Chalamet ballet thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s said it at least three times in the past, one other time being on the Graham Norton show. I can’t remember the third, but saw a compilation.

The issue is his H U G E ego. He’s not that great of an actor, but he thinks he is. He thinks he’s above a centuries old art form. That’s the issue.

Oh please, these centuries old art forms have been sneering at people for ages. What have they done to stay relevant and accessible lately?

You’re not wrong, but my statement is true. And ballet will be here long after Chalamet. He's washed up. He’d better make some changes soon.

Your upset at his comments betrays your confidence in the future of ballet and opera.

I feel fairly confident that ballet will not only outlive Chalamet’s career, but also Chalamet himself. I could be wrong, sure; but I doubt it.

So you're just hot and bothered about his throwaway comment for no apparent reason? Just pent up rage over nothing?

I just think he needed to be brought down a few pegs and I’m glad it happening for him now. That’s all.

So you're a useful idiot in this astroturfing campaign. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

Instead of yet another zoo field trip why aren't the schools taking kids to these performances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s said it at least three times in the past, one other time being on the Graham Norton show. I can’t remember the third, but saw a compilation.

The issue is his H U G E ego. He’s not that great of an actor, but he thinks he is. He thinks he’s above a centuries old art form. That’s the issue.

Oh please, these centuries old art forms have been sneering at people for ages. What have they done to stay relevant and accessible lately?

The idea that you think ballet and opera have been "sneering" at you shows how ignorant you are. Sure, there are ballet and opera fans and patrons who have always been snobs. You'll find people like that supporting films and music too. But the art forms themselves do not "sneer." On the contrary, the actual artists in these disciplines have been innovating for centuries, and much of the entertainment you now consume owes its origins to those innovations.

I see you have never met the regular attendees or people who sit on the boards and guilds. Generally loathsome people.

Those people are already in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we move on? Enough on analyzing Chalamet’ intent. This happened with that Bob Dylan movie—a few people that spent pages upon pages trying to convince us all that we were stupid and lazy if we did not agree.

He did not win the award. He knows this process involves certain norms. He criticized those close to the community. Overall, his brand is suffering.

Let’s move on.

Everyone has moved on. We're talking about ballet and opera, not Chalamet losing the Oscar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

Instead of yet another zoo field trip why aren't the schools taking kids to these performances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s said it at least three times in the past, one other time being on the Graham Norton show. I can’t remember the third, but saw a compilation.

The issue is his H U G E ego. He’s not that great of an actor, but he thinks he is. He thinks he’s above a centuries old art form. That’s the issue.

Oh please, these centuries old art forms have been sneering at people for ages. What have they done to stay relevant and accessible lately?

You’re not wrong, but my statement is true. And ballet will be here long after Chalamet. He's washed up. He’d better make some changes soon.

Your upset at his comments betrays your confidence in the future of ballet and opera.

I feel fairly confident that ballet will not only outlive Chalamet’s career, but also Chalamet himself. I could be wrong, sure; but I doubt it.

So you're just hot and bothered about his throwaway comment for no apparent reason? Just pent up rage over nothing?

I just think he needed to be brought down a few pegs and I’m glad it happening for him now. That’s all.

So you're a useful idiot in this astroturfing campaign. Got it.

Tell us how his boots taste!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

Instead of yet another zoo field trip why aren't the schools taking kids to these performances?

Plenty of smaller professional companies come to schools for shorter curated performances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's punching down. It's a Hollywood actor who gets paid millions for everyone movie he makes and who has a big presence in popular culture (and a big voice) criticizing art forms, and by extension artists, who mostly don't make much money and have to fight to be heard or seen in a landscape filled with TikTok videos.

It's not like people in ballet and opera are under the mistaken impression that they are the center of the universe and everyone cares. They know! They know their art forms get less money and attention every year. They know it in their paychecks, ticket sales, and audiences.

It would be like if some wealthy author of romance fiction whose novels are all made into TV shows and movies and is a household name, randomly decided to say "You know I'm so glad I don't write something no one cares about, like poetry or plays. Sorry to poets and play writes I guess."

