Chalamet ballet thing

[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.

Prices are determined by demand. For the same concert in Estonia, no one is gonna show up at $600.

Last year Yo-yo Ma in Maryland went up to 1k/ticket and I couldn’t even score one.

If you don’t go to live performances it’s ok. Your opinion matters as much as Starbucks concern about a tea drinkers opinion.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

[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:

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.

Prices are determined by demand. For the same concert in Estonia, no one is gonna show up at $600.

Last year Yo-yo Ma in Maryland went up to 1k/ticket and I couldn’t even score one.

If you don’t go to live performances it’s ok. Your opinion matters as much as Starbucks concern about a tea drinkers opinion.

Funny analogy since Starbucks is now trying to attract tea drinkers.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Movies suck in recent years. If I don’t watch ballet I rather play a video game with thoughtful story telling and great music. Some game music are, gasp, classical and award winning.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Some movies are like opera (or at least the directors want them to be) and some are like sports (at the behest of streamers who want to make their content accessible to people who will not actually watch it but just put it on while looking at phones).

I think most people who care about film would prefer it be more like opera (in that people go see it in theaters and also invest their entire attention in it rather than second screening). If film goes the way of sports, it will be a less appealing art form to artists. Not just because it's less fun to create something for a person who will barely pay attention to it, but also because sports has built it's current audience in part on interactive content like sports betting, and I don't know that someone like Chalamet will be enthusiastic about their art form heading that direction.

The interesting thing about Chalamet's comments is that they sound like truth telling but they might reveal something unsettling in 10 years or so. Chalamet is glad film is not "dying" like ballet and opera. But in the current attention economy, you avoid death by making your content palatable to screen-addicted people with short attention spans. Ballet and opera are failing at it. Film is "succeeding". For now. What does that mean a decade or two from now? Especially with this Paramount merger, I'm not sure it means more interesting, engaging movies like Mary Supreme. I think it means more 8-part limited Amazon series based on existing IP where the characters repeatedly explain the entire plot of the show so that someone playing a game on their phone can follow without watching.

Chalamet might feel smug now. We'll see how he feels in a few years.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Some movies are like opera (or at least the directors want them to be) and some are like sports (at the behest of streamers who want to make their content accessible to people who will not actually watch it but just put it on while looking at phones).

I think most people who care about film would prefer it be more like opera (in that people go see it in theaters and also invest their entire attention in it rather than second screening). If film goes the way of sports, it will be a less appealing art form to artists. Not just because it's less fun to create something for a person who will barely pay attention to it, but also because sports has built it's current audience in part on interactive content like sports betting, and I don't know that someone like Chalamet will be enthusiastic about their art form heading that direction.

The interesting thing about Chalamet's comments is that they sound like truth telling but they might reveal something unsettling in 10 years or so. Chalamet is glad film is not "dying" like ballet and opera. But in the current attention economy, you avoid death by making your content palatable to screen-addicted people with short attention spans. Ballet and opera are failing at it. Film is "succeeding". For now. What does that mean a decade or two from now? Especially with this Paramount merger, I'm not sure it means more interesting, engaging movies like Mary Supreme. I think it means more 8-part limited Amazon series based on existing IP where the characters repeatedly explain the entire plot of the show so that someone playing a game on their phone can follow without watching.

Chalamet might feel smug now. We'll see how he feels in a few years.

A good movie or quality work will always be fine. Before we had streaming we had crappy straight to video movies that no one cared about but still managed to make a little bit of money. Streaming content is basically the crappy B movies, they will always exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People should focus on ICE, Iran, women’s rights. This is stupid and he is young.

He is 30+.

Not young

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should focus on ICE, Iran, women’s rights. This is stupid and he is young.

He is 30+.

Not young

He’s 30. People here on DCUM are older and say dumber things all the time.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Movies suck in recent years. If I don’t watch ballet I rather play a video game with thoughtful story telling and great music. Some game music are, gasp, classical and award winning.

I watched all 10 of the Oscar best picture nominees this year and they were all a waste of my time. Sinners and OBAA had a few interesting moments, but so much boring filler.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Movies suck in recent years. If I don’t watch ballet I rather play a video game with thoughtful story telling and great music. Some game music are, gasp, classical and award winning.

I watched all 10 of the Oscar best picture nominees this year and they were all a waste of my time. Sinners and OBAA had a few interesting moments, but so much boring filler.

+1. I won’t watch movies in theaters anymore because I can’t fast forward past the boring parts. Frankenstein didn’t even get interesting until the second half.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Some movies are like opera (or at least the directors want them to be) and some are like sports (at the behest of streamers who want to make their content accessible to people who will not actually watch it but just put it on while looking at phones).

I think most people who care about film would prefer it be more like opera (in that people go see it in theaters and also invest their entire attention in it rather than second screening). If film goes the way of sports, it will be a less appealing art form to artists. Not just because it's less fun to create something for a person who will barely pay attention to it, but also because sports has built it's current audience in part on interactive content like sports betting, and I don't know that someone like Chalamet will be enthusiastic about their art form heading that direction.

