I giggled the entire way through this.
I love that this relies on our collective understanding of ballet as an unforgiving pursuit of synchronization, cleanliness and unison. I had a friend in college, a percussionist, who said that someone was only ever really talented at their craft once they could tell jokes not about it, but with it. And he could, reliably, tell very funny “jokes” using only his drum set–no words, no funny faces–because he knew what about Drums™ people understood and took for granted and expected. He could hint at those expectations and then very suddenly and expertly deny them, producing the kind of cognitive shift that causes people to laugh. This ballet video very much reminds me of him, and his idea: that there is a level of craft beyond just being good at doing the thing. You also have to understand what the general public understands as the mark of goodness within the thing. Only then are you capable of subverting it, whether that be for humor, commentary, innovation, whatever.
To me, this feels related to why theater audiences often laugh when actors do a take to the audience, a micro-break in the fourth wall in reaction to something that happens on stage.
Audiences are expecting to suspend their disbelief, to willingly ignore the existence of everyone else, including themselves, in relation to the narrative on stage. But when an actor reintroduces the audience to themselves, ackowledging that they are an actor and are, in fact, performing the play, it is subversive in the same way. I think you could make an argument that camp draws power from a lot of the same places