Salon.com: Chalamet’s words were curt, but his opinion was only further muddled by the clip being spread out of context. Chalamet, who has multiple family members who have performed in the New York City Ballet, was attempting to make a point about the accessibility of his art. He wants his work to be seen by the largest number of people possible for the price of a movie ticket, instead of having his efforts hidden behind the barrier of entry that comes with the higher cost of seeing opera or ballet.
7 comments:
Timothee Chalamet has always been pretentious but somehow he gets more and more pretentious each and every time he opens his mouth. One could interpret what he’s saying to mean that he wants art to be accessible for the sake of audience members, but really what it seems like he’s saying is that he’d rather be in a movie than a ballet or an opera because HE would be easier to be seen by more people. I think this shows how he prefers to make art to show himself, while some people prefer to make art to serve an audience. There are places for both approaches. However, even if he’s not actually just trying to get himself on screen in front of a lot of people and he actually values the accessibility of art, I wouldnt even say that the movies he’s in are very accessible. They’re kind of elite, pretentious, and unenjoyable for the average person. Those are my two cents and I’m glad Michael B. Jordan won the Oscar.
This is a crazy article title, but unfortunately it’s true. And I don’t even know if Chalamet was going the “all press is good press” route. I think he just said something that I (and many other people) disagree with. What I really disagree with is the “point he was trying to make.” If what he really cared about was accessibility of art, he would’ve just said that. He wouldn’t have said “no one cares about ballet or opera anymore.” I also don’t even know that he was doing this for viewership. I just think that he really doesn’t care. I agree that we live in a “Trumpworld,” but I think that there’s a lot more nuance to public statements than that. It is interesting about the “bad press” line as it relates to the La La Land/Moonlight scandal. That was undeniably bad press - it did nothing to help along the Oscars at all, instead disparaging it.
I think this article really hit the nail on the head when it comes to Media consumption during our current political environment. for as shocking and distressing as the Timothy shalomay incident is, I think it speaks to a larger issue with our current Society. I think we see a complete rejection of Art from the Trump Administration and I think that it is because art is inherently a threat to power because it leans on pushing the boundaries of ideas. I think the article is really spot on when it describes our current reality as orwellian because it really feels that way. I mean, a big part of 1984 is that All information and history is controlled by the government and the government is able to rewrite history completely. I think we're seeing this a lot with the funding Cuts early in the administration to museums like the Smithsonian. I like how the authors connect our current political climate to the media we consume because it is very telling of how our society is functioning.
This narrative really caught my eye, weaving together politics, the world of celebrity, and the Oscars. I'm especially interested in how the Trump administration reshaped cultural conversations. Everything feels like a two-sided political battle these days, and when you consider awards season, I think that makes a lot of sense. Nowadays, people don't just say they enjoyed a film; instead, they engage in online debates and act as though the success of one film equates to the theft or disdain of another.
A prime example of this is the situation with Timothée Chalamet. His comments about ballet and opera were perceived as snobbish, and he was swiftly criticized on social media. Instead of a standard conversation about accessibility and different art forms, it devolved into another online argument, with people picking sides and arguing passionately.That's essentially what the writer refers to as "Trumpworld," where even when we're just discussing films or award shows, everything gets louder, more combative, and more polarized.
can we not talk about Timothée Chalamet anymore? Like the boot licking needs to stop. He’s really good at what he does kind of he knows how to play the character that is himself if you think about some of his standout roles, like his character in Lady Bird or in little women or in market supreme, which is what all of these people are talking about now he’s playing the same guy just a little different. When I was younger, and I watched, call me by your name, and then more recently when I watch beautiful boy for the first time, I really thought that he did something special and then I thought back on it and he’s just playing a sad version of himself. More recently with the Trump administration and his partnership he has become really digestible to a more moderate/conservative crowd and I think that that is super super indicative of the time period. We’re in because everybody loves Timothée Chalamet and everybody in Republicans and now he’s saying all of these things about these art forms that are dying that are super underfunded because that’s something that people who don’t want the arts to be funded are thinking.
The issue with what Timothee Chalamet said, honestly I have mixed feelings on. I have watched the full interview and I understand what he was trying to say but the issue I and many people had with it was what he said after along with not apologizing or explaining what he actually meant. To me I think he was saying that he didn’t want movie television to become a niche art which is the truth about ballet and opera. Which I personally think is a really good thing. I love when things are special and niche to me and other people like me, I really really enjoy ballet, it's one of my favorite art forms. However, I think the words he said were horribly hurtful and wrong to the people in ballet and opera. Now, with the Oscars just passing and him not winning over Micheal B Jordan, it 100% had nothing to do with that comment. I cannot imagine a world where Marty Supreme won over Sinners even if he didn’t make that comment and it's sad that people are saying it’s because he lost votes saying that comment, undermining the win for Micheal B Jordan.
I do think the political climate we’re in does change how we talk about specific topics, you can see the shift that has occurred over the years and while that’s due to a number of factors(new social media apps, trends, shifts in language and an overall change in internet culture) I really think its about the way people react to media. People in the current day(not all people, not even most I would say) are too ready to bash someone over an opinion and it doesn’t even need to be a harmful one (which if was that then that’s explainable)just one that they don’t personally agree with, like what this article is talking about with movies a lot of times if people really like one movie they’ll completely discredit the others and talk down to the fans as well( as if they have any merit doing that when we’re all on the same level of movie analyzation)
Post a Comment