Two of our writers saw Keith Hennessy's improv-based Turbulence on the same night. Jenna was sharply critical of the piece; here's Noah's response, which I'm pulling from the comments:
I am of people who really liked this show. And for all intents and purposes, following my own standards, I should have disliked it. I usually hate unscripted theatre, I am not a very big fan of dance that lacks choreography, and I usually loathe audience participation. But for whatever reason, I found this loosely structured, chaotic mess of a piece to be compelling.
Why, though? I can't say for certain (yes you can call BS). I am still making up my mind about it and why I'm continuing to think about this piece and what exactly made the impact but...
I think I liked it because it wasn't afraid to be hated.
I think I liked it because it didn't feel like a performance but a school yard game.
I think I liked it because it was messy.
I think I liked it because it wasn't trying to teach me anything or change my mind about something.
I think I liked it because it was some hippy shit, it was some 1980s San Francisco shit, and it was also its own shit.
I think I liked how genuine Hennessy was. And how that translated into the room.
I realize that what I saw and what I think I liked I will probably not see or like again as the nature of the show is to change. But I think I like that too. And I would even go on to guess that that is one of the main ideas behind the piece.
Anyone else want to weigh in?