British film 'Pride' goes on release in London today...

.

I saw a screening of it on Monday, and the audience loved it. As did I. The story's great, and the acting's great, and I was really moved by much of it. A big surprise, considering I basically thought it was not worth even seeing.

If this film gains momentum, and it could, I'd not be stunned if it garnered a Best Pic nomination. It has that "Full Monty" feel-good aura around it.

[quote] It has that "Full Monty" feel-good aura around it.

Yes, that's what put me off.

[quote]Such a movie is Pride, a Brit dramedy that is a crowd-pleaser in the best sense of the word. Even when it's tugging hard at your heartstrings, you believe the damn thing.

Sounds AWFUL.

Sound like it will be a BIG HIT.

I also saw it at a screening.

I loved it. But then I would: I was there. Not with this particular group, however. I was with a university solidarity group. The film depicts things exactly as I remember them and my involvement in the strike was a life-impacting event for me - lots of political realisations, moments of real laughter and joy and moments of heartbreak. I'm still friends with some of the families I met then.

All the little culture clashes were very funny. At one point, I remember the Feminist Society putting up a banner in the Student Union bar asking the flying picket miners to refrain from making sexist remarks. All the posh little social warrior girlies had never met actual working class men before.

I saw this last night and consider it to be one of the best films I've ever seen! I'm 34 and grew up in a working class household in the 80s (and from a mining family). I and my hubby cried several times during the film and I came away so happy. The acting is superb (Russell Tovey has a two minute cameo that blows all away) and the music amazing. As a 34 working class gay man in England this was important and brilliant!!

I saw it at a preview screening as well. I agree with the other posters: it's formulaic (Full Monty meets Queer as Folk) but really surprisingly effective. Excellent acting all around. I wanted to dislike it but couldn't.

I feel like I should see it but not sure if I want to. The miners strike and it's aftermath brings up a lot of emotions and memories. Lots of families divided forever over that strike.

I cried but came away happy, too, R6. And while I'd agree that it's formulaic in film terms, R7, it is also true.

Here's a photo of the real people. I love this photo!

While standing peacefully at a picket during the strike, a policeman said to a female friend of mine, "You commie slag. You'd be a better fuck if you were dead."

The Full Monty became the "Miners Film" in the States, but far better was a film called "Brassed Off" that wasn't so...treacly.

Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. There's not a moment that you don't see coming but somehow the carefully engineered pathos stops just short of being cringe-worthy, probably because it is based on real historical events. As an ex-pat American, I really appreciated that the film represents qualities that I admire about the British character namely a sense of fairness and a big hearted spirit.

The acting is terrific and every stalwart of the British ensemble (and one American) delivers especially Dominic West. Bill Nighy - giving a rare performance where he doesn't seem like Bill Nighy at all - is memorable. The lesser known Fay Marsay gives a terrific performance as the lone lesbian in the original LGSM group.

Not sure what R6 is smoking but Russell Tovey - an actor of such limited skill - detracts from the film with his "look at me, I'm Russell Tovey" cameo as an HIV gay man on a self-destructive bender, in a completely manufactured performance that lacks any sense of life, regret, impending death or suffering. Given it's one of the few nods towards the AIDS epidemic they really should've concerned themselves less with a starry cameo and hired someone who could carry the drama of it and make more of an impact.

American Ben Schnetzer as the charismatic lead organiser of the LGSM is terrific (though the dialect doesn't sound anything like a Northern Irish lad, though it is passably east London at its core if not around its edges). He cuts a very "George Michael, circa Wham Rap days" which is in keeping with the sense of '80s nostalgia this film also achieves.

And I think I still want to marry Andrew Scott.

But a film about a labour union and the struggle for gay rights will surely be met with some opposition in the States, which would likely exclude it from any serious Oscar contention. It does illuminate a historical event but other than that it doesn't push boundaries and there is a sense that this kind of British feel-good, triumph of the underdog has been done before. It is done very well here and those that see it are sure to enjoy it - as it doesn't exactly jerk tears but does a fair job of earning them - but I doubt it will convert many people to achieve mainstream success in the States. But if it does, great. It deserves to be seen.