The interesting thing about Chalamet's comments is that they sound like truth telling but they might reveal something unsettling in 10 years or so. Chalamet is glad film is not "dying" like ballet and opera. But in the current attention economy, you avoid death by making your content palatable to screen-addicted people with short attention spans. Ballet and opera are failing at it. Film is "succeeding". For now. What does that mean a decade or two from now? Especially with this Paramount merger, I'm not sure it means more interesting, engaging movies like Mary Supreme. I think it means more 8-part limited Amazon series based on existing IP where the characters repeatedly explain the entire plot of the show so that someone playing a game on their phone can follow without watching.

Chalamet might feel smug now. We'll see how he feels in a few years.

A good movie or quality work will always be fine. Before we had streaming we had crappy straight to video movies that no one cared about but still managed to make a little bit of money. Streaming content is basically the crappy B movies, they will always exist.

There is real anxiety in the movie industry that it is becoming increasingly hard to make high quality movies. The industry is shifting in ways that are going to be hard to undo. This includes:

- The flow of capital to streamers rather than studio and independent filmmakers. The "crappy B movies" that are being made for streamers aren't cheap and in many cases are getting huge, and expensive, development deals to make limited series or content based on existing IP. The tilt of power is away from traditional movie studios like Warner Brothers (which is getting gobbled up in the Paramount deal) and towards major streamers. That means less money and focus on making feature films and more money and focus on making palatable streaming content for people to watch at home while looking at their phones.

- Unwillingness from American studios to invest in original stories. The push right now is to exploit "existing IP." That means more reboots, sequels, film franchises, and content based on board games and toys, and less money for original scripts that tell new stories. I just mentioned Warner Brothers. They made two of the best and most original movies of 2025 -- Sinners and One Battle After Another. Both with original scripts, OBAA was loosely based on a Pynchon novel but not a corporate property. This was a big deal in the industry because both had actual theater releases and did pretty well at the box office -- they made money. It felt like a way forward for an industry that has been making movies based on Mattel toys and video games for the last few years (plus Christopher Nolan). There was already anxiety about Netflix buying WB but Ted Sarandos (Netflix CEO) had reassured people that he wanted to keep making real movies, with theater releases, and not just pivot everything to streaming. But then the hostile bid from Paramount came along, and the Ellisons don't ive a flying f*** about making good movies. Paramount has already been jettisoning original projects and consolidating behind existing IP, even before the HBO/WB merger. There's real fear that with the Ellisons owning so much of Hollywood and have very little interest in making actual movies, it's going to be hard to make good, compelling movies soon unless you can find a way to base it on a comic book character or a breakfast cereal.

- Closure of movie theaters. These theaters can't stay open if they don't have movies to show, and 20 showings a day of Dune 3 might not cut it. When theaters close, it makes the expense and effort of doing a theater release less cost effective, because it's fewer screens and tickets to help offset the cost of promotion and distribution. When fewer movies can theater releases, that means more straight to streaming content. Which means more "second screen" content and fewer movies intended to really capture the audience's full attention.

- AI. Just: AI. The threat of human creatives losing their jobs to robots, and audiences who aren't really watching in the first place failing to notice the difference. We aren't there yet, but there are people working hard to get us there.

The assumption that the film industry will chug along as it always has because, ugh, at least it's not a dying art form like opera and ballet is an insanely myopic viewpoint. Go back to the late 19th century and ask Verdi or Wagner if opera was dying when it was packing opera houses all over Europe for premier after premier and money and attention was flowing their direction from all corners of the world. Things change. And they change faster now than they did when Wagner was doing his thing -- he had to wait for electricity to spread and railroads to be built and people to get cars and radios before opera started to decline. It took decades. But the trends impacting the film industry are happening on a shortened timeline of years or in some cases, months.

[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:

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.

ABT has $30 tickets for under 30s. So it’s way more accessible to young people compared to wresting matches or Taylor swift.

For 100 you are likely seeing contemporary works, still beautiful but less lavish tutus. The latter is somehow super important to me lol.

You can see classical ballets for that amount too. I've seen sleeping beauty, gisele, some others I'm forgetting in recent years for 70-80 per ticket.

Also often a company is using costumes and sets that are 50 years old, whether it's a Balanchine production or Coppelia. So the classical and romantic ballets are not necessarily more expensive to put up. And it can be easier to sell tickets to these, because they have a story and are easier to sell to families with kids, so these can actually be some of the more economical parts of the season. Whereas a mixed bill of Balanchine and newer works will be the one the company and ballet nerds get excited about, but they know it will be a tougher sell for tickets.

Also for most companies, the Nutcracker is where they recoup all their costs/raise the money, and it's a lavish production to Tchaikovsky with generally modern choreography (often Balanchine!). So it's just not true that companies are doing modern works because they are more affordable. It's more complex. Companies are trying to do a mix to please different audience demands and their own artistic goals.

