Selling out means giving in, that is, to adopt a moral code other than your own- usually for money and fame.
If we wish to focus our attention of films, many films include unnecessary parts, or play up or play down certain things in order to feed to the common man’s taste. A perfect example would be “The Gangs of New York.” Was a love story necessary? Was brothel scene important? No- if the artists intent was to send a message. Yes -if their intent was to make money and increase views.
Selling out is selling out when the artist’s message cannot be easily discerned due to all the “extras” they add. But in all films there is some element of entertainment, as I am sure that one common goal of every producer is to make a film or production enjoyable for its viewers. When an artist sells out they create even when that means they go against their own morals and ideas. Moreover, I think selling out is when an artist’s desire to produce something liked is greater than their desire to create something meaningful.
I would say that the majority of movies serve as entertainment. The Hunger Games, Divergent, The Hobbit, and Captain America, are just a few. And one could argue that there are implied lessons within these films but its not the lesson that is being stressed it is the love story, the action- the things that should be meaningless if the creators intent was to send a message.
But on the other hand people will seldom become involved or think about things that do not interest them. So an artist is challenged to create an interesting story- to feed to the common interests to some degree. If their purpose were to send a message then they would also hope to send this message to as many people as possible.
Furthermore, an artist has to eat, they have families, they pay rent and tax– they need to make money. Not only do they need to create but they need to create well- they need to be successful. In our society a successful film is one that gets the most views, that is- the one that rakes in the cash. This is a choice an artist has to make- to adapt to societies wants or to live by their morals and to tell their story as they want to. There are many artists who choose the latter- they are the people we never hear about who produce the films we never watch.
While I do have sympathy to those who have sold out, I admire those who have not. But why criticize artists alone? They aren’t the only sellouts. How many others have chose professions solely for the income? Haven’t they sold themselves to the whim of being rich? Money is given such a high value, so much more importance and esteem than it deserves; it is the basis almost all sellouts.
An artist can produce successfully while maintaining some degree of social or political value. Doing this would call for a compromise. Many film producers settle for this middle ground. I doubt a movie is produced exactly how a director envisioned it. They must add or take out parts depending on what would sell- but they are able to maintain a balance. The spectrum isn’t black and white. An artist can completely sell out, refuse to sell out, or settle for some place in between.
The artist is caught in a trap, so to speak. Do they abide by their principles and produce work that would not maximize sales, do they forsake their ideals and allow their creation to be dictated by the taste of society, or do they settle for some in between?
