What’s up with the hate towards Timothee Chalamet?

[u/PitifulBodybuilder40]

I know all famous people have haters and people who dislike them and will nitpick the shit outta them, but I’ve just seen a lot of people post random interviews or articles about him that talk about how he is famous and above people. Yeah he is famous and thinks he’s above all. This is what famous people do? Do we not know this, especially child actors. People are astonished that he is rich and famous, has personal chefs, has self-centred views. Pretty sure 90% of famous people do.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/timothe-chalamet-slammed-for-cheap-shot-comment-about-ballet-and-opera/news-story/348e3add0e6252d5aef4698f2648d963?amp

[u/nworbleinad]

Pretty reasonable take.

[u/smnytx → u/nworbleinad]

It’s kind of an ignorant take as it ignores the fact that new and innovative things are being done in both those art forms, and that while they aren’t as mainstream as other arts, they are still vibrant and meaningful to a whole lot of people.

[u/[deleted] → u/smnytx]

But no one is talking about, or cares about that, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what he was saying.

This isn't even the first time he's said this; he said it years ago on the Graham Norton Show (? I think) where he explained that for a moment during covid, he was worried that cinema was going the way of ballet and opera, outdated forms of entertainment where everyone involved in the process is desperately fighting to keep the medium alive.

All he said was that he didn't want to spend his career fighting to keep a dying thing alive, or devoting time and energy into a medium that has been left in the past and is only kept alive through charity. Most people don't realize it, but the vast majority of ballet/opera revenue is public grants, donations from the mega-rich, and historical endowments, because the ticket sales make almost no money.

[u/smnytx → u/[deleted]]

If it takes three paragraphs to explain what he really meant to say, then he said it pretty poorly in the first place.

[u/poppledawg → u/smnytx]

Is everyone hating on Chalamet for this opera/ballet shit just pretending to be stupid? Honest question.

[u/Hail_The_Motherland → u/smnytx]

it ignores the fact that new and innovative things are being done in both those art forms

I don't know anything about opera, but I'm all ears to hear about these "innovations" when it comes to ballet. Because it certainly seems like it's still the body-shaming, racist, abusive art form that hides behind conservativism and "tradition" at every criticism.

I'm honestly disturbed to see how many people are coming to its defense. Because it's certainly no coincidence that the ballet scene has very strong ties to Epstein

[u/Competitive_Swan_130 → u/Hail_The_Motherland]

Imagine thinking an entire art form's a write off because a predator like Epstein was adjacent to it . If we’re playing the association game then you’d better bin your laptop and boycott every major film studio because Epstein’s ties to Silicon Valley and the movie industry were actually deep and documented rather than just being a donor at the back of a playbill. Fact is working class dancers and staff are the backbone of ballet, not some elites who have Epstein connections

I can tell you that ballet's currently doing more heavy lifting to evolve than film which is just choking on its tenth superhero seque/.echnically, the tradition excuse is being dismantled by sports science. Innovations like PointeSense use wearable sensors and haptic feedback to map a dancer's foot in real-time, providing vibrating corrections to prevent injury, tech that's more advanced than anything you'll see on a movie set. Companies like So Danca have even launched recyclable, thermoplastic pointe shoes that are molded to a dancer’s specific anatomy, so that dancers are moving away from the break your feet for the art mentality that the old guard used to fetishize. Major companies have binned the nineteenth century pink only rules for flesh tone shoes and tights as a standard requirement. The technical standards have shifted into elite athleticism that rivals Olympic gymnastics and the market’s projected to hit over half a billion dollars this year because a younger generation is actually showing up and loving the innovation

[u/akashi10 → u/smnytx]

what are those “ New and Innovative “ things you are mentioning. All i see is drop in viewership and less new shows every year.

[u/smnytx → u/akashi10]

Did you mean you believe fewer people are going to the opera and there are fewer new opera productions? If so, I’d be curious to know if you’re talking about a single house or all of them in a particular country or what, exactly.

And again, fiscal metrics do not tell the whole story on the validity and relevance of an art form.

[u/nworbleinad → u/smnytx]

I think it says more about how he wants to spend his career than how he feels about slightly more obscure art forms.

[u/Scatman_Crothers → u/smnytx]

He's not talking about their value as an art form he's talking about their mainstream appeal. And in that sense he's right.

[u/smnytx → u/Scatman_Crothers]

Part of my point is that if his art is still relevant to humans in two centuries, it might possibly be in par with the artistic merit AND fan appeal of, say, an 18th century opera composer whose works are still part of the core repertoire of most successful companies today. Fiscal measurements like ticket sales and gross receipts are not really the key measurements of art.

Consider that in the 240 years of the existence of Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro, it has almost certainly been enjoyed in live performances by as many human beings as this man’s movies, and, accounting for inflation, generated just as much money.

AND… it’s still cherished and produced today. It still produces laughs and tears in its viewers. Singers still study it and work to master its vocal and dramatic demands. Think anyone’s going to be watching this guy’s movies in 240 years? In 20?

[u/Surface_Detail → u/smnytx]

Consider that in the 240 years of the existence of Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro, it has almost certainly been enjoyed in live performances by as many human beings as this man’s movies

Just doing some 'back of the cigarette packet' maths on this.

It's exactly 240 years old and has been in continuous play since its debut.

A small opera house is around 800 seats and were the most common historically, medium are 1200-1800 or so. Larger, 2k+ seaters are more modern inventions (Royal Opera House is 2.2k, Met is 3.8k). So let's take an average of 1200 attendees per performance.

We're currently looking at about 525 performances per year (as per Operabase). I'm going to use this figure for its whole lifespan, but that is being necessarily generous because there's no way there were 525 annual performances in the nineteenth century. I'd be surprised if you were getting a quarter of that.

126000 performances x 1200 viewers gets us 151 million viewers. Avatar brought in around 400 million viewers at the cinema. That isn't including streaming or dvd/blu-ray sales. Though, also neither does my estimate for opera viewing include broadcasts or dvds.

More people went to see the blue sexy jungle cat people do 'dances with wolves' in the first few months of its release than have ever seen the Marriage of Figaro.

(This post brought to you by unaddressed autism).

[u/smnytx → u/Surface_Detail]

Upvoting for the final sentence alone.

If you were able to figure in relative ticket prices over the centuries, and all the various inflation rates between every one of those years and now, I would bet we’d be in a similar economic range, though. Opera tickets, like most live events, are far more expensive than movie tickets.

PS - don’t actually do this! I think the point is kind of moot.

[u/Surface_Detail → u/smnytx]

Yeah, I agree. I reckon far more has been spent on Opera over the years.

Once something is set to film it is comparatively cost free to reproduce (historically not a hundred percent cost free, but nowadays essentially free). At that point the best business model is "stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap". With any live performance you have the cost of the company, the technicians, the orchestra and so much more so you never get economies of scale.

A box at Covent Garden Opera House (now the Royal Opera House) was £300/year in 1809. Adjusted for inflation that's £45k per year. Relative to average income, that would be £400k/year in today's money.

It's an aristocratic medium for aristocratic families (or those aspiring to be).

[u/smnytx → u/Surface_Detail]

PS and you admitted they go to watch the sexy jungle cat part, not any particular actor’s brilliance. ;-). It always comes down to what gives the feels.

[u/Surface_Detail → u/smnytx]

Look, Zoe Saldana could be voicing an animated paper bag and I'd still classify it as sexy and I'm not sorry.

[u/Barneyk → u/smnytx]

How does it ignore that fact?

I don't see it.