JohnHowardReid In 1951, Charles Vidor directed a film called "Rage of the Vulture" at Paramount. Set in the first days of Indian independence (1947), the Jo Swerling screenplay (adapted by George Tabori and Frederick Hazlitt Brennan from the novel by Alan Moorehead) tells the story of a gun-runner (Alan Ladd), a blind Englishwoman (Deborah Kerr), a French adventuress (Corinne Calvet), a pacifist statesman (Charles Boyer) and a group of English residents (Cecil Kellaway, John Williams et al), who are cut off from civilization by hostile tribesmen. This film was shelved for over a year in the hope that political events in India might make fora welcome a load of free publicity. But as nothing newsworthy actually occurred -- or even seemed likely to occur within in the near future -- the picture was eventually released as Thunder in the East in January, 1953.As expected, the movie failed to attract picture-goers, even though Alan Ladd was about to enter a period of super-stardom.

Robert J. Maxwell Let's see. It's 1947 in India, and 1951 in Hollywood. Different time zones. The British troops have left India, and Gandahar state is under the leadership of a not entirely unbelievable Indian maharaja named Charles Boyer. Gandahar is surrounded by brigands who are about to attack. Alan Ladd, a brash entrepreneur, lands an airplane full of guns at Gandahar and offers to sell them to Boyer, but Boyer is a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, who eschewed violence in all its forms. Boyer's principles are to be admired but he turns out to be wrong about the guns.So what is the message behind the rhetoric? Americans, the Commies are a threat to our democracy and nobody should be SOFT ON COMMUNISM. Sometimes war is the only answer.What we see is a crowded stage-bound Gandahar. Ladd bumps into the blind Deborah Kerr, or the other way round, and they dance in an Indian night club where the sitar sounds exactly like a guitar, to a melody blending romance and mystery that sounds exactly as if it were written for this movie by Hugo Friedhofer.Ladd is more animated than usual, though the role of money-grabbing rogue changing to a selfless hero is pretty much a cliché. Deborah Kerr is more interesting. She's very attractive and has a slight quaver in her voice that suggests uncertainty, politesse, and femininity. She's prim, a little wall eyes, and quite appealing. Boyer is actually passable as an Indian leader, except that his French accent turns "Bombay" into "Pompeii." There is, unfortunately, one of those colorful and mischievous native boys who latches on to Ladd and provides the dispensable cuteness.It has its longueurs but the tension in the plot increases as the threat from bandits is realized. For some reason, the movie ends in the middle of a shoot out and although both Boyer and Ladd advance with smiles, guns blazing, the end is problematic. Nice shots of a Lockheed Vega and a Grumman TBF.

blanche-2 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.

bkoganbing 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.