Thunder in the East

I liked "Thunder in the East," a 1952 release for this film, made in 1949.

This film looks to have been made on a smallish budget and takes place in the first years of India's freedom from Britain. A man named Steve Gibbs (Alan Ladd) flies in a plane filled with armaments in the Ghandahar province in order to sell them. However, the Prime Minister, Singh (Charles Boyer) wants to achieve a peaceful resolution with the leader of the guerrillas, Khan.

The British living in India are delusional, not realizing that the guerrillas are about to attack. The ones who do get out end up dead en route. Gibbs meets Joan Willoughby (Deborah Kerr) and her parson father (Cecil Kellaway) and manages to meet the maharajah, who defers to the Prime Minister and then leaves the country for the winter.

Gibbs offers his plane, but he gouges the people wanting to leave, which angers Joan, who was falling for him. Now she turns against him and no one will give into what they call blackmail. They gather at the palace, waiting for the guerrillas to attack, and hope that the Prime Minister will let them use the guns he has.

There are a couple of problems with this film. One is the casting of Charles Boyer and his French accent and heavy makeup. I have to say, he was wonderful. He was an underrated actor, but miscast.

The script has a few clichés, particularly the hard core businessman falling for a sweet, altruistic woman. Nevertheless, it certainly held my interest.

I read some complaints about the ending, which for me was the best part of the film. Very dramatic and very exciting. As far as the Prime Minister's beliefs, he was a human being and acted on an injustice viscerally. His idealism went out the window, and that's okay. That's what happens sometimes.

Alan Ladd did a good job in a Bogart-type role. I never considered him much of an actor, but that monotone type of line reading works fine in this type of part, as it did in his film noirs. Deborah Kerr was lovely as a good woman who prides herself on her independence and fearful of losing it.

The film was probably trying to make the point that Gandhi was an idiot, and that following his principles wasn't a good idea. Not sure I'd conclude that in all cases. Maybe in this one.

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.

And one of Alan Ladd's best.

"Thunder in the East" boasts excellent direction by Charles Vidor, the camerawork of one of Hollywood's master cinematographers, Lee Garmes (who worked on most of the Von Sternberg-Dietrich masterpieces), and memorable performances by Ladd, Deborah Kerr, Charles Boyer, Cecil Kellaway, John Williams, and virtually everyone involved. The romance between Ladd and Kerr is poignant and unforgettable ("The awning is still blue."), and Kerr is a standout as a blind woman who's afraid to leave the city that she was born in, and knows so well that she can walk through as if she had sight.

The film's political message won't appeal to pacifists, and while there is only one real action scene at the end, the offscreen acts of violence leading up to it are extremely disturbing: a bus load of refugees, many of them children rides off with the children happily singing a song. We later hear that the bus was attacked and that everyone on board had been killed. An English couple attempts to evacuate by driving off in a horse and carriage, only to have their empty carriage return, and one of the main characters has his hand cut off by the bad guys (the attacking Muslim forces) in an attempt to persuade him into complying with their demands.

The open ending, described as "abrupt" in some of the other reviews is a decade ahead of its time. I like to think the odds are in favor of our heroes -- however the main point is that each of the men advancing toward the camera (the primary and secondary protagonists) has undergone a profound change in character as a result of the events they've become embroiled in.

Yes, the film feels a little like "Casablanca" at times (is this a bad thing?); and, no, it isn't quite as great as "Casablanca" (few films are); but while it's not as enjoyable, it's much darker, more realistic (in spite of being set in a fictional state), has a deeper, more profound message, and a much more adult approach. "Casablanca" works so well because the overriding air of cynicism is merely a pose -- with the two most jaded characters (Rick and Louis) finding a cause to believe in. "Thunder in the East" offers little in the way of hope -- only violence (with superior force) can save one from violence. And even then, the outcome remains unknown.

I've only given this film 9 stars because it never rises to the level of a cinematic masterpiece (like "The Third Man," "The Lady from Shanghai," "Orphee," "Meshes of the Afternoon," "The Seventh Seal," or "Shane") -- but for a "standard" Hollywood film, I rank this with the "Greats."

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.

This film would have been more believable had it been set in Arizona or a similar location, where the "Foreign Leigion" is the US Cavalry, with Anthony Quinn the sergeant , the naughty natives were the Apaches ... and somehow a contrived "Lost City" was stumbled upon somewhere west of Tuscon !!

But "clean" , dry-skinned French cavalry stumbling over a "lost" city in Algeria (with Indian dances and a Maharaja !) and scantily-clad , beautifully-groomed liberal ladies must have raised a few eyebrows even in 1953 !

Still , I hope someone (s) made a small living out of this wasted effort in time and money.