It's very obvious the "money" angle is just a cop-out. Sports stadiums are packed, orchestras are not always, even with low-cost options.
And it's OK for us to be honest with ourselves about it. Should movies be more like sports (essentially second screen content) or more like the opera?

Some movies are like opera (or at least the directors want them to be) and some are like sports (at the behest of streamers who want to make their content accessible to people who will not actually watch it but just put it on while looking at phones).

I think most people who care about film would prefer it be more like opera (in that people go see it in theaters and also invest their entire attention in it rather than second screening). If film goes the way of sports, it will be a less appealing art form to artists. Not just because it's less fun to create something for a person who will barely pay attention to it, but also because sports has built it's current audience in part on interactive content like sports betting, and I don't know that someone like Chalamet will be enthusiastic about their art form heading that direction.

The interesting thing about Chalamet's comments is that they sound like truth telling but they might reveal something unsettling in 10 years or so. Chalamet is glad film is not "dying" like ballet and opera. But in the current attention economy, you avoid death by making your content palatable to screen-addicted people with short attention spans. Ballet and opera are failing at it. Film is "succeeding". For now. What does that mean a decade or two from now? Especially with this Paramount merger, I'm not sure it means more interesting, engaging movies like Mary Supreme. I think it means more 8-part limited Amazon series based on existing IP where the characters repeatedly explain the entire plot of the show so that someone playing a game on their phone can follow without watching.

Chalamet might feel smug now. We'll see how he feels in a few years.

A good movie or quality work will always be fine. Before we had streaming we had crappy straight to video movies that no one cared about but still managed to make a little bit of money. Streaming content is basically the crappy B movies, they will always exist.

There is real anxiety in the movie industry that it is becoming increasingly hard to make high quality movies. The industry is shifting in ways that are going to be hard to undo. This includes:

- The flow of capital to streamers rather than studio and independent filmmakers. The "crappy B movies" that are being made for streamers aren't cheap and in many cases are getting huge, and expensive, development deals to make limited series or content based on existing IP. The tilt of power is away from traditional movie studios like Warner Brothers (which is getting gobbled up in the Paramount deal) and towards major streamers. That means less money and focus on making feature films and more money and focus on making palatable streaming content for people to watch at home while looking at their phones.

- Unwillingness from American studios to invest in original stories. The push right now is to exploit "existing IP." That means more reboots, sequels, film franchises, and content based on board games and toys, and less money for original scripts that tell new stories. I just mentioned Warner Brothers. They made two of the best and most original movies of 2025 -- Sinners and One Battle After Another. Both with original scripts, OBAA was loosely based on a Pynchon novel but not a corporate property. This was a big deal in the industry because both had actual theater releases and did pretty well at the box office -- they made money. It felt like a way forward for an industry that has been making movies based on Mattel toys and video games for the last few years (plus Christopher Nolan). There was already anxiety about Netflix buying WB but Ted Sarandos (Netflix CEO) had reassured people that he wanted to keep making real movies, with theater releases, and not just pivot everything to streaming. But then the hostile bid from Paramount came along, and the Ellisons don't ive a flying f*** about making good movies. Paramount has already been jettisoning original projects and consolidating behind existing IP, even before the HBO/WB merger. There's real fear that with the Ellisons owning so much of Hollywood and have very little interest in making actual movies, it's going to be hard to make good, compelling movies soon unless you can find a way to base it on a comic book character or a breakfast cereal.

- Closure of movie theaters. These theaters can't stay open if they don't have movies to show, and 20 showings a day of Dune 3 might not cut it. When theaters close, it makes the expense and effort of doing a theater release less cost effective, because it's fewer screens and tickets to help offset the cost of promotion and distribution. When fewer movies can theater releases, that means more straight to streaming content. Which means more "second screen" content and fewer movies intended to really capture the audience's full attention.

- AI. Just: AI. The threat of human creatives losing their jobs to robots, and audiences who aren't really watching in the first place failing to notice the difference. We aren't there yet, but there are people working hard to get us there.

The assumption that the film industry will chug along as it always has because, ugh, at least it's not a dying art form like opera and ballet is an insanely myopic viewpoint. Go back to the late 19th century and ask Verdi or Wagner if opera was dying when it was packing opera houses all over Europe for premier after premier and money and attention was flowing their direction from all corners of the world. Things change. And they change faster now than they did when Wagner was doing his thing -- he had to wait for electricity to spread and railroads to be built and people to get cars and radios before opera started to decline. It took decades. But the trends impacting the film industry are happening on a shortened timeline of years or in some cases, months.

Theatrical arts dates back to roman times. If something has been dying for 5000 years, maybe that's the best survival strategy.

[Anonymous]

The irony is that Chalamet actually did the work to bring people to see a niche non-IP movie that wasn’t made by a major studio. Marty Supreme made more money than it was ever projected to earn. He’s not just thinking movies will somehow save themselves. He went out and brought audiences to the theaters.