{shortcode-cd3da2dadc6b6cb408d7108fea923bef2706660b}

Walking into Lowell Lecture Hall, replete with the shrieks and laughs of a rowdy audience, no one would expect the Harvard Asian American Dance Troupe’s latest staging of “Horizon” to carry itself with anything resembling classical poise. But with a brief dimming of the lights and the entrance of the Flagship dance, “Horizon” immediately demonstrated the puzzling juxtapositions that would become the pattern of the night. A heritage performance rooted in traditional Asian dance styles, the Flagship dance embodied the scenes of an outdoor harvest with an elegance and grace that ebbed and flowed much like the music to which it was set.

Yet anybody expecting this style to continue throughout the show was rudely surprised upon the arrival of the next performance, “wat3rfall.” A b-boy-inspired dance influenced heavily by the funk rhythms of its accompaniment, it used fluid dance moves interspersed with manic moments to evoke a waterfall. But even this performance was followed by another stylistic change — indicated by the switch from black to white outfits for the next performance, “XOXO, 2000.” Inspired by various eras of K-pop, the dance was far more energetic and vigorous than the previous performances. These dances were a nice segue into the catchiness of “Like Clockwork,” which journeyed through the dances, music, and fashion of South Asia.

One of the best performances of the first act came in “fleeting snowfall,” which carried itself with an infectious enthusiasm that made it instantly enjoyable. The performance’s cutesiness, a style not previously explored in the show, fit perfectly with the love songs to which the routine was set. Despite being a larger group, their cohesiveness and excellent usage of stage space made it one of the most compelling performances.

The final performance of the first act, “IDOL,” summed up the first act nicely with its combination of the slow moves of the earlier dances and the energy of the latter performances, a high note that brought good dancing and music together to tie up the first act.

But it was after this point in the show that the problems with “Horizon” began. Should it have been a single act, “Horizon” would have succeeded in AADT’s goal of demonstrating the diversity of Asian culture through dance. However, in the second act, the most significant weaknesses of the show become increasingly difficult to ignore. With every performance that passed, it seemed that instead of developing a unique style for each of the performances, many of the dances were simply the same few dance moves rearranged to give the impression of novelty.

This is not to say there was nothing original in the second act. Rather, the seductive and exotic moves incorporated into “Rapture” gave it a salaciousness that set it apart from the rest of the show, and the company’s dance, despite being the efforts of largely amateur dancers, embraced the simplicity of their routine.

Yet many of the other performances did not capture this same zeal. While the hip-hop-inspired moves of the first act’s “wat3rfall” were engaging, the same moves rehashed in the second act’s “hustle” came off as uninspired. To make matters worse, the penultimate performance, “wow, that’s hot,” was billed as a celebration of femininity and sexuality — its cabaret form should have been a liberation of the female form in dance. Instead, it simply demonstrated the limits of the show’s choreography, another variant of the same moves that had been worn out over the duration of performances.

But the biggest issue with “Horizon” was that it tried to be too many things at once — a dance performance, a sentimental reunion of alumni and current members, and also a storyline in which a Chinese farmer is transported to the modern day. With few transitions between these various sections, it was often disorienting to follow along.

There was no better example of this than the board’s small ceremony prior to the final performance of the night, “BEYOND,” which did little other than to sap the energy that had built up throughout the second act. As for the performance itself, being that of AADT’s competition team, it had high standards to meet, but the innovative choreography and fervor of each of the performers more than rose to the occasion. It was the sort of performance that the second act should have embodied.

AADT’s “Horizon” was by no means a bad show — it soared in its highest moments, of which there were many. But it was simply too long and too meaninglessly complex. Its storyline bordered on the cringeworthy, and its dances, no matter how good they may have been, were repetitive. The show itself felt more like a greatest hits album — in no small part due to the presence of the alumni in the audience — rather than a substantial artistic contribution that could stand on its own. Yet while the lack of artistic direction created a muddled show that lumbered to its ever-more-appealing conclusion, the dancers’ passion imbued it with a spirit that left the audience wanting more.