I would be all for more movies of that caliber. If he means "make more coherent movies that have real plots and stuff and fewer films that are about plastic statues of jesus being covered in honey and carpenter ants and then set on fire...  or stuff like "Trash Humpers", then yeah, I'd say do that. "Art film" is such a broad thing now. Here in the states, The King's Speech is considered by many to be more of an arthouse film because it's a period drama with a bit of comedy and nobody explodes or gets shot in the face. There's no ten minute sequence where plucky teens in sports cars evade an invading force of cyborg aliens.

Make more movies like "King's Speech" or "Harry Brown" or "Brassed Off" and people - even people in the US - will watch it. If he means he wants you to make 2012 or Stargate, then tell him to shove off.

If that's what you guys consider to be commercial, then what's considered "arthouse"? I'm legitimately curious about this. Not that I think Harry Brown is particularly arthouse, but it's gotten to the point now where you would go to what is traditionally an arthouse theater to see something like a Harry Brown or a Brassed Off. I personally find it pretty depressing. What's playing in the arthouse theaters there right now?

King's speech is also a commercial film here in Australia. Then again, we think The Castle was a pretty big success, and Animal Kingdom, and Tomorrow, When the War begins did good business too.

I don't think Cameron is in any position to dictate taste.

Do you have a link to a news article? I'm not really inclined to believe your version of what Cameron said in light of your biased attitude!

And it's a logical argument. If the British film industry wants to be successful and grow, then it needs to make films that appeal on a commercial as well as award level.

I agree. For too long now, British films have remained in this 'we only do period dramas or Mike Leigh-like films' mindset and it was not always so.