The surest sign that a movie star is serious is not when everyone likes what they’re doing. It’s when they can ignite resistance. Over the past few years, Timothée Chalamet has emerged as one of the few actors in a current Hollywood landscape with that capacity. In performance after performance, he triggers arguments over questions of taste and morality and gender and even the very purpose of acting. That friction, in Chalamet’s work, is not a defect. It’s fuel. The roles that cleave his audience most often are the ones that offer the least reassurance, the least likability, the least desire to make any unease go away. They are, also, the roles that are likely to last.
By Allan R. Ellenberger
Call Me by Your Name (2017)
For some viewers, this was Chalamet’s coronation; for others, it’s source of lingering unease. His Elio is hypersensitive, self-absorbed, and emotionally voracious, qualities some see as authentic and others as indulgent. The performance unsettles because it refuses to sanitize first love. Chalamet allows desire to be awkward, selfish, and overwhelming, culminating in a final act of grief so naked it borders on indecent. The now-famous peach scene didn’t scandalize because it was explicit; it unsettled because it was private. That intimacy—unguarded and unperformed—split audiences between those who recognized themselves and those who recoiled. That split is precisely the point.
The King (2019)
Chalamet’s Prince Hal confounded expectations of Shakespearean authority. Critics and audiences alike debated whether his restraint signaled depth or absence. Where previous cinematic monarchs thundered, Chalamet withdrew. His Hal is inward, tentative, visibly uncomfortable wearing power. The discomfort many felt watching him rule was intentional: the film proposes a king who does not grow into command so much as endure it. In resisting the traditional arc from boy to warrior, Chalamet delivered a performance about the violence inherent in leadership—and paid the price in divided response.
The French Dispatch (2021)
In a smaller, more explicitly weaponized performance, Chalamet cultivated the cult of affectation. His student revolutionary is a parade of peacocking, faux-profundity, and rote absurdity. He's a caricature of youthful rage that grated on some viewers, who read the character’s utter shallowness as a function of Chalamet’s own disinterest. But the performance is exasperating on purpose, a rebuke to revolutionary fervor in a way. Chalamet knows that charm is a solvent, and he lets his character’s sense of self-awareness undermine any impulse toward hero worship. It’s a performance that flirts with alienating its audience, on purpose.
Bones and All (2022)
Few recent performances have repelled as many viewers as they captivated. As Lee, a drifting cannibal with a battered conscience, Chalamet strips himself of charm and offers something feral, damaged, and intermittently tender. Some dismissed the film as grotesque provocation; others recognized a radical love story about outsiders who cannot be assimilated. Chalamet’s genius here lies in his refusal to soften the character for audience comfort. He plays hunger—literal and emotional—as something that cannot be cured by romance. The revulsion some audiences felt is inseparable from the film’s tragic honesty.
Marty Supreme (2025)
Perhaps his most divisive turn to date, Chalamet’s Marty Mauser is a hustler whose ambition curdles into mania. Audiences wait—almost desperately—for punishment, collapse, or redemption that never fully arrives. The anxiety produced by this refusal has been mistaken by some for narrative failure. In fact, it is the performance. Chalamet plays belief as pathology, charisma as compulsion, and success as something that doesn’t heal the wound that created it. That many viewers leave unsettled rather than satisfied is evidence that the film—and the performance—has landed where it intended.
What connects these roles is Chalamet’s refusal to manage audiences. He doesn’t broker deals with the viewer. He riles them up. He lets characters be messy, ugly, and compromised. In a business that now runs on consensus and brand safety, that position is a quiet radicalism. Divided reactions aren’t a bug in his work—they’re the proof of life.
The history of cinema suggests that the performances most fiercely debated in their moment are often the ones that age best. Chalamet’s willingness to risk alienation places him in that tradition. He is not trying to be liked. He is trying to be felt. And in a culture that increasingly mistakes comfort for quality, that discomfort is not just healthy—it is necessary.
Add comment
Comments