Moonlighting Wives

A bunch of unnattractive steno girls -- some with their grey roots VERY apparent -- decide to make some more money by being "Pay-for-Play" girls.

OK

Not sure of this was filmed in Technicolor, but the color sure does pop. And that's about the only pop you're going to get from this movie. Sarno is no Russ Meyer, who by 1966 figured out how to turn out far better sexploitation than this movie.

Basic problem with the movie is that it's way too talkie. Lots of talk, no action. Which might be a good thing considering the looks of the gals -- one of them in a pink pullover looks like a dude.

There is next to no nudity. In fact, when there is nudity, I'm not so sure they're nude. For example there is a scene in a pool and the woman seems ot be wearing a black band top across her "unmentionables." You can just see it beneath the water line!

I was bored.

From 1934 until the late 1960s, you couldn't get away with much in American films. Sex and debauchery were only occasionally alluded to...but only in the most indirect way--all due to the strengthened Production Code. However, a small number of independent films, usually couched as 'educational', were able to slip in under this code. "Moonlighting Wives" is clearly one of these films--with a strongly sexual plot. However, due to local obscenity laws, despite being about prostitution, the film really doesn't show much in the way of skin. Yes, it was clearly exploitational but the film really isn't that spicy--especially by current standards.

"Moonlighting Wives" is based on a real life suburban prostitution ring that was exposed in 1964. Housewives all earned extra money by working part-time jobs as stenographers--or at least that was the cover. Instead, the women were part-time prostitutes--operating in a very professional manner. How close this film is to the real story, I have no idea. However, it's very, very obvious that the film was made on a shoestring budget--with mostly non-actresses and a very cheesy lounge-style soundtrack. Despite this, the film is amazingly watchable and reasonably well made for what it is. Sure, some of the acting is pretty bad--but on the whole, not that bad considering the sort of film it is. Overall, not a very good film but entertaining nevertheless! My biggest quibble? The AWFUL singing at the end of the film! It made my dogs bark!

As I mentioned, most of the folks in the film were not professionals (at least when it came to acting). However, Joe Santos plays a detective in the movie--rather similar to the role he later played on "The Rockford Files".

Oh, and lastly, the print for this film is just terrible--faded and very scratchy. When my wife saw it, she asked 'why is it raining INSIDE that house?' because the print was THAT bad!

This full-colour picture is a real epic compared to Sarno's normally budget-constrained work. Although slightly overlong, it allows a more elaborate mise-en-scene than usual, with another complex plot filled with power-playing ploys and unexpected revelations between the jaded characters. As in many of his early entries, Sarno's subtext scathingly critiques the bourgeois mores of early 60s suburbia, and more specifically satirizes the button-down, wheeler-dealer, martini-lunching business world of the "gray flannel suit" era. It's like the subterranean side of the Doris Day/Rock Hudson oeuvre. Excellent acting all around, and the colour (faded as it is in the video print) really emphasizes the seemingly staid Jan Nash's steely, betraying eyes. With only a few glimpses of nudity, it's hard to imagine how these films were sold to the grindhouses, but they certainly are valuable time-capsules for those of us inured to 'Father Knows Best' and 'Leave It to Beaver'.