Illustration by Camila Garcia
Actor Timothée Chalomet has gone viral recently for dismissive comments about certain arts fields. In a video clip that has made its rounds on the Internet, Chalamet says, “I don’t want to be working in ballet, or opera, or things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive,’ even though like no one cares about this anymore.”
What made the situation escalate was not just what he said but how depreciative his attitude was. Chalamet tried to brush it off in the same exchange, adding, “All respect to all the ballet and opera people out there,” before joking, “I just lost 14 cents in viewership.”
Instead of sounding thoughtful (like most media-trained celebrities do), he came across as aloof and dismissive. This only made the response from people who have devoted their lives to the craft stronger.
I think this widespread reaction makes complete sense. Ballet and opera are not just random hobbies people pretend to care about. They are two of the most competitive art forms in the world.
The required technical control, physical endurance and emotional expression can only be accomplished with years of disciplined training. This is part of the reason of why his argument that “no one cares” feels and is, very dismissive.
What makes Chalamet’s comment so ironic is his own background. His mother, Nicole Flender, studied French at Yale on a ballet scholarship before switching to musical theater, then later working in dance professionally.
This was not a comment made by someone completely removed from the world of performance. It came from someone whose family was shaped by that very world, and in turn, who’s current position was presumably shaped by it too. In theory, he should be the one who’s defending the value of these arts.
What interests me the most is the revealment about the larger attitude among younger audiences. There is a growing idea that if something is not constantly trending or widely streamed, then it must not matter anymore.
Art is not only valuable when it is loud, viral or easily digestible. Meaningful forms of art — any art, for that matter — require patience, discipline and true attention from both artist and audience. I believe most of us understand the definition of art to be this anyway, and that we understand it is not always a rapid or “loud” process.
As someone who grew up in musical settings from a young age, I was one of the many who found Chalamet’s comments especially frustrating. Ballet, opera and musical theater should not be treated like they are beneath just because they do not dominate pop culture everyday. Moreover, because they have been widely inaccessible, it does not mean it’s something we ought to dismiss or stop fighting for.
Over the winter, my social media feed was full of people posting about attending ballet performances in New York, getting dressed up for shows and sharing their experiences online. These art forms may not trend in the same way celebrity gossip does, yet they still have passionate audiences who show up for them.
That is why I think the discussion around Chalamet’s comment goes beyond one celebrity saying the wrong thing. It gets into much bigger questions about what younger people are taught is “valuable” and how we are enabled to exercise our appreciation. If the only the most “consumable” is deemed valuable, then we are eliminating many art forms from the table, including the classics.
It also brings forth a discussion between “getting” classical art versus the literal accessibility to them.
Literal accessibility includes physical proximity, like having a theater near you and prices you can afford. It can also be cultural proximity. Opera is sung in Italian and may not be comprehended by most people. On the other hand, people have an easier time interpreting dances like ballet or musical theater. In this case, the classics Chalamet referenced were visual or performing arts. His comment wrongly groups all visual art in the same bin.
The idea of “getting” the classics boils down to perception vs. definition. Our perception is that treating something as “classical” makes it distant, elite, old-fashioned or even pretentious to younger generations.
If something is a “classic”, it just means that the story’s themes are relevant in our lives today. The proof of something being a “classic”? People are still moved to deeply consume and perform it. The art is practiced and appreciated, all in the present, by performers and audiences alike.
Addressing accessibility is one big point in the story of how classical art remains part of our society.
Several celebrities pushed back on Chalamet’s remarks. Misty Copeland, an American ballerina, said he “wouldn’t be an actor and have the opportunities he has as a movie star” if it were not for ballet and opera, adding, “We shouldn’t be comparing them.”
Andrea Bocelli, Italian singer, responded more gently, saying, “Opera and ballet are art forms that have crossed centuries and continue to speak to the human heart,” and, “They are not arts of the past, but living languages that can still move us.”
I think that this controversy shows a big cultural misunderstanding we have. Mainstream perception often labels traditional performance as something niche or outdated, even though those same traditions continue to influence modern film and music. The artists’ responses offer validity to the above claims: they are quite literally telling us that “traditional performances” brought them where they are today.
Timothee Chalamet may have been trying to make a point about popularity and attention spans, but the way he said it was still wrong: for someone with his background to suggest otherwise felt especially tone-deaf. It’s a bit of a stretch, a “tendu” even, to say we don’t care when our reaction proved the exact opposite of his claim.
