Correct hip placement

[lampwick]

I was reading the thread on correct hip placement on the Mom's and Dad's forum and wanted to ask a question myself. I'm taught that the hips should be absolutely "square" in extensions side as well, with the working leg very rotated. When I look at the Gretchen Ward Warren book, it looks like there is some degree of tilt away from the working leg with both the hips, and the upper body. This, too, looks "correct" to my eye. I've seen both ways done well. The way that's illustrated in the book is similar to the way we're permitted to do an ecarte position. In a simple developpe side though, we are not allowed to have any tilt whatsoever.

 

I guess it has to do with the fact that the pelvis is bowl-shaped. To keep both sides of the hips perfectly even, the leg must be extended slightly forward of side (working within YOUR control zone of rotation), with the heel rotated forward. If a teacher wants the leg flat side, then the entire torso needs to lean slightly because there's no room to get the leg up otherwise.

 

For corps de ballet work, it seems like you'd have a very un-uniform look if everyone was working within thier individual amount of rotation (and I have seen big variations in the amount of turnout even in professional dancers).

 

I know that my ecarte devant is much higher than my developpe a la second, just from that tiny bit of leaning. It feels more stabile to me as well.

 

It almost seems like this is a grey area. I've seen well-trained girls do both ways. I TOTALLY agree that hiking up the hip and distorting yourself to get a high extension is bad. But there seems to be a little subtle difference among teachers as to whether there's ANY permissable tilt to the body and hips in developpe side.

 

Is perfectly square hips and a strong rotation of the working leg a newer idea in training? I think it's healthier for the hips, and builds much more strength...I'm happy to learn it this way. But it's slightly different from what's in my book. I was just wondering if it's "strictly" classical. I guess...

[Victoria Leigh]

Lampwick, the écarté positions, both devant and derrière, are simply à la seconde positions facing a corner. There is a feeling, or even look of tilt, due to the position of the upper body, but the leg position is still a seconde and the hips should be square. And no, this is not at all a new idea. It is totally classical. Moving off the leg slightly and into more tilt is a variation of the position and used much more in neo-classical and contemporary work than in classical work.

[lampwick]

You describe it the same way that my teacher would (i think). The supporting shoulder should be lower than the working one and everything else is the same.

 

I just thought of a simpler way to describe the difference I'm seeing though. In some schools, there's still a "curve" in the hip when the hips are perfectly square. I'm defining "square" as having the illiac crests at the same level. In the Gretchen Ward Warren book, there's a straight line down the supporting side of the body and the illiac crests are not at the same level. I'm not saying one way's right, and one way's wrong...I'm just wondering about the difference. Some people would think that the first way is "sitting" in the hips, and conversely, others think that a straight line produces tension and is wrong. It can be confusing.

 

The Warren book pictures more of a pelvic tilt than I'd be allowed to do in a simple developpe. The straight line down the supporting side would be considered going off your hip.

[Victoria Leigh]

Actually, there is not a lowering of the shoulder. That would indicate a tilt in the position. The head is inclined downward in an écarté derrière, but the shoulder is not. The position can tilt a bit, in choreography, but in classical basic technique, it is not tilted. The head lifts in the devant position and inclines downward in the derrière position. If you took that écarté position with both arms in 5th en haut, and turned it en face, it should be a correct à la seconde.

 

I'm not looking at the book as we speak, and have not looked at it in a long time, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I just know what the position is supposed to be.

[lampwick]

Oh, ok. Mine's probably a bit more tilted than you'd want to see in your class. It's similar to what's shown in this picture.

 

 

Ecarte

 

I'll try and find some pictures of my more basic concern though, so I can be clear in what I'm saying.

[Victoria Leigh]

He is a bit tilted, but not too bad...for a male dancer

[lampwick]

You really don't like the look of the shoulders tilting? I think it's nice how it creates parallel lines with the extended leg. If the shoulders were square, I'd think that the line wouldn't be as pretty.

 

Sadly, that's about the height of my extension right now too. Great on a guy, not so impressive on me, but it'll get better with time.

[Victoria Leigh]

I don't mind the look at all, lampwick. It's just that in terms of the actual "classical" position, I believe it should be more square. However, realistically, not a lot of people can get it there, and the line shown is quite generally accepted.