‘Roberta’ (1935) Versus ‘Lovely to Look At’ (1952)

The “Comparing Classic Cinema” series highlights movies during Hollywood’s Golden Age. Fer Gregory/Shutterstock

Comparing two film versions of the same story is always interesting, since it can be entertaining to see what was changed and guess why. Many classic films were remade several decades later, and in many cases, the two movies have little in common. As a classic film fan, I always will prefer a movie made in the 1930s, 40s, or 50s to a movie made in the 1980s, 90s, or 2000s.

It’s much more difficult to choose a favorite when both the original film and its remake were released during the Golden Era of Hollywood. Many successful films from the 1930s or 40s were remade fewer than 20 years later. In that mode, here are two classic film versions of the same story.

When both movies were released between 1934 and 1954, the results are especially comparable because the Motion Picture Production Code was effectively enforced during those 20 years. Every American movie released during that time was carefully self-regulated by the Production Code Administration (PCA), which helped Hollywood make decent movies.

Program page from "Roberta." RKO Radio Pictuers

For this small group of films that were both made and remade during the PCA’s glory days, it’s really interesting to watch two and compare. For instance, “Roberta” from 1935 and “Lovely to Look At” from 1952 were both based on Jerome Kern’s 1933 Broadway musical “Roberta,” which was itself based on Alice Duer Miller’s novel “Gowns by Roberta.” The basic premise of this story is that a couple of young American men end up running a Parisian dress shop started by one young man’s aunt.

‘Roberta’ (1935)

“Roberta” stars Randolph Scott as John Kent, an American football player who owns a jazz band with his friend Huck Haines (Fred Astaire). They bring their group to Paris for a nightclub job, but they find themselves unemployed when the Russian club owner (Luis Alberni) realizes that they are the Wabash Indianians, not American Indians.

John Kent (Randolph Scott, L) and Huck Haines (Fred Astaire), in "Roberta." RKO Radio Pictures

John brings the gang to visit his aunt Minnie (Helen Westley), who owns a swanky dress shop called Roberta’s. John is delighted to meet a pretty young designer, Stephanie (Irene Dunne), who works with his aunt. Meanwhile, Huck realizes that one of Roberta’s best customers, singer Countess Scharwenka (Ginger Rogers), is his childhood sweetheart, Lizzie.

Countess Scharwenka (Ginger Rogers) and Huck Haines (Fred Astaire), in "Roberta." RKO Radio Pictures

The score included four songs from the Broadway show: “Let’s Begin,” “I’ll Be Hard to Handle,” “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes,” and “Yesterdays.” Three of the other songs, “You’re Devastating,” “The Touch of Your Hand,” and “Don’t Ask Me Not to Sing,” were used as background music. “I Won’t Dance,” which was from the 1934 Jerome Kern musical, “Three Sisters,” became a musical number for Fred and Ginger in this movie. Kern wrote one original song for this movie’s fashion show finale, “Lovely to Look At,” and it was nominated for Best Original Song at the Oscars.

‘Lovely to Look At’ (1952)

Kathryn Grayson, in "Lovely to Look At." MGM

The biggest change made from “Roberta” to “Lovely to Look At” was changing the main characters from two couples to three couples. While it was originally Randolph Scott and Irene Dunne, with the complication of his fiancée, and Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, the remake featured a clunky love square with Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Ann Miller, and Red Skelton, with Marge and Gower Champion as a simple couple. All the songs from the original film were also featured in this movie as song and dance numbers, except for “Let’s Begin.” The 1952 film used two additional songs from the musical, “The Touch of Your Hand” and “You’re Devastating.”  

Tony (Keel), Al (Skelton), and Jerry (Gower Champion) are wannabe Broadway producers trying to get backers for their show. Al receives the news that his aunt Roberta has died and left him half ownership of her Parisian dress shop. Hoping they can sell his interest in the salon for a quick profit, the three friends fly to Paris, accompanied and funded by Tony’s showgirl sweetheart, Bubbles Cassidy (Miller).

(L–R) Al (Red Skelton), Tony (Howard Keel), and Jerry (Gower Champion), in “Lovely to Look At.” MGM

In Paris, they meet Al’s part owners, sisters Stephanie (Grayson) and Clarisse (Marge Champion). They also learn that Roberta’s is deep in debt, so the showmen try to convince the store’s creditors to finance a musical fashion show. Meanwhile, Jerry and Clarisse fall in love. Al is enamored with the beautiful Stephanie, but she doesn’t return those feelings. At the same time, Bubbles begins to realize that Al is much more sincere than Tony.

Which is Better

“Roberta” was a big hit, but “Lovely to Look At” was a box office disappointment. Seeing the two films, it’s understandable why the second didn’t succeed. Despite an impressive assortment of talent, the script falls short.

Part of the problem is that there is too much talent. By splitting the one character of John into the two characters of Tony and Al, both are only half-developed. In contrast, Clarisse is not as deep a character as her counterpart, Lizzie, since she is just Stephanie’s sister, without a history with her love interest. Also, the fact that Aunt Roberta dies before the movie begins removed what could have been a powerful figure in the story, perhaps played by someone like Ethel Barrymore.

Although both “Roberta” and “Lovely to Look At” are enjoyable, the remake falls short. It’s a case of too many stars and too little plot. By replacing non-musical actors with musical performers while retaining the same approximate runtime, some important story development was replaced with songs and dances. It’s still clean, wholesome fun with a lot of talented performers, though, so it’s worth watching for comparison.

Would you like to see other kinds of arts and culture articles? Please email us your story ideas or feedback at [email protected]