User reviews

Based on a play, "Thunder Rock" is a 1942 film that follows the fascination with ghosts that seems prevalent at the time, just as it is prevalent in ours. There was "Between Two Worlds," which was the remake of "Outward Bound," "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir," "Heaven Can Wait," "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," - etc.! I won't go into the angels - "It's a Wonderful Life," "The Bishop's Wife," etc. The war caused people to think about death and the afterlife a great deal.

"Thunder Rock" is about a newspaperman David Charleston, (Michael Redgrave) who saw the rise of Fascism and Nazism and tried to warn people to wake up and take action. Unfortunately, his editors wouldn't allow the doom and gloom. His response is to give up and take a job as a lighthouse keeper on Thunder Rock in Lake Michigan. There, he becomes interested in a ship's log of a ship that went down 90 years earlier. He begins to have conversations with them in his mind. None of the passengers know they're dead except for the captain (Finlay Currie). He shows David how each of these people came to be on the ship. There's a doctor driven out of Vienna for using an early form of anesthesia (Frederick Valk), an early feminist (Beverly Mullen) jailed repeatedly for her views, a man and his wife en route to America to try for a better life for their family.

There are several themes present in this film - the themes of keeping hope, not giving up one's quest, and affirming life, certainly important ideas in a time of war. There's also the theme of reincarnation, as one of these people could have been Charleston. In the beginning of the film, there is the communication of information from one person to another to another to another, as knowledge is passed through generations.

Redgrave is excellent, as are Finlay Currie, Beverly Mullen, James Mason (as David's friend) and a young Lili Palmer as the doctor's daughter. In fact, the whole cast is good, including a young Barry Morse in his pre-"The Fugitive" days, as the ex-fiancée of Beverly Mullen.

Beautifully photographed and thought-provoking.

Holy sh*t, was this a peculiar movie! Slow moving but oddly compelling look at a writer's psyche. A war correspondent desperately wants to awaken Britain's awareness of fascism and the inevitable war and dismally fails -- and this is all shown in flashback. The correspondent is shown as an isolated fellow in a lighthouse on the Great Lakes, post-war, who becomes obsessed with the story of drowned immigrants who never reach the lighthouse a hundred years before (get the connection?), dying at sea. And the story then becomes what he imagines their lives to have been, growing in complexity and realism as he comes to terms with his own defeats. I've never seen the writing process so accurately shown in a film as he talks to the characters in his mind and continues to revise their lives before our eyes. An ambitious film that doesn't entirely work, but that I found fascinating and moving. Michael Redgrave is terrific, too, and James Mason, who appears too briefly, has a really cute wave in his hair (ha).

I saw Thunder Rock as a student in Toronto (Canada)when it came out in about 1942. Thought the plot has faded somewhat in my memory, the acting, the allegorical inferences and the very remarkable optical distortions that said far more than words--all of these have stayed with me for the sixty years since that time.

I'd love to see it revived for viewing.

That this story is an allegory is clear from very early on but the director seems to have wanted to disguise it somehow with unnecessary padding. In doing so he detracts from the overall message and loses his audience a little along the way. Take the opening scenes as an example where a phone call is passed higher and higher through a chain of employees. It's well played, well acted and amusing and of absolutely no relevence whatsoever to the plot. You may as well have had a Donald Duck Cartoon instead and started the film where James Mason lands at the lighthouse.

It achieves some great moments both in and out of it's lighthouse setting, Michael Redgrave is very good but everything just goes on that little bit too long for it's own good.

James Mason stardom puts him near the top of the billing, but he's really only a bit player in this and doesn't make any significant contribution to the overall film.

I saw this movie in 1942, when I worked for the War Department and had just enlisted in the Army Air Corps, so this might account for the strong memories I have of it.

I was a little shocked that it seemed almost pure propaganda. However, it was clearly made for a British audience at a time when the nation was in imminent danger of invasion by the Nazis. Its message was never to give up hope.

It opens with the hero being frightened by the spread of Fascism across Europe. He goes into a London movie house where the depressing newsreel is followed by a cartoon which the unthinking audience finds hilarious. Disgusted, he gives up and withdraws into himself. He becomes a sort of hermit and somehow gets a job as a lighthouse-keeper on the Great Lakes.

Browsing through the lighthouse's log, he finds an account of a shipwreck. As he reads, the viewer notices that the lighthouse's central pole is now at an angle--a very clever hint of the transition to the fantasy now taking place. He is now on board the sinking ship and all is confusion and despair. But it turns out OK--the first example of the message (to the English) not to give up hope.

