Imelda Staunton & Bill Nighy Get Help from Gays in UK 'Pride' Trailer

July 1, 2014
Source: Pathe


There's a lot of pride for gays and lesbians going around right now as many states continue grant equal rights to allow them to get married instead of being treated like second class citizens by the law. Therefore, the timing is perfect for the British drama Pride, the true story of gay and lesbian activists who threw their support behind the families of striking miners in the United Kingdom in 1984. However, at the time, the National Union of Mineworkers weren't all that thrilled about receiving their help, forcing these activists to go straight to the families themselves. It's a story of unlikely togetherness staring Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Dominic West, Paddy Considine and more, and the first trailer from the UK has arrived!

Here's the international trailer for Matthew Warchus' Pride from Pathé UK:

At the Gay Pride March in London, a group of gay and lesbian activists decides to raise money to support the families of the striking miners in 1984. But the only problem is the National Union of Mineworkers seems too embarrassed to receive their support. Not discouraged, the activists ignore the Union and go direct to the miners. They identify a small mining villiage in Wales to make their donations to the community in person, beginning a surprising partnership between two seemingly alien communities as they fight for the same cause. Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Paddy Considine, Dominic West and more star in Matthew Warchus' Pride and Pathé releases in the UK on September 12th, but there's no US release date just yet.

Find more posts: To Watch, Trailer



Stop the propaganda. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not treating anyone as a second class citizen unless you choose to be offended by it. Showing hate towards anyone in the LGBT is intolerable, but believing marriage is a structural part of society that should be used as a standard for procreation has nothing to do with viewing LGBT as second class. Of course if you choose you can be offended by anything.

VoiceOfReason on Jul 1, 2014


This is a movie blog. Your political views are neither wanted nor needed.

Sean on Jul 1, 2014


Tell that to Ethan Anderton because I'm pretty sure that he turned this into more than just an article about a movie when he opened with, "There's a lot of pride for gays and lesbians going around right now as many states continue grant equal rights to allow them to get married instead of being treated like second class citizens by the law." I feel the same way that you do in that this is a movie blog and that political views are neither wanted or needed, but it's kind of hard to make your argument when the authors of these articles continuously make sociopolitical statements about social issues such as gay rights. Ethan gets on his social soap box every chance he gets and I find it rather annoying. Let's just stick with the movies and keep our sociopolitical views to ourselves because I'm sick of being bombarded with it everywhere it shouldn't be.

Bubbicus on Jul 2, 2014


While I disagree w/ VoR's comment... You raise a very good point, and made me reconsider continuing the political commentary ^_^

VAharleywitch on Jul 2, 2014


When it's with regards to a film that puts homosexuals and heterosexuals on a playing field where they each learn something from each other and promotes equality, you can be damn sure I'm going to proclaim my support for gay marriage. Because there's no reason that their lifestyle or their love for each other should be deemed as lesser than straight marriage in the eyes of the law. People can believe what they want in their personal life, but justice is supposed to be blind, and everyone should have the exact same rights.

Ethan Anderton on Jul 2, 2014


Thanks for proving my point. I think it's great that you feel so strongly about this issue and I understand the nature of the film, but don't you think that there's something beautiful about being able to keep one's opinions to one's self, especially when that opinion is expected? Sometimes the person who wins an argument isn't the person who speaks a thousand words, but rather it's the person who has spoken but a few. That being said, I will end with a quote from a Brazilian author, Paulo Coelho, "don't waste your time with explanations; people only hear what they want to hear."

Bubbicus on Jul 2, 2014


I'll end my side of this with a quote from Albert Einstein: "If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.”

Ethan Anderton on Jul 3, 2014


Fair enough, although I think that you're missing my point, which is fine (it's all about the appropriate forum). I'm just glad that people are still capable of having a constructive conversation without resorting to name-calling simply because we don't agree. To quote Aristotle, "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I think that we should all entertain opposing ideas and beliefs even if we strongly disagree. I have often-times found myself changing my opinion after objectively thinking about an opposing idea/belief that was just too logical to disagree with.

Bubbicus on Jul 3, 2014


I am going to agree with you. The difference is I think marriage is a standard and not a right. Edit: For clarification, children do best in a home with a good biological father and a good biological mother. That should be the standard. Is everything up to standard, of course not. Will children be adopted into good homes, yes. Will biological parents be bad, yes. Still the standard is a standard and shouldn't be moved. This has nothing to do with LGBT in my opinion. Any rights that extend to married couples should be extended to same sex unions. I do however believe that the standard should remain the same.

VoiceOfReason on Jul 2, 2014


I couldn't have said it better.

VoiceOfReason on Jul 2, 2014


That's why I said second class citizens and not second class people. As long as LGBT people cannot get married and have the same rights as the same union between a man and a woman, they will always be regarded as second class. It's objectively unequal and discriminatory.

Ethan Anderton on Jul 2, 2014


Unless you throw procreation into the mix. If you believe marriage is about love then your point is valid. If you believe marriage is about a standard for procreation then not so much. It's not as objective as you claim.

VoiceOfReason on Jul 2, 2014


There are tons of straight couples who don't have the ability to reproduce because the either the man or woman is sterile, or who simply decide not to have children, and they're allowed to get married without any argument. So yes, it's just as objective as I claim.

Ethan Anderton on Jul 3, 2014


Do you not understand what a standard is?

VoiceOfReason on Jul 3, 2014


I agree with you Voice. The problem with society today is that way too many people are confusing "standards" with "rights" and to make things even worse, when the government steps in and incentivises a "standard" or offers some sort of protection to that "standard," then guess what? That "standard" is now a "right" and is therefore protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the "standard" for thousands of years and it's the main reason why the next generation of tax payers is produced. So what does the government do to make it as appealing as possible to persuade a man and a woman to marry to create the next generation of tax payers? They incentivise the institution of marriage by offering a married man and woman tax breaks and other benefits not afforded to other people. Do you see what they did? They turned a "standard" into a "right" by incentivising the institution of marriage and by so doing the "right" to get married is now protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and this is why so many federal judges are overturning state bans on gay marriage. If you want to turn anything into a "right," then just let the government get involved. This wouldn't even be an issue if there were no government subsidized marriage benefits or protections because no one particular group would be esteemed as more valuable to society than the others. As far as I'm concerned, the government should have nothing to do with marriage and I agree with progressives when they say that the government has no business in our bedrooms (even though they say that in regards to abortion, but when it comes to gay marriage, then they welcome the government into their bedrooms with open arms. Make up your freaking minds, will ya?). Anyway, I'm afraid that those of us who stand for traditional marriage are on the losing end of the battle because the "standard" of marriage is no longer a "standard," but a federally incentivised and protected "right" and so now the government has to ensure that nobody is discriminated against because of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The only way for conservatives to win this battle is to remove all federal benefits and protections offered to married couples and return marriage's status from a "right" to a "standard," but that's not going to happen. That's it. Period. End of story. This is what happens when faceless bureaucrats decide what's best for you and for me and for your neighbors or decides what should be rendered unto Caesar and what should be rendered unto God. Anyway, I applaud both you and Ethan for standing for your beliefs in such a respectful manner. There is way too much rancor and hate in this world today.

Ryan Weiss on Jul 10, 2014


This movie looks to be a fun look at an unlikley relationship that many probably never knew about. Also love Imelda Staunton. I'm down to check it out.

Movie Bear on Jul 1, 2014

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram