Torres negras

Paramount must have had some trepidations about Thunder in the East as it was made in 1949 and held up in release for three years. Nat King Cole recorded the theme from Thunder in the East, a song called The Ruby and the Pearl three years earlier. It's quite a beautiful ballad and perfectly suited for Cole's voice, it's the best thing to come out of this routine action film.

Alan Ladd plays an arms dealer selling weaponry for the best price he can exact from the various sides in the Indian Civil War where the boundaries of India and Pakistan were settled in a lot of blood spilled. He's in Ghandahar province which has its rebel Moslem faction. He falls for Deborah Kerr the blind daughter of missionary Cecil Kellaway.

Ladd's got a silly playboy maharajah in Charles Lung to deal with and a prime minister for Ghandahar who is a disciple of Gandhi's non-violence philosophy. Charles Boyer as the prime minister doesn't want the weapons, but the rebel Moslems want them if for no other reason than to keep them out of Hindu hands and if they can't buy them, they'll take them by whatever means necessary.

The film tries to be a critique of Gandhi's non-violence code, but it doesn't rise above being an action/adventure story. The ending is a rather abrupt one and unconvincing. Still fans of the star players will probably like it.

Thunder in the East is set in 1947 India ,immediately after being granted independence by Britain ,and in particular events are centred on the state of Ghandahar which is being menaced by brigands,well armed and with a political agenda. The Maharajah of the state is a dilettante playboy ,and his main adviser,played by a blacked up Charles Boyer,is a pacifist who will not countenance using force to resist the incursions of the brigands. Thus when arms entrepreneur Alan Ladd seeks to sell him guns and munitions to resist the enemies of the state he refuses and impounds the cargo.Ladd's existence is further complicated by his falling in love with Deborah Kerr,a blind British woman .who is caught up in the fate of the British community which is particularly under threat from the rebels. Things build to a final siege of the main hotel where the British dig in to resist Performances are okay although white actors blacked up now seems embarrassing ,and there is a touch of Casablanca about the storyline -cynical hero falling in love with an idealistic woman;contending political forces and a smarmy villain.Its nowhere near as good since script and cast are inferior .

Not bad but too stolid to be exceptional.

I guess the 1952 audience was certainly not satisfied with the ending,which abruptly comes as the heroes are still in action. Ending a movie like that was not obvious at the time.

The biggest flaw is French actor Charles Boyer,ridiculously made up as a Hindu.This character,a Gandhi disciple, puts forward wisdom,prayers,peace and love to cowardice and reactionary mind (the English) greed(Alan Ladd's character) , violence (his brothers ,the rebels),and complete irresponsibility (the caricature of a maharajah).He's the only positive character of the story along with the minister and his blind niece (Kerr).It's absolutely impossible to believe Boyer is an Indian ,mainly if you've seen him as a French lover!Besides,he finally demonstrates the opposite of what he stood up for . Ladd's evolution is predictable,from a greedy businessman to a hero (thanks to the blind girl of course).One should notice that Deborah Kerr is too great an actress to play such a poor part that would be suitable for a B movie starlet.Her intellectual playing does not match with down-to-earth Alan Ladd.The movie also suffers from a shoestring budget.

Take George Cukor's "Bhowani junction"(1956) instead.

Simply a daft film... a very silly film. Ludicrous casting and script though the historical setting and subject matter has real possibilities. The ending was so ridiculously predictable. Alan Ladd playing a sort of B movie gun runner, Charles Boyer playing an Indian... the interest in this film being just how amusingly silly it was.

This film, despite its heavy-handed Hollywood attempt at making heroes out of villains, is a perfect example of how Hollywood handled misinformation in the 1940s and 1950s. American Indians were bad and every Westerner from the Mayflower to California was good. Then, as we got older, we realized just the opposite was true. England was good and anyone who opposed them was bad. And as we got older, we learned that was all lies as well. Occasionally, both the US and England were on the right side of morality, as in WW1 and WW 2, but more often than not, there were merely colonialists and imperialists; especially after WW 2. This film is a perfect example of that. US arms dealer and fuddy-duddy UK colonialists along with a spineless Indian leader. No wonder the Pakistinians took whatever they wanted in the north and broke away from India. Absolutely no relationship to reality.