There are several other such episodes including one about the doctor in Vienna who discovers that doctors not washing their hands is how the deadly childbirth fever infection is spread. A failure, he is laughed out of town. But a few years later his radical theory is proved correct. Another morale boost for the discouraged wartime English.

I can't remember how the movie ends--but I've never forgotten the movie!

Early film from Britain's Boulting brothers (producer John and director Roy) shows an uncanny grasp of technical assurance, yet their combined talents, and those of the sterling cast, cannot eradicate the stultified air of theatricality which comes via this material, taken from the play by Robert Ardrey. Anti-fascist journalist in England, upset over the hypocrisy of the newspaper business and the silencing of free speech, takes a job at a lonesome lighthouse in Lake Michigan; his superiors question his need for complete isolation, though he confesses he's not alone. Seems the ghosts of a one hundred-year-old shipwreck reenact their lives for the lighthouse keeper, all in an attempt to bring him back to civilization. Portends to be a heady mix of political strife and the human condition, however the central character's history is much more interesting than those who were aboard the ill-fated ship, and activity in the main set (the lighthouse) becomes tiresomely stagy. One professional critic compared the film to "Citizen Kane"; however, while it is polished and professionally assembled (and moodily photographed), the falseness of the picture's conception keeps the fantastic aspects firmly grounded. ** from ****

I wanted to see this film because it's a spooky ghost story set in a lighthouse, and I love lighthouse settings for movies. Sadly, this turns out to be a dull propaganda effort rather than a real movie, and despite a few atmospheric touches it's very murky and rather badly handled in my opinion.

The problem I have with THUNDER ROCK is that the morales and beliefs conveyed therein are thrust down the viewer's throat from the earliest opportunity. Given that this is a WW2 era film, there's an anti-fascist message throughout, and the viewer is all but ordered to strive and carry on the fight.

Niceties of plotting and characterisation are all but nil and most of the film is told via flashback, which just felt too obvious a construction for me. It's a shame, because the Boulting brothers are good film-makers, and the likes of Michael Redgrave and James Mason are strong actors. But a more subtle message and more straightforward storytelling would have resulted in a better movie.

When the authorities discover a lighthouse keeper is not cashing his paychecks, they go to visit him to make sure he is OK. One of the visitors gets into a chat with the lighthouse keeper, David Charleston and discovers that his desire to stay in the lighthouse is based on the fact that he is in contact with the ghosts from a ship that sunk many years ago; although the ghosts do not know they are dead. Charleston hides away - having been frustrated by those in power ignoring his warnings about fascism. However he finds that each passenger has had similar experiences that he, with the benefit of future knowledge, can learn from.

The point of this film is both obvious but also too obscure. The message of not giving up is laboured at the end, but for the majority of the film, it is hidden and damages the early meaning of the film. The pre-war setting is a morale boosting tale of sticking at it - for we never know what tomorrow will bring; it delivers a reasonable tale but I found it hard to get into the stories of the various passengers as they were not characters I was given a lot of time to get into and care about. The stuff with Charleston himself works better as I cared about him due to the time spent with him.

The film is very stagy however, it doesn't really flow very well at times and the best scenes are played out as if in a theatre. It is rather heavy at times but it still works if you know what to expect. The cast is OK but really it is all Redgrave's film. He exaggerates his performance as if he is on a stage and needing to project to the back row, but he is still very good. Mason has a minor role but always has such a good presence that it is hard to fault him. The support cast of passengers is less assured and really never get close to being real people - instead their dialogue and stories are too heavily laden with meaning.

Overall this is a reasonably good propaganda. It has more meaning and human pathos than most WWII propaganda films as it is not anti-enemy but pro-spirit and persistence. It may all be a little heavy and too stagy but it is enjoyable if you can do enough to get past the heavy message and some overly worthy acting.

Michael Redgrave (Charleston) is a lighthouse keeper on a remote lighthouse on Lake Michigan. He used to be a reporter but no-one listened to his warnings about the evils of the emerging New Order in Germany and Italy. Disillusioned with mankind he chooses to live away from it all. His friend James Mason (Streeter) tells him that he thinks he is a coward and the two fall out, leaving Redgrave alone on the lighthouse island. But is he alone?

It's an interesting premise for a film and it scores with me for doing something different. However, it does drag on a little which is a shame. I wanted this film to be an eye-opening ghost chiller with a message but it only drives home a rather obvious point and isn't scary as such. It is other-worldly which is good. And there is a climax scene where the ghostly images are presented with the truth about their lives. Are they real ghosts or images conjured up in Redgrave's head? The film favours the latter for a means of wartime propaganda but the film would have been better if the former was what is actually happening. It is, of course, actually happening for Redgrave so we go along with him. But, if it was actually happening…….spooky……

As an aside, I always thought it would be a weird experience to live on a lighthouse. Turns out my wife has a lighthouse connection as one of her great ancestors was a Lighthouse Keeper at Dover. Whilst the custodian, English scientist Michael Faraday helped install the light there and Italian engineer Marconi transmitted the first radio signal abroad from it. He sent a signal over to France……..and we now have the Eurovision Song Contest…..so it was totally worthwhile.