I agree with everything you said, R11! For me, it was a truthful piece and exactly reflected my own experience of the strike. I think there are a great many people in Britain, gay or straight or from mining communities, who will feel the same. Who cares about awards? This is our personal history.

Exactly R12, it doesn't need to win Oscars. Just hope it finds an appreciative audience. I loved Billy Elliot so for me a film about the miners' strike and the struggle for gay rights (plus Imelda Staunton) was heavenly. And there are a lot of unexpected moments in the performances that make it really enjoyable. The cast is terrific.

I have tickets to a screening on Monday. I'm looking forward to it.

Sounds like the corniest we're-all-in-this-together-against-the-evil-oppressors intersectionality kitsch imaginable.

Who would have thought, R15? Sometimes REAL events can be corny! And isn't intersectionality only problematic if it, well, you know, causes problems rather than improve communication and understanding?

It promotes a childish, simplistic view of the world, r16. Just because gay people and miners had a common enemy at the time doesn't mean that their issues were in any way related.

R17

Wow. Seriously? What a horribly depressing view of the world. Nobody should have allies. Intersectionality is in itself something to be decried. Nothing connects us. We don't have multiple identities.

I'd avoid this film, if I were you!

For myself, I made lifelong friendships through my involvement in the miners' strike. Pride celebrates it in a resonating way for me. Some were gay. Some straight. Some, now, voting YES in Scotland. It was all such a waste of my time because if I were Scots now, I'd probably vote NO. Those people should never have cared about me and I should never have cared about them. Intersectionality dontchaknow. Ruins EVERYTHING!

I don't want to belittle the positive experiences you had and the friendships you made, r18. But I think that the concept of intersectionality represents a manichean worldview which doesn't do justice to complex political issues.

Let me ask you a question - are the job prospects of miners still a priority concern for you? Surely if we followed all the suggestions of global warming scientists and activists, the consequences for miners around the world would be just as disastrous as those of Thatcher's policies in the 80s. Is this something that worries you a lot? Be honest.

R17, you're an idiot. The whole point of the film, based with a fair amount of accuracy on a true story, was that the miners rallying cry of solidarity resonated with the gay activists who were moved to get involved for humanistic reasons. In turn, the miners recognised the humanity of the gay activists and championed their cause putting, voting as a union to put gay rights on the Labour Party manifesto and legitimising their cause. Thirty years later, we now have full equality under UK law.

So, what's childish about that? Just because the US political system is completely fucked up and unfocused doesn't mean democracy doesn't work in other countries.

I put the same question to you that I put to r18, r20.

Actually, R21, R20, it's quite an interesting talking point. At the risk of overgeneralising - so can we say I'm talking about majority and/or dominant voices rather than every single person? - I do think that identity politics is much stronger on the US side of the pond. That doesn't just go for gay issues; it goes for women's politics, race, religion and most identities really. It's less so on the British side of the pond.

I will freely own up to a general rejection of identity politics only (not that identity aspects of politics aren't significant; they are, I just don't want to be defined by them). I try to form opinions on the basis of principle. I genuinely do think it's a better way.

To me, identity politics only does lead to intractable problems with intersectionality. Principle politics give us the chance to see the aspects of intersectionality that are positive and allow us to move forwards in a progressive way.

And - I know I'm repeating myself! - but the miners' strike was my first bit of really serious political activism. It was a formative experience for me. And the life lessons I took from it are perfectly expressed by this film.

R21 - I know we're disagreeing but I'm genuinely interested in your perspective here.

[quote]R21 - I know we're disagreeing but I'm genuinely interested in your perspective here.

Thanks - it's aways nicer to argue with someone who is open-minded.