It's just like -- why be a dick about it? It's not like you see ballerinas and tenors in interviews crapping all over Chalemet movies. They were just minding their own business, making art and working hard at something few people appreciate, when one of the biggest actors in the world decided to attack them. Why? So dumb and I'm glad people went after him for it. He needs to grow up.

I don't see how it's punching down whatsoever: Ballet dancers and opera singers are enormously talented in ways actors are not, and work harder than any actor ever has. It's a different art form. It's less lucrative as a career, and it doesn't bring in crowds the way movies do, plus the field SHOULD be worried about diminishing audiences and solutions to the problem. Him bringing it up with his stupid quote was actually a happy accident because now people are talking about it and getting interested again.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that people in ballet don't understand they are dealing with diminishing audiences and cultural relevancy. THEY KNOW. It is one of the most frequent topics of conversation for the boards of these companies and for the companies themselves. Everyone feels it. Everyone knows.

There are no people in ballet or opera who think the latest production of Gisele or La Traviata is pretty much the same as the new Dune movie. They aren't stupid.

It's punching down because these communities are already well aware that they are fighting for the survival of these art forms, and Chalamet is in a position to help or lift them up, or even just be neutral, and instead he's making some offhand comment about how irrelevant and dying they are in the middle of a "town hall" with Matthew McConoughey, which he was invited to not because he's so smart and has such trenchant things to say about the state of the world or the state of art, but because he is a recognizable name.

It is 100% punching down. He didn't say anything that people in ballet/opera don't already know, but he said it in a way that was rude and condescending for absolutely no reason other than to make the point that his chosen art form is in a *slightly* healthier economic state (if he doesn't think film has its own issues, HE is the stupid one).

So if they know, what are they doing anything about it? Chalamet is annoying, but you know what? He brought a lot of people into the theater to see a stupid irrelevant ping pong movie. In terms of box office, it was one of the few outright successful movies of the year. The film industry needs more people like him to survive, and so do ballet and opera.

The fact that you don't even know what ballets, operas, and symphonies do to attract audiences mean you, like Chalamet, have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation.

Also, if the art you are making is "stupid" and "irrelevant" who cares if a bunch of people pay to watch it?

Whatever ballet and opera are currently doing to attract audiences isn’t working, which is the entire point of the conversation.

The are art forms that are inherently disadvantaged in modern day culture. They are most impactful in person, not on screen and definitely not on smart phone screens. They are largely long form in a world with a tiny attention span. They are dependent on the expertise of artists (not just dancers and singers but also musicians, choreographers, costume and set designers) who have honed their craft over decades, in a world where everyone and their brother want to be able to claim expertise on TikTok after watching a few videos.

There are modern ballets and modern operas, but the struggle to find audiences with young, general audiences because these art forms are inherently ill suited to modern sensibilities. They have social media accounts and there are ballet and opera influencers. They bring performances on smaller scales into communities that may not have seen these art forms before. They travel. They put ballet and opera on streamers and show them in movie theaters. They collaborate with pop stars and movie directors to try and find ways to make these art forms relevant to new audiences. But they are fighting a tidal wave. These art forms, to actually survive, require people to buy tickets, get dressed, go to the theater, and sit in the dark to watch a story told without words, or in another language, or that might be challenging or strange. When ballets and operas have tried to change the art form to modernize it, they wind up with a fleeting new audience who doesn't stay committed, and these experiments often turn off devoted fans who presently form their entire financial support. These art forms are dying because they are ill suited for the modern world and modern sensibilities.

The ridiculous thing about Chalamet's statement is that he said it smugly as though his own art form isn't next on the chopping block. He said it with the ignorant confidence of a young person who presumes that film will handily weather the shift to streaming, the closure of thousands of movie houses, the consolidation of production companies, and the incursion of AI, and that he will be left standing at the end with a job and a fan base. Good effing luck, Timmy, especially if your attitude towards the art forms that have met those fates before yours is "too bad so sad."

He is a moron, and so are you for not understanding all this.

Are you kidding with all this nonsense?

Stop blaming "modern sensibilities." Are you modern? Or have you time-traveled from another era?

People are people, and they are largely the same as they have always been. The reason you and anyone else currently watches ballet and opera is because at one point, you felt something when you watched these performances. They were meaningful, and so now you come back to them again and again. The issue here is that not enough people are getting the chance to see these performances to get that same kind of feeling and meaning for themselves. Things don't need to be "modernized" for people to get that feeling and meaning. There needs to be greater access -- more of a chance for people, especially young people, to see these performances.

