Amour et clair de lune

I've viewed Moonlight and Pretzels many times, It's a refreshing change from those Busby Berkley musicals from this era. We have a virile male lead, a sensational vocalist in Lilian Miles (far superior to Ruby Keeler) and a totally unique up tempo dance number without all those flowers opening and closing! The orchestra playing behind the dancers is loaded with outstanding musicians. Incidently two of the songs were very successful "Ah! But Is It Love? and Are You Making Any Money" A highly desirable record of these songs was released by Paul Whiteman. A real fun movie from the early thirties.

This ghastly Universal musical released in August 1933 is their answer to Warner's Busby Berkeley blockbusters. Consider this release pattern; from WB: Jan '33 42nd St; May 33 Gold Diggers '33; in August comes this: Universal's copy: MOONLIGHT AND PRETZELS then Sept 33 WB's FOOTLIGHT PARADE. In M&P dance director Bobby Connolly has slavishly and clumsily copied two of the best Busby Berkeley numbers from Gold diggers of 33: their "Pettin In The Park" becomes "Get Up And Go To Work" here, and their "Remember My Forgotten Man" becomes here "Dusty Shoes". In the midst of all this is basically unattractive actors with bad teeth staring and smiling at each other in between muttering 'Gee that's swell'. Dim small town gal Sally loves rubber faced songplugger George who makes good on Broadway. Boring cross eyed Sally goes to NY and gets into his show in an attempt to make him come home and drone with her in dusty-ville. However, sassy Elsie played by terrific Lillian Miles who looks a lot like Alice Faye or Ginger Rogers sings up a storm and assists getting the lame show refinanced by Leo Carillo, the Spanish actor who here plays a Greek and a-talks-a-lika-dat. Stomping dance numbers with unrehearsed chorines in out of step routines and yelling lyrics are the topper to this mash of songs romance and 1933 drama. I was so perplexed by the title and what relevance it had to do with anything or anyone or any part of any show ever, except the bit where for no reason they dressed up in Tyrolean alpine outfits and yelled Moonlight And Pretzels ! at each other while swilling beer and munching on hot dogs. It is all so awful as to be mesmerizing. In fact so compelling I forgot what it was about and simply stared in disbelief. At one stage Elsie and George sit under a paper moon and identify it so but do not sing "it's only a paper moon" like they are about to but don't. All you can focus upon is how terrible their teeth are. They don not seem to be clean or fit in their mouths. Somehow Sally has a bent head. She is supposed to be the Ruby Keeler gal but here looks like Ruby after a stroke instead. Her eyes do not close at the same time. George is supposed to look like Dick Powell but actually could be mistaken for George Formby... or worse, Kenny Baker in fat-face makeup. . MOONLIGHT AND PRETZELS is a depression era knockoff of Warner snazziness and here looks like a budget suburban musical society version of 42nd St. The song where the husband and wife get up to go to work has a mad interlude where chorus girls on a satin bed-clock attempt some BB kaleidoscope.... in another number filmed in front of a curtain (!) 25 out of step chorines simply wave their arms about as they march back and forth and get mangled in some half figure-eight. It is so nutty as to be with 100 grimaces by the 99 minute mark. I of course loved it. Oh, and there's even dashounds. On leashes.

