Continuity

Recently a friend of mine commented on the importance of continuity in set design.  This is one such topic where I take a difficult position.  I would say that continuity compliance is the rule in dance composition as well as set design and many other mediums.  Except when it is not.

Let me first define continuity.  In creative fields, continuity is consistency.  In film production, the continuity supervisor makes sure that set pieces and positioning remain consistent from one shot to the next.  The set design conversation was regarding the level of realism throughout a set.  In choreography, continuity applies to several different aspects, but the most important is continuity of movement.  Is the movement vocabulary at the end of the piece consistent with that of the beginning?  If not, does the progression of the piece create a continuity which relates the two vocabularies?  A big note here is the difference between 'consistent' and 'same'.  In dance, the movement does not have to be the same to be consistent, it must only relate.  The length to which the movement can be manipulated while still relating to the rest of the piece, can only be determined on a case by case basis.

When is continuity not the rule?  When you choose to make it not the rule.  If the choreographer specifically chooses to avoid continuity (in the conventional sense) then the piece could still be successful.  And when you think about it, by choosing to avoid continuity, the choreographer has created a new continuity.  When it comes to determining the validity of such choices, see my last post about the magical 'why'.  As long as you can confidently defend your choice, you should be in the clear.