ABT seats are mostly sold out. NYB was charging over $400 per ticket for their winter season. Even the recreational school at the local church sold out their $49 tickets near me… and we have 6 dance festivals per year in this region. Unless young people die at 29 they have plenty of time to catch up. This is not a business where people care about influencer traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's punching down. It's a Hollywood actor who gets paid millions for everyone movie he makes and who has a big presence in popular culture (and a big voice) criticizing art forms, and by extension artists, who mostly don't make much money and have to fight to be heard or seen in a landscape filled with TikTok videos.

It's not like people in ballet and opera are under the mistaken impression that they are the center of the universe and everyone cares. They know! They know their art forms get less money and attention every year. They know it in their paychecks, ticket sales, and audiences.

It would be like if some wealthy author of romance fiction whose novels are all made into TV shows and movies and is a household name, randomly decided to say "You know I'm so glad I don't write something no one cares about, like poetry or plays. Sorry to poets and play writes I guess."

It's just like -- why be a dick about it? It's not like you see ballerinas and tenors in interviews crapping all over Chalemet movies. They were just minding their own business, making art and working hard at something few people appreciate, when one of the biggest actors in the world decided to attack them. Why? So dumb and I'm glad people went after him for it. He needs to grow up.

I don't see how it's punching down whatsoever: Ballet dancers and opera singers are enormously talented in ways actors are not, and work harder than any actor ever has. It's a different art form. It's less lucrative as a career, and it doesn't bring in crowds the way movies do, plus the field SHOULD be worried about diminishing audiences and solutions to the problem. Him bringing it up with his stupid quote was actually a happy accident because now people are talking about it and getting interested again.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that people in ballet don't understand they are dealing with diminishing audiences and cultural relevancy. THEY KNOW. It is one of the most frequent topics of conversation for the boards of these companies and for the companies themselves. Everyone feels it. Everyone knows.

There are no people in ballet or opera who think the latest production of Gisele or La Traviata is pretty much the same as the new Dune movie. They aren't stupid.

It's punching down because these communities are already well aware that they are fighting for the survival of these art forms, and Chalamet is in a position to help or lift them up, or even just be neutral, and instead he's making some offhand comment about how irrelevant and dying they are in the middle of a "town hall" with Matthew McConoughey, which he was invited to not because he's so smart and has such trenchant things to say about the state of the world or the state of art, but because he is a recognizable name.

It is 100% punching down. He didn't say anything that people in ballet/opera don't already know, but he said it in a way that was rude and condescending for absolutely no reason other than to make the point that his chosen art form is in a *slightly* healthier economic state (if he doesn't think film has its own issues, HE is the stupid one).

So if they know, what are they doing anything about it? Chalamet is annoying, but you know what? He brought a lot of people into the theater to see a stupid irrelevant ping pong movie. In terms of box office, it was one of the few outright successful movies of the year. The film industry needs more people like him to survive, and so do ballet and opera.

The fact that you don't even know what ballets, operas, and symphonies do to attract audiences mean you, like Chalamet, have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation.

Also, if the art you are making is "stupid" and "irrelevant" who cares if a bunch of people pay to watch it?

Whatever ballet and opera are currently doing to attract audiences isn’t working, which is the entire point of the conversation.

The are art forms that are inherently disadvantaged in modern day culture. They are most impactful in person, not on screen and definitely not on smart phone screens. They are largely long form in a world with a tiny attention span. They are dependent on the expertise of artists (not just dancers and singers but also musicians, choreographers, costume and set designers) who have honed their craft over decades, in a world where everyone and their brother want to be able to claim expertise on TikTok after watching a few videos.

There are modern ballets and modern operas, but the struggle to find audiences with young, general audiences because these art forms are inherently ill suited to modern sensibilities. They have social media accounts and there are ballet and opera influencers. They bring performances on smaller scales into communities that may not have seen these art forms before. They travel. They put ballet and opera on streamers and show them in movie theaters. They collaborate with pop stars and movie directors to try and find ways to make these art forms relevant to new audiences. But they are fighting a tidal wave. These art forms, to actually survive, require people to buy tickets, get dressed, go to the theater, and sit in the dark to watch a story told without words, or in another language, or that might be challenging or strange. When ballets and operas have tried to change the art form to modernize it, they wind up with a fleeting new audience who doesn't stay committed, and these experiments often turn off devoted fans who presently form their entire financial support. These art forms are dying because they are ill suited for the modern world and modern sensibilities.

The ridiculous thing about Chalamet's statement is that he said it smugly as though his own art form isn't next on the chopping block. He said it with the ignorant confidence of a young person who presumes that film will handily weather the shift to streaming, the closure of thousands of movie houses, the consolidation of production companies, and the incursion of AI, and that he will be left standing at the end with a job and a fan base. Good effing luck, Timmy, especially if your attitude towards the art forms that have met those fates before yours is "too bad so sad."

He is a moron, and so are you for not understanding all this.

Are you kidding with all this nonsense?

Stop blaming "modern sensibilities." Are you modern? Or have you time-traveled from another era?

People are people, and they are largely the same as they have always been. The reason you and anyone else currently watches ballet and opera is because at one point, you felt something when you watched these performances. They were meaningful, and so now you come back to them again and again. The issue here is that not enough people are getting the chance to see these performances to get that same kind of feeling and meaning for themselves. Things don't need to be "modernized" for people to get that feeling and meaning. There needs to be greater access -- more of a chance for people, especially young people, to see these performances.

ABT seats are mostly sold out. NYB was charging over $400 per ticket for their winter season. Even the recreational school at the local church sold out their $49 tickets near me… and we have 6 dance festivals per year in this region. Unless young people die at 29 they have plenty of time to catch up. This is not a business where people care about influencer traffic.

I think the prices you list are the issue. It's great if that's "your thing" but it means most people who might enjoy ballet but are not passionate about it will simply not go because they have to make choices. It used to be different even just a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

Instead of yet another zoo field trip why aren't the schools taking kids to these performances?

One reason is that schools, pushed by parents, focus less on the arts in general. There has been a push to focus on STEM. A lot of parents would say "what's the point" about a ballet company coming and doing a short performance for the kids, but they'll be thrilled at a science demonstration even if it's hack-y and not particularly informative. Parents don't want their kids going into the arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's punching down. It's a Hollywood actor who gets paid millions for everyone movie he makes and who has a big presence in popular culture (and a big voice) criticizing art forms, and by extension artists, who mostly don't make much money and have to fight to be heard or seen in a landscape filled with TikTok videos.

It's not like people in ballet and opera are under the mistaken impression that they are the center of the universe and everyone cares. They know! They know their art forms get less money and attention every year. They know it in their paychecks, ticket sales, and audiences.

It would be like if some wealthy author of romance fiction whose novels are all made into TV shows and movies and is a household name, randomly decided to say "You know I'm so glad I don't write something no one cares about, like poetry or plays. Sorry to poets and play writes I guess."

It's just like -- why be a dick about it? It's not like you see ballerinas and tenors in interviews crapping all over Chalemet movies. They were just minding their own business, making art and working hard at something few people appreciate, when one of the biggest actors in the world decided to attack them. Why? So dumb and I'm glad people went after him for it. He needs to grow up.

I don't see how it's punching down whatsoever: Ballet dancers and opera singers are enormously talented in ways actors are not, and work harder than any actor ever has. It's a different art form. It's less lucrative as a career, and it doesn't bring in crowds the way movies do, plus the field SHOULD be worried about diminishing audiences and solutions to the problem. Him bringing it up with his stupid quote was actually a happy accident because now people are talking about it and getting interested again.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that people in ballet don't understand they are dealing with diminishing audiences and cultural relevancy. THEY KNOW. It is one of the most frequent topics of conversation for the boards of these companies and for the companies themselves. Everyone feels it. Everyone knows.

There are no people in ballet or opera who think the latest production of Gisele or La Traviata is pretty much the same as the new Dune movie. They aren't stupid.

It's punching down because these communities are already well aware that they are fighting for the survival of these art forms, and Chalamet is in a position to help or lift them up, or even just be neutral, and instead he's making some offhand comment about how irrelevant and dying they are in the middle of a "town hall" with Matthew McConoughey, which he was invited to not because he's so smart and has such trenchant things to say about the state of the world or the state of art, but because he is a recognizable name.