I agree with you on identity politics being more prevalent in the US. On a related note, I'd say the same is true for what I like to call the "team sports" approach to politics - where you [italic]always[/italic] favour the position of one party over that of the other, on every single issue, in a knee-jerk way, without ever really examining the issues on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of Thatcher, I truly detest many of her policies - her opposition to gay rights, but also her opposition to the welfare state, and her support for Pinochet. But in spite of this, there are some issues where I think she stood on the right side, or at least was unfairly maligned (the Falklands, for example). Regarding the Miner's Strike specifically, I think that it wasn't a black-and-white issue, and that Scargill deserves at least as much blame as she did, if not more. Of course reasonable people can disagree on this, and I'm not alleging that you personally had knee-jerk motivations - but I suspect that many people who passionately and unreservedly supported the miners did so simply because Thatcher was the enemy, and thus had to be completely in the wrong on every single issue (or at least every controversial one). And I think this is even more true of people of a younger generation who only have a very superficial knowledge of the Miners Strike, but glorify it retroactively simply because Thatcher is such a bogeyman figure (a status which is of course partially deserved). Whereas the same people couldn't care less about the present-day fate of miners - because now its global-warming denying right-wingers who represent their side. And they don't even recognize the cogitive dissonance, because they only think in terms of left and right, not in terms of issues.

I think any film about the Miners Strike made in 2014 would have to acknowledge this central irony (that the left in the 80s was fighting for the same thing it's now fighting against - coal mining) - otherwise it's just feel-god pap.

Solidarity is for people who hate Tories more than they hate pollution.

R23

Thanks for getting back. I'm about to go out but will return because you're saying interesting things.

In the meantime...

... I owned a donkey jacket with ARTHUR SCARGILL WALKS ON WATER painted on the back panel!

R23, you aren't free of cognitive dissonance either. You're focusing on coal but the miners' strike was about labour. To look back 30 years later and apply present day environmental policy to those events is slightly ridiculous. It's not like Thatcher was promoting an environmentally friendly policy that the miners opposed, her only goal was to break the unions and she was very clear about it and, as she did throughout her reign, she committed human rights offences against her own citizenry to get her way. She demonised the miners, mercilessly, to suppress any sympathy people might feel for their plight.

What did LGSM have in common with the miners? How about a quest for dignity and respect for human rights?it was that shared belief that made them such a successful coalition. And though the Labour Party dragged their feet waiting for the right political moment - 1997 - once in power they acted with urgency on the issue of gay rights, first allowing a concession in immigration law for unmarried couples (same sex couples unable to marry legally) within weeks of their election, lowering the age of consent and by 2004, full civil partnerships, adoption law and the ability to serve openly in the military - all of those advancements, at their core, are about dignity. And the labour unions never deserted the gay community.

I'm a gay man but I fully and whole-heartedly support women's reproductive rights, primarily because I believe women should be empowered to make decisions about their own bodies and firmly believe in the primacy of the host body. I do not believe biology should be used to oppress women and limit their roles in society. But also because I know our rights share a fundamental belief in the unarguable right to privacy. If their rights fall, my rights are in danger, vulnerable. Your concerns about intersectionality seem to be more like an opposition to progress. How would minorities ever advance it they didn't share objectives with other causes?

Thinking back this is a better film than I initially gave it credit for because it effortlessly puts that across in the first minutes.

Just saw this movie over the weekend (in NYC). We loved it.

Saw it today - fantastic film, one of the best this year.

"Where are my lesbians?"

[quote]Saw it today - fantastic film, one of the best this year.

Which other films do you rate? I'm dying to know.

I agree with r23, and the miners' strike wasn't about labour but about that piece of shit union leader Arthur Scargill thinking he was going to start the revolution.

Even the miners now realise what a piece of shit Scargill is and the union has effectively shunned him.

And I've never understood why people on the left are so supportive of such a dirty and polluting form of energy.

To answer your question, r30, "Boyhood", for starters.

It was an overly-earnest piece of shit...definitely made for old straight women who consider themselves progressive.

One of my favorite throwaway lines - "It can't be a town, it's got no vowels"

Did the people criticizing this film actually see it?

