He's a politician talking on a subject, about which, he knows very little. Pretty standard behaviour for a politician.
There's a case to be made for having different kinds of government support for a film industry. There can be cultural support, the equivalent of funding for a gallery or a theatre group. This is money that the government doesn't expect to get back, its support for the cultural infrastructure of a nation.
Films though, can make a lot of money. The industry loves to brag about it's profits and a lot of the glamour of the "film business" comes from the conspicuous consumption and luxury lifestyles of it's stars.
Politicians see this and think, "Why do they need a handout from the tax payer?"
What they don't appreciate is that this is just the showy tip of the iceberg for the industry, even in the American industry.
The end result is that (broadly speaking), the Left only wants to give money to "art films" because they think the mainstream can take care of itself while the Right wants to invest in the "mainstream films" so they can make a profit, leaving art to the galleries etc. which they don't ever expect to be profitable.
Yeah, but the thing is that the British film industry is one of the most vibrant and successful ones in the world, and regardless of the line between art and success, it's been putting out a lot of films in recent years that are both very good and very successful commercially, so I don't understand what he's wining about. If these guys tried to be Hollywood - like he apparently wants them to - they'd fail.
But what would Bay do with a story like 'Kes'?
Yeah, that's what I'd really want to see. Then again, I still haven't seen Emmerich's Anonymous...