MOONLIGHT AND PRETZELS was a somewhat tacky attempt by Universal Pictures to cash in on the Busby Berkeley craze that was making mountains of money for Warners in 1933. The backstage plot flagrantly imitates the Warners formula: songwriters and performers desperately want to put on their show but are having trouble raising the money; they hook up with an eccentric investor, go through dramatic ups and downs and eventually pull off the production with flying colors. Along the way we get lots of slangy wisecracks delivered by colorful characters. In this case, the musical numbers are dispersed through the narrative, whereas in the Warners musicals they tended to be stacked at the end. This film boasts an eminently hummable collection of pop songs, chief among which are, from EY Harburg and Jay Gorney, "Ah, But Is It Love" (performed by chorus girls dressed like bleached out clones of Ruby Keeler in "42nd Street" mode), the daffy but catchy "Moonlight and Pretzels" (think, "I Love Louisa" from Schwartz and Dietz in THE BANDWAGON); and "Dusty Shoes," a more optimistic variation on the team's earlier "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" crossed with "My Forgotten Man" from the Warners hit GOLDDIGGERS OF 1933). From Herman Hupfeld we get "Are You Makin' Any Money?" and "I've Gotta Get Up and Go to Work," two jaunty numbers which both suggest the Harry Warren sound. And a beautiful ballad by Harburg and Sammy Fain, "There's a Little Bit of You in Every Love Song." One interesting lost opportunity occurs about half way through the film when hero Roger Pryor (think, a slightly more rough-hewn Dick Powell) tells heroine Mary Brian (think, Ruby Keeler's almost-twin sister) that the prop moon hanging over their heads would be real if she truly loved him. The song that should have followed, "It's Only a Paper Moon," isn't even in this film. This EY Harburg-Harold Arlen song, in fact, ended up in the film version of the Broadway musical TAKE A CHANCE, released later the same year.

The cast is uniformly excellent, with Lillian Miles, a slender platinum blonde with a great set of pipes, as the "star of the show" particularly fetching. The supporting cast includes Leo Carrillo (very funny as a Greek gambler who finances the show and constantly mispronounces words); Bobby Watson as a catty gum-chewing production assistant; William Frawley in typical gruff form.

Karl Freund (cinematographer for Murnau's 1924 THE LAST LAUGH and the 1931 version of FRANKENSTEIN) directed this work and in the "Dusty Shoes" finale, which finds Lillian Miles warbling her heart out behind a phalanx of upstretched hands, one is reminded of a famous scene from Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS. Quite a striking image. One wonders if Freund was deliberately drawing on his German expressionist background or if it was just a coincidence.

Bobby Connolly, who went on to choreograph THE WIZARD OF OZ and other major films, seems off kilter here. The moves of the dancers in the "Ah, But Is It Love" number are noticeably halting and awkward.

After watching "Moonlight and Pretzels" you'll probably understand why Universal was known for its horror films and not its musicals in the 1930's.

This has to be one of the most unusual musicals ever made, mainly due to several bizarre songs that have to be heard to be believed! There's an entire production number about getting up and going to work. Or how about the 1929 stock market crash set to music? And let's not forget the title tune "Moonlight and Pretzels" complete with flowing beer and wiener dogs.

The plot line is simple: songwriter hits it big on Broadway, decides to turn producer, then fights the money men to keep control of his show. Add a little love story and the plot is complete. If you've seen Warner's "42nd Street" you've seen it already.

The film was actually shot at New York's Astoria Studios by Universal cameraman Karl Freund, better remembered for "The Mummy" and "Mad Love." Leo Carillo gets top billing, but he doesn't even show up until the movie is half over. The only recognizable face to today's viewers would be William Frawley (Fred Mertz on "I Love Lucy") and he appears in a supporting role. Mary Brian and Roger Pryor star in the leading roles, but both have been nearly forgotten.

This one is difficult to see, not having been shown on television since the late 1950's. But if you ever run across a screening of "Moonlight and Pretzels" enjoy it for what it is: a strange musical morsel from Universal's early years.

This is a cheap, shabby rip-off of 'Gold diggers of 1933' which lacks the fun, the charm and the smiles of the original. It's very disappointing.

The predictable and lugubrious story limps along without any surprises or excitement, occasionally punctuated only by some terribly amateurish song and dance numbers. Those real Busby Berkeley numbers in the WB movies or even in the earlier Eddie Cantor films don't look that difficult to copy but this shows that they clearly were. Berkley would probably be considered a voyeur these days but like great artists throughout history, his spectacles were primarily his way of celebrating the sexiness of beautiful young women. The routines in this film completely lack any of that innocent eroticism, we just get cardboard cut-out showgirls doing their steps.

Besides the tiresome story, the lacklustre musical numbers, the instantly forgettable (dull) songs, the obviously small budget and the z-list actors (although Lillian Miles is actually pretty good) the main problem is the direction. Karl Freund did a fantastic job on The Mummy the year before but his slow, moody style just doesn't work at all with this. It's a very long 85 minutes.