I will always argue that film as an art form has as much value in and of itself which shouldn't be measured 'in the moment' by box office as mainstream film is. It's easy to place mainstream standards on arthouse and it is misplaced. Sometimes films grow audiences over time and there are lots of examples of filmmakers/ writers/ poets/ painters etc whose work didn't 'hit' in the moment of release/publication/ exhibition but who have subsequently become very important artists in the firmament.
Film was always a tricky area because for decades the financial support from public funds all went in one direction: the idea of the male 'auteur', when in fact it is a very collaborative art form and the results are because of director, producer, writer, actors, designers and composers unlike poetry or such which is actually authored by one person. Directors are usually the decision makers in the hierarchy but that doesn't make them the sole artist.
So there has been some work in the last decade or so to increase support for women filmmakers and for the ethnically/ racially marginalised. Also for gay filmmakers as this is often work that is ghettoised into special strands/ special festivals etc and not included in more general programming and curation.
Unfortunately, the question of the taste of the gatekeepers was never really challenged so the attempts to widen access were kind of stifled by the fact the decision makers had quite a narrow taste culture which they found it tricky to step outside so the whole remained quite monocultural overall.
But before this had really taken time to develop and to challenge those established taste cultures, the public funding bodies were Stonewalled and, in response, the laudible aspiration to widen participation became a very narrow thing indeed. It became more thought policing that widening access.
This is further exacerbated by the BFI enforcing a questionnaire for all funding submissions and which has had to be adopted by all funding orgs in UK and NI, in which applicants must testify before my Lord Jesus Stonewall that their project has thought about diversity and inclusion. Nowadays any funding application has to include a manifesto not just covering the project's themes in terms of EDI but also on how it is staffed.
This, of course, excludes the types of aspiring filmmakers who can't build a successful argument around EDI to justify their work and favours the easy tick box exercise of EDI that fails the artworld generally. It doesn't actually, for example, make it any easier for disabled filmmakers in any real way.
It also means that the bias has now gone completely the other way, and this perception of bias totally puts off broader audiences.
I think it is a real shame as so many films continue thus to be sidelined into 'Queer' festivals/ strands and that becomes the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the film when often they are just exploring the human condition generally.
Anyhoo, rant over.