It is 100% punching down. He didn't say anything that people in ballet/opera don't already know, but he said it in a way that was rude and condescending for absolutely no reason other than to make the point that his chosen art form is in a *slightly* healthier economic state (if he doesn't think film has its own issues, HE is the stupid one).

So if they know, what are they doing anything about it? Chalamet is annoying, but you know what? He brought a lot of people into the theater to see a stupid irrelevant ping pong movie. In terms of box office, it was one of the few outright successful movies of the year. The film industry needs more people like him to survive, and so do ballet and opera.

The fact that you don't even know what ballets, operas, and symphonies do to attract audiences mean you, like Chalamet, have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation.

Also, if the art you are making is "stupid" and "irrelevant" who cares if a bunch of people pay to watch it?

Whatever ballet and opera are currently doing to attract audiences isn’t working, which is the entire point of the conversation.

The are art forms that are inherently disadvantaged in modern day culture. They are most impactful in person, not on screen and definitely not on smart phone screens. They are largely long form in a world with a tiny attention span. They are dependent on the expertise of artists (not just dancers and singers but also musicians, choreographers, costume and set designers) who have honed their craft over decades, in a world where everyone and their brother want to be able to claim expertise on TikTok after watching a few videos.

There are modern ballets and modern operas, but the struggle to find audiences with young, general audiences because these art forms are inherently ill suited to modern sensibilities. They have social media accounts and there are ballet and opera influencers. They bring performances on smaller scales into communities that may not have seen these art forms before. They travel. They put ballet and opera on streamers and show them in movie theaters. They collaborate with pop stars and movie directors to try and find ways to make these art forms relevant to new audiences. But they are fighting a tidal wave. These art forms, to actually survive, require people to buy tickets, get dressed, go to the theater, and sit in the dark to watch a story told without words, or in another language, or that might be challenging or strange. When ballets and operas have tried to change the art form to modernize it, they wind up with a fleeting new audience who doesn't stay committed, and these experiments often turn off devoted fans who presently form their entire financial support. These art forms are dying because they are ill suited for the modern world and modern sensibilities.

The ridiculous thing about Chalamet's statement is that he said it smugly as though his own art form isn't next on the chopping block. He said it with the ignorant confidence of a young person who presumes that film will handily weather the shift to streaming, the closure of thousands of movie houses, the consolidation of production companies, and the incursion of AI, and that he will be left standing at the end with a job and a fan base. Good effing luck, Timmy, especially if your attitude towards the art forms that have met those fates before yours is "too bad so sad."

He is a moron, and so are you for not understanding all this.

Are you kidding with all this nonsense?

Stop blaming "modern sensibilities." Are you modern? Or have you time-traveled from another era?

People are people, and they are largely the same as they have always been. The reason you and anyone else currently watches ballet and opera is because at one point, you felt something when you watched these performances. They were meaningful, and so now you come back to them again and again. The issue here is that not enough people are getting the chance to see these performances to get that same kind of feeling and meaning for themselves. Things don't need to be "modernized" for people to get that feeling and meaning. There needs to be greater access -- more of a chance for people, especially young people, to see these performances.

ABT seats are mostly sold out. NYB was charging over $400 per ticket for their winter season. Even the recreational school at the local church sold out their $49 tickets near me… and we have 6 dance festivals per year in this region. Unless young people die at 29 they have plenty of time to catch up. This is not a business where people care about influencer traffic.

I think the prices you list are the issue. It's great if that's "your thing" but it means most people who might enjoy ballet but are not passionate about it will simply not go because they have to make choices. It used to be different even just a decade ago.

You can experience dance and opera for much less. You can go see live opera projected at movie theaters, for instance, for the cost of a movie ticket. And there are a broad range of ballet and modern dance performances at every price range.

A lot of the problem is a lack of awareness or education. Because schools don't teach classical art, and parents don't encourage that knowledge, so people are just ignorant. And that makes these worlds seem unattainable or intimidating. But they aren't. Especially in a city like DC, you hav lots of choice. Sure, seeing NYCB at Lincoln Center in NY will cost a lot of money -- that's how it should be. But you can see college ballet or a small company for far less, there are free performances of opera and classical music in DC all the time, etc. Plus listening to opera or streaming ballet performances. It's actually very accessible.

