Pride Vlog Script

The 2014 biographical comedy Pride recounts the events which lead to the formation of the lgbt group, Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners (or L.G.S.M) during the 1984-85 miner’s strike against closures of collieries by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in order to further facilitate her plans to take power away from trade unions and get rid of “unprofitable” government ventures, which she completed in tandem with her “right to buy” housing act, which sold off a large percentage of council housing, to solidify herself and her government as the enemy of the working class. The striking miners and their leaders (In particular Arthur Scargill, the credited head of the strike) were demonised by the tory government and the mainstream media due to its funding from the Conservative party, showing a continued war on the working class from both the government and the citizens of this society who bought into the funded media’s orchestrated viewpoint. L.G.S.M saw parallels in the miners treatment to their own in Thatcher’s Britain, which was notoriously homophobic and later in 1988 saw the introduction of Section 28, which criminalised the promotion of homosexuality by local councils and schools, despite steps  being taken in earlier years towards equality, such as the decriminalisation of homosexual sex after age 21 in 1967, and decided to support their striking efforts by raising money for those on strike and their families. In total L.G.S.M raised approximately twenty-thousand pounds for the miners, leading to the alliance between the miner’s labour groups and the LGBT community, meaning that the miners were some of the most outspoken against the introduction of Section 28 and participated in pride groups across the country. The story of the formation of this alliance is one that needed to be told as the story contains minority representation, creates an active audience response, and creates an interesting narrative which captivates viewers and introduces them to historic events.

                This film contains many minority groups which had not been previously portrayed in mainstream cinema in the same way as they are in Pride, making this a step forward in the portrayal of the LGBT community and the working class as the protagonists of the main story against the ruling upper classes. Women, although not a minority group, are also given more depth and strength in character in this film. Gay men are shown to be more normal in this film than in previous media, where they are stereotyped to be feminine, promiscuous, and flashy, and are often relegated to a secondary character instead of a main protagonist. An example of this can be seen in the 1996 film “The Birdcage”, where Nathan Lane’s character Albert is portrayed as the “flaming gay” archetype. Jonathan’s character in Pride, could fit into this archetype, however the realism of his character is still there, and he is less cartoony than other portrayals of gay men, which in part can be due to the real-life person which his character is based on and the necessity to stay true to the historical events. Lesbians do less well in this film, as there are only a handful of lesbians shown in the film, and only one, Steph, who is continually present throughout the film’s runtime. Steph as she appeases in the film is a typically lesbian character, as presented in her costume, hair and makeup, as she has close cropped hair and wears more masculine clothes than the other woman in the film. However, she is not oversexualised or found to waiting for the right man to “turn” her straight, tropes which were prevalent in historical cinema, such as in the TV show “The L Word”. In addition to this her characterisation is based on the real-life person, so much the same way as Jonathan, this character may be accurate to the history instead of defying stereotypes.

                Jonathan (and later Ashton after the events of the film had taken place) were both AIDs sufferers, however Jonathan is shown to be in a happy, long-term relationship with Gethin, showing a representation of AIDs sufferers which does not buy into the normal media depiction of HIV/AIDs sufferers, which blamed the victims for contracting it due to their drug use or sexuality, as only gay men and drug users were shown to be affected by the disease. There was also a fear of the disease being extremely contagious, as it was believed to be transmitted through skin contact and saliva, when it can actually only be transmitted through sexual fluids and blood transfer, such as sharing needles. Jonathan is not shown to be contagious and is free to spend time with his friends and partner, without making it a central part of his character. This representation of an AIDs sufferer allowed for acceptance by the audience of those in real life who have this condition, creating a more accepting society. This increases the validity of the argument for Pride being a story which needed to be told.

                In conclusion, I believe that Pride is a story which needs to be told, as the representation in the film allows for the minority groups which are present in the film to be shown to a more mainstream audience, allowing for more diversity in cinema, creating a more cohesive society.