I am not sure what to make of this movie. The setting is 1939 but the release date is 1942. It seems to look pre-European war by a few motnhs but no way to know for sure.

Nevertheless, it is surreal and compelling for "Doing the Right Thing" It almost seems like typical British propoganda to entice Americans into the European and Asian wars to once again save the Brits from the Axis powers.

Written by American Robert Ardrey - author cum anthropologist of 'African Genesis' and 'The Territorial Imperative' fame.

There is a definite 'Christmas Carol' bend to the wandering plot. Is Thunder Rock a real lighthouse in Lake Michigan?

Charleston (Redgrave) lives in self-inflicted isolation as a lighthouse keeper, having become completely disenchanted with the outside world, most of which is complacent in the face of rising evil and looming war. In a dialogue with spirits of the past, he re-evaluates his decision to isolate himself.

Robert Ardrey's 1939 play railed against the widespread complacency at the rise of fascism, and anticipated WWII. That the play flopped in New York on first release and yet did well in wartime London a little later says plenty about how receptive the audience was to the message. In this film adaptation the story is broadened and filled in; it played to packed houses in 1943 America and did well in the UK.

Here the Boulting brothers -perhaps better known for their later comedies- have made an excellent film that is both absorbing and intriguing.

Of course it was made in wartime and the message is played for all it is worth as propaganda. But that doesn't make this film any less interesting or thought provoking. It is a little less overtly metaphysical than some other films from around this time and that is no bad thing; one foot is kept grounded at all times, more or less.

Someone once said "the greatest journeys we go on are those in our own minds" -or words to that effect- and this play/film is testimony to that.

The message that came through most strongly for me was that we owe the past a heavy debt; it is, in the present, always our obligation not to turn away, not to give up or hide away in the face of adversity.

Despite its flaws this film rates a 9/10 from me.

All the reviewers who wished they could see this film again (some of whom saw it originally in 1942!), can now see it again if they are resident British and subscribe to Freeview tv on Channel 81 It is shown regularly on this wonderful channel which I constantly watch if you can put up with the adverts which finances it, as it saves paying for numerous dvds which I used to do before I discovered this tv station.For example, every Sunday @ 9.p.m. GMT they are repeating the wonderful mid 60s episodes of "The Human Jungle" starring Herbert Lom which I originally saw when it was transmitted (I am now 72).

Some reviewers thought Thunder Rock was too stagey.Does it matter? I saw the classic R.C.Sherriff's "Journey's End" on Youtube the other day which of course is based on his play.What if Michael Redgrave is a bit declamatory at times, he was an accomplished stage actor first.In 1942 Britain was in a precarious position so of course the Government sought propaganda films to help morale & the war effort.See this film on the aforesaid channel, the tv station is bound to repeat it occasionally.

I am going against the grain of many reviewers here, but I have to admit this is one of the dullest, most ponderous films I have seen. That half of the film dealt with the dead taking their pulses and breathing through their lungs and that this was all coming out of Michael Redgrave's static but worthy performance, plus his mind became for me increasingly tedious and unbelievable. I believe in the sentiment conveyed that we should not abandon our convictions and courage in times of adversity and war, and I see that as being blatantly obvious. But a film is a film is a film and this one on nearly all levels failed for me. The core of this failure lay in the lack of character development plus the stagey lighthouse and phoney crashing waves clearly shot in a studio. Redgrave's character may see the light of courage to struggle against barbarism, but the lack of any real life on his face was utterly boring. And because of this lack of any visible real struggle the dead who come to life because of him look not only dead but look as dull as he does. Lilli Palmer tried to bring life to her fate but the near love scene at one point showed just a pitiful loss on her face that appeared to me to refute the whole fantasy of her being part of his inner self. She showed herself as being utterly separate. The one scene I admired was in a cinema where the audience were indifferent to the impending WW2 on a newsreel and laughed when the comedy of another film began. That did show our apathy towards disasters and said more about the concrete reality of life than the rest of the film. This is my opinion, and my one optimistic hope is that some young viewers will see it and relate it to our own times in 2022. For them it may come to life, but sadly not for me. See Ingmar Bergman's ' The Silence ' for the real horror of loss of convictions, in a despairing world with tanks on the streets. That is the real thing, and real cinema.