The movie 7 brides for 7 brothers is a m is a movie musical released in 1954.

It has

music done by Gene de Paul and book by Lawrence. It is about a wife who fins 6 new

brides for 6 of the brothers of her husband. Sh attempts to reform them into proper

gentle man but to no avail until every woman is involve with their husband at the end of

the show. It is a very bizzarre story but the dancing does not show that.

The dancing in this movie was very true to the time that it was created, which

was 1954 and to the time period in which the show was set, which was 1850. The

dance style was very line dance based. Every person had a specific pace and

movement, with everything being very precise. Precision could be seen even in how

the hair was worn with not a hair out of place. During this period, dancing was the way

that men and woman courted each other, so mediocrity had no place. Throughout the

dance, there was a lot of use of weaving and turning, especially by the women. They

would meander through and around their partners in very intricate patterns, but that was

the style of the 1850s line dance.

Also, to make their turns appear even more intricate, the women wore huge skirts

that swayed and opened up fully when they turned. Sometimes, I felt as if the

movements and staging became a little too busy to the point of distraction, because the

skirts and costumes were another whole element in the scene to partner with. There

were times when the distraction caused by the elaborate costuming, especially the

skirts, detracted from the overall scene. Through most of the movie, the skirts only

served to enhance the dance because they contribute to over dance style and genre,

but one with one specific dance, the Barn Raising, I think the skirts were improperly

used. The stage they were dancing on was very small to begin with, and the large skirts
made it look like there were twice as many people on the stage. The dance is already

colorful and entertaining enough that I did not feel as though the skirts added anything

to the artistry or presentation of the dance.

Also, though in the 1950s, film was relatively new, the film makers had a few

novel tricks up their sleeves.. The director had decided to use many different camera

angles when filming the dances. This was a relatively new way of filming and I had the

sense that the camera men had not yet completely mastered the technique. There

were many times when the camera work was spastic and pulled me out of the story. It

became difficult to focus on the dancing and formations because the camera was

jumping back and forth.

The was a saving grace, however. The dance numbers in the show were

overwhelmingly clean, sharp and precise. The synchronization that these dancers

accomplished was so well done that I dont believe I have ever seen it done better.

The movements were so sharp that it appeared as though not a hair or pinky finger was

out of place. This helped to counteract the huge costumes and overwhelming camera

angles. The choreography was created to produce perfect synchronization and it was

clearly meant to be executed that way. The choreographer had a very specific vision of

uniformity and that dancers executed with the precision demanded. The movements

were so sharp and precise that the production team could get away with putting the

dancers in loud, bright skirts.

While the technique was absolutely flawless in execution, there was very real

lack of artistry in the pieces. There could have been a log of opportunity for artistry in

the piece, but that would not have been true to the dance style of the 1850s. Dance
was truly a form of entertainment during the period. They danced to express, but mostly

to impress and that is what the choreography created in this film. While it made the

audience of the film respond with oohs and ahhs, it did little to invoke any emotions or

engagement in the film. Sharp and clean felt more like dry, cut and paste. I didn't

think the dancing furthered the story as much as it had potential to. It seemed to add

the dancing for the sake of having it in the film. This may have worked perfectly will for

the audiences of the 1950s, but audiences today expect so much more.

In spite of the shortcoming mentioned, I enjoyed the overall movie. I think it does

a great job pf capturing the dance style that was prevalent in 1958. Codified dancing

was still a relatively new art. The world was still trying to figure out which boundaries

could be pushed in an art form if they hadnt fully executed.

Did you like the dancing? Why or why not?

1. If so, what specifically stood out?
2. If not, what might you have done differently?

Was the choreography executed well in terms of technique? Performance quality? Artistry?

Was there a narrative involved in the performance

1. Did the dancing contribute to these? Take away from these? How so?
 How did the other performance elementslighting, sets, costumes, projections etc.contribute to the
choreography and the performance? Take away from it?

Did any particular elements stand out or strike you? If so,why?

How did the work compare to other works you may have seen by the same choreographer? (You should use
some historical background about the choreographer as reference)