Lost1910Thanhouser Company1,000 feetLiterary adaptation

Paul and Virginia

Name: Paul and Virginia
Genre: Literary adaptation
Released: 1910-11-15

No copy you can watch online. No print is known to survive. What follows is what does: the release, the cast, the story, and what the trade press said at the time.

The story

“Paul and Virginia are two young lovers who have grown up together from babyhood. Their widowed mothers lived near each other in rude cottages, on an island in the Indies, on which there are few inhabitants. Here the children are reared, knowing no play fellows but each other. When Virginia is 16 years of age, her mother receives a letter from a wealthy aunt in Paris, who offers to make Virginia her heir and give her a good education, providing Virginia will, in the future, make her aunt’s home her own. Virginia’s mother, having lost her own fortune through marrying against the will of her family, feels that she must not let her daughter suffer the poverty that she has been compelled to endure. She accordingly insists upon Virginia’s acceptance of her wealthy relatives offer. Virginia thereupon sets sail for France, leaving Paul broken-hearted at her departure.

“Virginia tries to be a dutiful niece to her aunt, who is very old and sickly, although she longs to return to her humble home and Paul, whom she dearly loves. When, however, the aunt insists that she marry a rich nobleman, Virginia refuses; her aunt disowns the girl and sends her back to the island home. Virginia’s ship arrives at the Indies during a hurricane, and although a cable’s length from shore, it sinks before help can reach it, and Virginia is drowned. Paul witnesses her death from the shore, and almost loses his own life in a vain attempt to save her.”

Summary from The Moving Picture World · 19 November 1910

Background of the scenario

Jacques Henri Bernadin de Saint-Pierre (1737-1814), the author of this work, was a French natural philosopher and novelist, and a friend and follower of Rousseau (advocator of the natural man; Rousseau argued the development and spread of knowledge and culture had corrupted human behavior by promoting inequality, idleness and luxury). Saint-Pierre wrote several essays in natural history and philosophy revealing the role of Divine Providence in the order and harmony of nature. The third edition of his major work, Etudes de la Nature (Studies in Nature), included his masterpiece: a work of fiction titled Paul and Virginia.

Paul and Virginia was immensely popular and was translated into Danish, Russian, Italian, and other languages, and into English for the first time in 1795. This “pastoral romance” tells the story of the idyllic childhood of two children brought up as siblings by their mothers, who brought them to the Ile de France to avoid social disgrace. The mothers determine that their children will be raised by nature’s laws, and their simple, hard-working childhood produces pious, healthy and humane children free from prejudice, religious superstition, and fear of authority. The action rises in the story when Virginia is sent for by her rich and socially ambitious aunt, who desires Virginia to receive her fortune. Returning to visit two years later, the much-changed Virginia is drowned when the ship hits rough water. Paul and the mothers die in shock and grief. In some English versions the ending was rewritten to be a happy one. This story inspired P.A. Cot’s famous painting, The Storm (1880), which was painted for Catherine Lorillard Wolfe’s great collection of French salon art, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Thanhouser reproduced the painting on its one-sheet poster for the film.

What the papers said

3 reviews · 1 advertisement

Read in full · 1 min

“If the author who wrote this popular classic had done his work with photoplay reproduction and prospect he couldn’t have done better. A classic tale, it makes a picture destined to be quite as popular as the story itself. There is no use in repeating the story. Everybody who has read at all knows the story of Paul and Virginia. If, perchance, there be a few in the audience who have never read it, the film will make it clear. Every scene is interesting, from the time when Paul and Virginia are disclosed as children until Virginia, disowned by her wealthy aunt, sails to meet Paul again and drowns in sight of land, the picture holds the attention, even as the story holds it. The producer has performed his part with thorough knowledge of the requirements and has worked out the problems with sympathy. The picture is clear, and who so sees it will mourn with Paul over the dead Virginia. The emotions will be deeply stirred by the direct and simple story, founded upon a basis of love.”

The Moving Picture World · 26 November 1910

Read in full · 1 min

“The nature of this subject is ambitious enough, but the manner of presentation, though having some merit, hardly measures up. Paul in white tights that bagged at the knees and and elbows failed to appear like the half-naked youth of the poem, and, anyhow, he was too tall. Virginia, in flowing white gauzy robes like the fairy princes of a child’s story, constituted with Paul as odd a pair as could be imagined, in contrast with the backwoods surroundings, the mother in a conventional gown of fifty years ago, the gentleman from France in modern Prince Albert and silk hat, and the other characters in sober colonial raiment. Added to this, the acting lacked feeling—poetical or dramatic. Virginia’s appearance at the home of her wealthy relative in France was the most convincing. Spectators found it hard to understand why she didn’t stay there instead of returning to her Paul and suffering shipwreck in a tempest that didn’t appear to be a tempest at all. Perhaps that was how she came to be resuscitated in the film and reunited to Paul.”

The New York Dramatic Mirror · 23 November 1910

More reviews

15 November 1910The Nickelodeon1 min

“It is usually good advice to tell a man to ‘keep his shirt on,’ but we decidedly advise the actor who played the part of Paul in this piece to take his shirt off the next time he essays the role of a child of nature whose costume consists principally of his own skin plus a few trimmings. Baggy underwear, where his skin ought to be, looks like the arch-fiend (alias the devil). This, combined with a lot of skips and jumps and skittish pranks (oh, you child of nature!) made Paul cut quite a figure. The audience enjoyed him immensely. Virginia was much better. She looked the part and acted with a natural grace, buoyant yet dignified. The production was adequate up to the point of the tempest and shipwreck, which fell down deplorably. Better to have left it out all together. From here onward the photoplay adapters have departed from the original story, and maybe they were wise. Paul in his nude underwear would have spoiled Virginia’s funeral.”

12 November 1910The Moving Picture World1 min

“Paul and Virginia is a ‘Film d’Art’—and a ‘Masterpiece’—and a ‘Classic’—and whatever else you call a corking good picture. Of course, much credit must be given to the dead-and-gone writer of the story; still, good stories don’t always make good pictures. Here a perfect tale makes a perfect subject. While perfection is its own best advertisement, you may impress that perfection a bit better on your audience with a lecture on the story. If you haven’t a lecturer, pass the synopsis to your singer and see if it doesn’t enable him to ‘talk’ intelligently on this tremendously popular tale.”

Have you seen this film, or a print of it?

Prints of films thought lost still turn up in attics, private collections and archives. A record like this one is how the next one gets found.

Tell us about a print

Cast and crew

Cast: Frank Crane as Paul
: Frank H. Crane
: Violet Heming as Virginia

Every name opens that person's page, with each film they appear in and which of them you can watch.

Watch instead

Films you can watch from the same company

Matched by cast, director and kind

13:20

1910 · Same castThe Vicar of Wakefield

10:52

1911 · Same castSilas Marner

12:35

1910 · Same castThe Winter’s Tale

More about this film

Bowers’ notes: This film was erroneously listed for November 14 release in certain Thanhouser advertisements, in The Moving Picture World, November 5, 1910, for example. 2. Louise Vale was named as Virginia by The Motion Picture Story Magazine.

From Volume II: Filmography of Q. David Bowers’ Thanhouser Films: An Encyclopedia and History, reproduced with permission and unchanged. Read the history of 1910 →

Cite as: Bowers, Q. David. Thanhouser Films: An Encyclopedia and History, “Paul and Virginia”. thanhouser.org/films/paul-and-virginia/

Where a print is held

Held by: No print known