Additional Coverage:
Timothée Chalamet Stirs the Pot: Is Ballet and Opera Really Dead?
Hollywood heartthrob Timothée Chalamet has found himself in a whirlwind of controversy this week, potentially jeopardizing his Oscar chances, all for uttering what some might call a rather obvious truth: “Nobody cares about ballet or opera in 2026.”
During a recent CNN town hall, the “Dune” and “Marty Supreme” star articulated his stance, stating, “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.’ All respect to all the ballet and opera people out there.”
The reaction was immediate and fierce. The BBC reported that Canadian mezzo-soprano Deepa Johnny labeled Chalamet’s remarks a “disappointing take,” while American artist Franz Szony critically noted, “Two classical art forms that have been around for hundreds of years, both of which take a massive amount of talent and discipline this man will never possess.”
But, to the point of Tinseltown’s current “it” guy, who exactly are these figures today?
Decades ago, names like Mikhail Baryshnikov in ballet and Luciano Pavarotti in opera were household names, as recognizable as sports legends like Larry Bird or Doc Gooden. That cultural ubiquity, however, appears to be a thing of the past. Today, the average American would likely struggle to name a single contemporary ballet dancer or opera singer.
This shift, some argue, points to a broader issue: the fine performing arts have seemingly retreated into a niche, perceived by many as an insular world. The argument suggests that these art forms, once accessible to the masses, have become exclusive, almost alienating, to those outside their inner circle.
In the mid-20th century, the performing arts enjoyed a prominent place in American culture. Leather-bound collections of Western classics adorned many homes, and television regularly featured Shakespearean plays, Leonard Bernstein discussing symphonies, and lectures from leading philosophers. This widespread engagement, however, began to wane by the 1970s.
While figures like Pavarotti and Baryshnikov maintained a degree of fame into the 1990s, the new millennium saw a significant decline in mainstream interest. Critics suggest that leftist elites transformed opera and ballet into private dominions, a dwindling and increasingly irrelevant sphere-a point Chalamet’s comments seemingly underscore.
The core problem, it’s argued, is that these art forms shifted their focus from cultivating a broad audience to securing grants. While funding from affluent patrons might sustain experimental productions, like a hypothetical “first Inuit opera,” it doesn’t guarantee public interest-even from the very communities they aim to represent.
Chalamet’s observations highlight that opera and ballet have enjoyed a half-century of “protection.” But from what? The drive to diversify and move away from widely beloved standard repertoires has, paradoxically, rendered these art forms fragile and elite-focused, rather than robust and universally appealing.
The current climate, where some patrons refuse to attend performances at venues like the Trump Kennedy Center as a form of protest, further exacerbates the issue, contributing to a shrinking audience base.
The grim reality, according to some, is that opera and ballet may indeed be on life support. There’s a concern that few within these art forms possess the vision to revitalize their perceived “morose, woke corpses.” Chalamet’s hope, perhaps, is that cinema can avoid a similar fate.
While Chalamet may face pressure to retract his statements, the underlying critique remains potent: ballet and opera have, by some accounts, rendered themselves irrelevant by prioritizing “wokeness” and its tenets. Until this shifts, they risk remaining in a state of decline.
The performing arts community, including opera, ballet, theater, painting, and sculpture, faces a stark choice: continue down a path that alienates a broader audience, or re-engage with the public and reclaim their legacy. Otherwise, the door remains open for new artistic expressions to emerge and capture the hearts and minds of the masses.