Chalamet ballet thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that what all these arts people on boards/foundations/organizations should be doing. They should be showing people why art is just as if not more important than STEM. They should be regularly lobbying to get arts funding in schools, free tickets and transportation to shows to youth, etc.

[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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

[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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

NP-Exactly. I was interested because I went sometimes when younger. But the $400 tickets are a huge issue even when interested: Only superfans or wealthy people can afford/justify these prices. As for cheaper local productions, sure, it's nice but near me at least they are also expensive and do not have the same level of set designs and "wow" factor, so someone who is not an afficionado will not get as gripped by it. I'm not sure what the solution is but it's undeniable ticket costs have risen much more than people's incomes have.

[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.

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.”

Exactly. They don't really want to rub should with the unwashed masses who won't bother dressing up for a night out. I think they are perfectly fine with Chalamet recognizing that his fans and the ballet fans have almost no overlap. They are perfectly fine to keep it that way.

[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.

That's Fairfax tiger mom school. If you step outside of this area a lot of schools have great arts and theatre programs.

[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.

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.”

A lot of companies don't have the budget for beautiful customs so they do Balanchine work, which is kind of quirky and takes some level of dance savviness to get into. I studied dance for 7 years including in academic setting and it was only in my 30s I started to like Balanchine.

DC ballet did Giselle this year and the Act 1 custom was disappointing. they all look like romantic era homeless people.

[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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

That's not true. I regularly attend open adult classes and half of the community are adults who got into ballet in their 30s, 40s and 50s... they take classes and go to performances together, and they often stick around for decades. The retired ones often volunteer at art festivals. If you are talking based on your own imagination maybe keep an open mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how it's been hyped to such a point. He made one stupid comment, immediately said (because I looked up the whole quote) that he didn't even know why he said that and no disrespect to ballet, AND his own mom is a former ballerina with the New York City Ballet and his grandma and sister also were ballerinas! It seems crazy people are saying it cost him the Oscar and he's now so hated because of it and people are tearing him down for it.

Chalamet didn't lose it because he said that. Michael B. Jordan earned it. He was the better actor. Did you miss him saying about women's main purpose is to have kids and if you don't than you areliving a bleak life? He doesn't have any kids!

That’s not what he said. He said he saw a person bragging about not having kids and thought that was bleak. I too would find a person bragging about not having kids bleak, just as I would find a person bragging about kids bleak. Why brag about your choice?? Some people think their purpose is to have kids, some don’t. Neither needs to brag about it.

Maybe they are celebrating it? And btw, where is his little children? Is his life 'bleak' because he doesn't have any?

[Anonymous]

I think he’s a good actor but I got tired of him this awards season. It would be great if he could come back a bit more mature, but maybe comments like this ballet one are really him (cocky and a bit immature).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how it's been hyped to such a point. He made one stupid comment, immediately said (because I looked up the whole quote) that he didn't even know why he said that and no disrespect to ballet, AND his own mom is a former ballerina with the New York City Ballet and his grandma and sister also were ballerinas! It seems crazy people are saying it cost him the Oscar and he's now so hated because of it and people are tearing him down for it.

Chalamet didn't lose it because he said that. Michael B. Jordan earned it. He was the better actor. Did you miss him saying about women's main purpose is to have kids and if you don't than you areliving a bleak life? He doesn't have any kids!

That’s not what he said. He said he saw a person bragging about not having kids and thought that was bleak. I too would find a person bragging about not having kids bleak, just as I would find a person bragging about kids bleak. Why brag about your choice?? Some people think their purpose is to have kids, some don’t. Neither needs to brag about it.

Maybe they are celebrating it? And btw, where is his little children? Is his life 'bleak' because he doesn't have any?

Not having kids isn’t bleak. What’s bleak is bragging about not having kids.

[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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

(NP) I got interested in ballet when I was younger — after being taken to see the Nutcracker, and I took ballet lessons for a couple of years.
Despite being exposed to classical music and some opera, and playing music in school, classical music and opera didn’t really click for me until I was in my 50s — and learned that opera was a structure that could include many influences, including jazz. So, exposure helps, and early exposure helps, but some of us are lifelong learners, so it’s not always possible to know when and how new interests will develop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

(NP) I got interested in ballet when I was younger — after being taken to see the Nutcracker, and I took ballet lessons for a couple of years.
Despite being exposed to classical music and some opera, and playing music in school, classical music and opera didn’t really click for me until I was in my 50s — and learned that opera was a structure that could include many influences, including jazz. So, exposure helps, and early exposure helps, but some of us are lifelong learners, so it’s not always possible to know when and how new interests will develop.

I'm a lifelong learner, but I'm not dropping $400 on a ballet ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

(NP) I got interested in ballet when I was younger — after being taken to see the Nutcracker, and I took ballet lessons for a couple of years.
Despite being exposed to classical music and some opera, and playing music in school, classical music and opera didn’t really click for me until I was in my 50s — and learned that opera was a structure that could include many influences, including jazz. So, exposure helps, and early exposure helps, but some of us are lifelong learners, so it’s not always possible to know when and how new interests will develop.

I'm a lifelong learner, but I'm not dropping $400 on a ballet ticket.

It’s actually not outrageous for live performances, have you checked tickets for Hamilton, Cello concert by Yoyo Ma, piano concert by ludovico einaudi, or Taylor swift? Even wrestling matches - the big games start from 600+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

(NP) I got interested in ballet when I was younger — after being taken to see the Nutcracker, and I took ballet lessons for a couple of years.
Despite being exposed to classical music and some opera, and playing music in school, classical music and opera didn’t really click for me until I was in my 50s — and learned that opera was a structure that could include many influences, including jazz. So, exposure helps, and early exposure helps, but some of us are lifelong learners, so it’s not always possible to know when and how new interests will develop.

I'm a lifelong learner, but I'm not dropping $400 on a ballet ticket.

It’s actually not outrageous for live performances, have you checked tickets for Hamilton, Cello concert by Yoyo Ma, piano concert by ludovico einaudi, or Taylor swift? Even wrestling matches - the big games start from 600+

Everyone charging outrageous prices does not make a price not outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When did you first get interested in watching ballet? When you were older than 29? I bet not. If you don’t get people interested when they are young, what makes you think they’ll want to buy $400 tickets when they’re older?

(NP) I got interested in ballet when I was younger — after being taken to see the Nutcracker, and I took ballet lessons for a couple of years.
Despite being exposed to classical music and some opera, and playing music in school, classical music and opera didn’t really click for me until I was in my 50s — and learned that opera was a structure that could include many influences, including jazz. So, exposure helps, and early exposure helps, but some of us are lifelong learners, so it’s not always possible to know when and how new interests will develop.

I'm a lifelong learner, but I'm not dropping $400 on a ballet ticket.

It’s actually not outrageous for live performances, have you checked tickets for Hamilton, Cello concert by Yoyo Ma, piano concert by ludovico einaudi, or Taylor swift? Even wrestling matches - the big games start from 600+

Everyone charging outrageous prices does not make a price not outrageous.

DP but while I agree these prices are outrageous, they also just reflect the real costs of life productions. The argument is that ballet and opera are dying art forms because they are too expensive and out of reach for too many people. But that argument doesn't make sense when you can see a ballet or opera for the same or even less than a popular musical or musical act.

Also FWIW I've gotten tickets to the ballet for under $100/each like 8 or 9 times in the last couple years. Washington Ballet, ABT, Kirov, etc. They are nosebleeds but the show is still good and I've taken my daughter who enjoys ballet. It's like do you want to see Olivia Rodrigo one time or to the ballet 8 times? I know a lot of kids would just choose Rodrigo but my kid chooses ballet.

I don't think cost is the reason ballet is dying. I think it's that is slower, harder to follow and understand, not "cool", etc. It's niche. My kid is a ballet nerd, but she knows her interest isn't shared by most of her classmates. Even among her ballet classmates, most don't value going to the ballet that much. It's like loving a more niche sport instead of soccer or basketball. Most kids aren't super into archery. It's not because archery is too expensive.