good looking it just adds more to his range and in Barrymore's case this meant romantic leads. Of course it isn't a put down to suggest that Barrymore may have had more range than Chaney [Chaney was one of the greatest actors of all time] because everyone is limited.
I think the closest we came to having another Barrymore was with Fredric March. -
TonTon — 4 years ago(March 30, 2022 08:45 AM)
One book said that the only shameful thing about John Barrymore in silent movies was that you could not hear his glorious voice at that stage in his life. How great would it have been to have heard him talk as Don Juan or Dr. Jekyll?