I'm especially perplexed by the idea that "Pride" has a happy ending. The miners lost and, not to give too much away, I can't think of a single instance where a story about the LGBT, gay men in particular, set in the 80's could be considered to end happily.

This is the only gay film I can think of that shows the entirety of our community, celebrating all of us ... and we are definitely the heroes.

Instead of expresses contempt for this movie, why not turn your sarcasm toward a culture which has keep this amazing true story from us. How have we never heard about what happened with the LGSM? How in the fuck is Mark Ashton and what he did not known by every LGBT person in the world?

Maybe some of you ought to go back to trying to guess which disposable man in the latest forgettable reality show is queer.

Thank you, R35. As I said earlier in this thread, I was there (a different group). And the film perfectly recreates what I remember.

r35 nails it

An excellent film. Intelligent, moving, funny and sad.

And also, thanks to R35 for his posts on the film. A shame that, for ghd moment at least, solidarity and activism seem lost in the United States.

[quote]solidarity and activism seem lost in the United States.

These days, Americans are forced to choose between being activists and having jobs.

LGBT activism seems to be alive and well but it's now focused on things like getting married and using the right pronouns. What I loved about this film was that it captured a time when our energy wasn't entirely focused inwards.

"The cover for the American DVD release of Pride has removed all mention of homosexuality.

The film, about a group of gay and lesbian activists who rallied in support of striking miners in the 1980s, was released in the UK to acclaim last year. However, the US DVD cover makes a number of shocking changes, entirely removing homosexuality..."

And it's been given an R rating. R? Seriously?

Thanks R41...there was a conversation about the US DVD cover on TV here in England this week.

R42

Yep, I'm in the UK. I meant to post about it but only just remembered.

I can't get over the R rating. For such a sweet, bighearted film.

What's happened to this film.

Any more people see it since then?

I saw it during the US release. Loved it. Thought Ben Schnetzer was excellent, and Andrew Scott is as yummy as always

I wanted to like it more than I did. For one, Dominic West looked like Jame Gumb to me.

I love Ben Schnetzer. I had to watch The Book Thief after I saw Pride.

In the comments section to an article which mentions this movie, someone wrote the following:

[quote]I assume the author is referring to the way the film portrays how the LGBT movement fractured along gender lines due to growing separatist feminism in the late 80's/early 90s. The fact is this is EXACTLY what happened. I was there. I remember. The change was palpable - over a short space of time, a lot of women previously in the LGBT movement more or less did a runner and left gay men and trans women to get on with battling growing homophobia and AIDS hysteria. In the movies, you'd imagine the womens movement were right there with us throughout, 'fighting the good fight'.. Nothing could be further from the truth. PRIDE is unusual because it actually tells the truth about that.

I don't have access to the movie. Can someone comment on this paragraph?

I love Ben Schnetzer too. Why hasn't he done more. he was adorable in Pride and I loved him in the Book Thief.

I saw this in London when I was studying abroad in 2014 and just had a re-watch when I saw it added to Amazon Prime. This film really was fantastic. With all the rights we have now thanks to many brave advocates, we as a community are so unsupportive of each other. We really like to tear each other down. I am lucky enough to live in a major gaytopia with resources and acceptance. Our fight is not over. The Colorado cake ruling shows that we are the last group where discrimination is "kind of" OK. I also wonder about the resources and support for gays in small town USA or less progressive parts of the US. Are there LGBT Centers? There are still kids getting kicked out of houses/running away - they are on the streets of LA & SF. What about peoples access to emergency PeP or preventative PrEP in rural areas? Even if we don't like each other personally, we have to always support our community collectively and make sure that those with the resources support organizations that support us.

It sucked. Not a single gay (male) kiss. It had a lesbian kiss though, of course.

I loved it! Does anyone know anything about Ben Schnetzer? I saw him in this and in The Book Thief and fell in love.

[quote] I loved it! Does anyone know anything about Ben Schnetzer?

American who loves to play British. His father is soap opera actor Steve Schnetzer best known for his role on "Another World" as Cass Winthrop. His mother was also an actress, but had to curtail her career because she's certifiably insane.