Not everyone can afford to go see pop stars perform live -- the tickets are often several multiples more expensive than the most expensive ballet or opera tickets. But just as you can listen to Taylor Swift or Olivia Rodrigo on Spotify, so to can you listen to a Metropolitan Opera production or see a local ballet company or watch a documentary on ballet on Netflix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

Instead of yet another zoo field trip why aren't the schools taking kids to these performances?

One reason is that schools, pushed by parents, focus less on the arts in general. There has been a push to focus on STEM. A lot of parents would say "what's the point" about a ballet company coming and doing a short performance for the kids, but they'll be thrilled at a science demonstration even if it's hack-y and not particularly informative. Parents don't want their kids going into the arts.

I don't see how the goal of watching a performance is to push kids to go into the arts. Band programs take kids to see orchestras and musicals frequently. Almost none of these kids will pursue music in college, but it is not a waste to appreciate a show and gain an appreciation for the arts generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

Instead of yet another zoo field trip why aren't the schools taking kids to these performances?

One reason is that schools, pushed by parents, focus less on the arts in general. There has been a push to focus on STEM. A lot of parents would say "what's the point" about a ballet company coming and doing a short performance for the kids, but they'll be thrilled at a science demonstration even if it's hack-y and not particularly informative. Parents don't want their kids going into the arts.

I don't see how the goal of watching a performance is to push kids to go into the arts. Band programs take kids to see orchestras and musicals frequently. Almost none of these kids will pursue music in college, but it is not a waste to appreciate a show and gain an appreciation for the arts generally.

I agree with you and want more arts in schools. But this is what I've seen over the last decade or so in working with PTAs and admin and planning programming for schools. the most vocal push is for more STEM, and a surprising number of people just view the arts as a waste of time. I'm an advocate for arts programming so I argue against it, but plenty of people don't want to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s said it at least three times in the past, one other time being on the Graham Norton show. I can’t remember the third, but saw a compilation.

The issue is his H U G E ego. He’s not that great of an actor, but he thinks he is. He thinks he’s above a centuries old art form. That’s the issue.

Oh please, these centuries old art forms have been sneering at people for ages. What have they done to stay relevant and accessible lately?

You’re not wrong, but my statement is true. And ballet will be here long after Chalamet. He's washed up. He’d better make some changes soon.

Your upset at his comments betrays your confidence in the future of ballet and opera.

I feel fairly confident that ballet will not only outlive Chalamet’s career, but also Chalamet himself. I could be wrong, sure; but I doubt it.

So you're just hot and bothered about his throwaway comment for no apparent reason? Just pent up rage over nothing?

I just think he needed to be brought down a few pegs and I’m glad it happening for him now. That’s all.

So you're a useful idiot in this astroturfing campaign. Got it.

Tell us how his boots taste!

Lol what’s it like to be so gullible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've gotten a bunch of instagram ads for ballet yesterday and today, and one mentioned "tickets as low as $29" so obviously it IS having a positive effect.

Chalamet has brought more attention to ballet and opera than they've had in years. They should be grateful.

Wish some rich people/foundations/organizations would now make a huge push and give out free tickets en masse to schools, etc., to get people by the truckload to see what they've been missing.

I like ballet but find it really inaccessible. The ballet sfficinados mostly sneer at the narrative stuff, especially nutcracker and the other old school stuff, but that is what is most accessible if you don’t know the intricacies of the dance. I like a story and costumes.
My favorite ballet ever was tj version of Alice in wonderland that the national ballet did about 15 years ago. The set designs and the costumes and performance value was amazing and the dancers were really athletic. I suspect the people who know ballet thought that show was pandering or sometime but it was SO MUCH FUN. (There was a big where they shrink and they had child dancers dressed in the same costumes and downsized the background and it honestly took me a couple minutes to figure out how they were shrinking the dancers!).
I often feel like the ballet folks don’t want it to be popular art—-which is fine I guess but then they shouldn’t complain when average people who like pop culture things say “Ballet is boring.”