Just watched A Question of Loyalty. This episode starts off slow but gets better and better as sir Humphrey is at his most delightfully apoplectic and outraged. His facial expressions are always priceless, changing in a flash to perfectly express his shifting reactions and inner states. But here he outdoes himself as he tries to maintain his monumental verbal poise, and suppress his vehement emotions when the tables are turned on him to challenge his confident assumption of power over his minister. MInister Hacker is a riot as his face shows how his anxiety over how he is perceived starts to overwhelm him in the face of a threatening criticism by an obnoxious questioner in a committee hearing, and challenging interrogation at number 10---until he can somehow find the strength to fight back. True comedy acting and writing virtuosity all round.
4 Reviews
Loyalty to oneself
snoozejonc7 July 2021
Hacker faces a parliamentary select committee over government wastage.
This is an enjoyable episode that sees Hacker not only fighting against the civil service but showing that when push comes to shove he puts his public perception first.
The script contains lots of strong banter as always, but the real strength lies in the concept of the civil service and elected officials working in unison to achieve nothing other than an easy life for the former and then seeing it get turned on its head.
All the unsaid anger rising to the surface within Sir Humphrey makes for some of the best scenes. He is so smug at first when smoothly deflecting questions and dodging blame, then when Hacker drops the inevitable bombshell it is hilarious.
I love all the standard excuses the civil service use for different situations when things go wrong.
Nigel Hawthorne and Paul Eddington are fantastic as ever.
This is an 8.5/10 for me but I round upwards.
This is an enjoyable episode that sees Hacker not only fighting against the civil service but showing that when push comes to shove he puts his public perception first.
The script contains lots of strong banter as always, but the real strength lies in the concept of the civil service and elected officials working in unison to achieve nothing other than an easy life for the former and then seeing it get turned on its head.
All the unsaid anger rising to the surface within Sir Humphrey makes for some of the best scenes. He is so smug at first when smoothly deflecting questions and dodging blame, then when Hacker drops the inevitable bombshell it is hilarious.
I love all the standard excuses the civil service use for different situations when things go wrong.
Nigel Hawthorne and Paul Eddington are fantastic as ever.
This is an 8.5/10 for me but I round upwards.
Who's loyal
safenoe27 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Anyway, I'd say the acting of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds was incredible, and it's hard to imagine anyone else in their respective roles. All credit as well to the writers and production team for making this so real and you can even feel the English cold weather when watching this episode.
Jonathan Lynn co-created and co-wrote Yes, Minister with Antony Jay. Interestingly, Antony Jay received a knighthood to become Sir Antony Jay but to this day Jonathan Lynn hasn't. Yet Jonathan Lynn went on to direct Clue, Nuns on the Run, My Cousin Vinny, and The Whole Nine Yards so it's strange init that Jonathan has been overlooked for a knighthood.
Jonathan Lynn co-created and co-wrote Yes, Minister with Antony Jay. Interestingly, Antony Jay received a knighthood to become Sir Antony Jay but to this day Jonathan Lynn hasn't. Yet Jonathan Lynn went on to direct Clue, Nuns on the Run, My Cousin Vinny, and The Whole Nine Yards so it's strange init that Jonathan has been overlooked for a knighthood.
Season 2: Still great stuff but the harsh cynicism of season 1 is softened a little to the slight detriment of the show
bob the moo19 January 2010
Following on from finishing season 3 of The Thick of It recently, I returned to Yes Minister for its second of three seasons. Having only watched the first season a few weeks ago, the difference in season 2 is quite obvious even though, in fairness, it is only slight. This difference is in the approach of the show because it suddenly appears to have been made a bit more "accessible" perhaps in light of the success of the first season. I'm guessing of course because I was not watching at the time it first was screened but the three seasons it got (five if you include Yes Prime Minister) lead me to assume that it was considered a success and that it returned with hopes for increased audiences and success.
The pieces are more or less the same as the first season. Hacker is still the Minister with the Department of Administrative Affairs with civil servants Bernard and Humphrey alongside him to guide, support, serve and perplex him in equal measures. The only significant change is the absence of Frank Weisel, who is not a great loss as I didn't think he really fitted in particularly well anyway. Likewise the plots are similar in theme, with Hacker dealing with opportunities (which Humphrey often sees as problems) and problems (which Humphrey mostly sees as opportunities) but what is slightly different is the tone of the show. In the first season it was very sharp and cynical and perhaps to the point where it prevented a wider audience from getting into it. I'm stretching here because personally I enjoyed it but I can also see why it perhaps didn't get the ratings of "easier" fare such as Only Fools and Horses (I'm trying not to sound elitist or patronising but not doing a good job). Anyway, in this second season the very first episode demonstrates the slight tweaking because the show is immediately a little broader in its content and characters, with the laughs perhaps a little easier to come by and more obvious comedy. Humphrey doesn't seem quite as slick or as cynical as before while Hacker is a little bit more clownish. Like I said, this isn't a big problem but the first episode it is a little broader than I would have liked.
It is still good though and in essence does the same thing but it does have an edge of absurdity to the fore that the previous perhaps did not. This isn't a big deal but I did prefer that the next episodes didn't seem to do this to the same degree, although they do still retain an air of broader accessibility that the first season didn't have. The laughs are frequent but the show does better with a wry sense of humour that matches the characters and situations. The cast continue to do well with it even if their performances are slightly different from the first season. Hacker is a bit broader but still has the same essential strengths as in season one while Fowlds has plenty of good lines in an unchanged character. Hawthorne is very good of course and, had I not watched the first season I would not have a problem with him, but his material and performance here seems to see him lack a little of the bite and sharpness he had then.
Overall though, season 2 is still a very good political satire that makes for an entertaining comedy. The extreme cynicism of the first season appears to have been softened a little bit and that did irk me throughout the season (even though it does still have a good core of that in place) because it does have an impact on the characters, the performances and the writing, but it is still very good stuff and well worth seeing.
The pieces are more or less the same as the first season. Hacker is still the Minister with the Department of Administrative Affairs with civil servants Bernard and Humphrey alongside him to guide, support, serve and perplex him in equal measures. The only significant change is the absence of Frank Weisel, who is not a great loss as I didn't think he really fitted in particularly well anyway. Likewise the plots are similar in theme, with Hacker dealing with opportunities (which Humphrey often sees as problems) and problems (which Humphrey mostly sees as opportunities) but what is slightly different is the tone of the show. In the first season it was very sharp and cynical and perhaps to the point where it prevented a wider audience from getting into it. I'm stretching here because personally I enjoyed it but I can also see why it perhaps didn't get the ratings of "easier" fare such as Only Fools and Horses (I'm trying not to sound elitist or patronising but not doing a good job). Anyway, in this second season the very first episode demonstrates the slight tweaking because the show is immediately a little broader in its content and characters, with the laughs perhaps a little easier to come by and more obvious comedy. Humphrey doesn't seem quite as slick or as cynical as before while Hacker is a little bit more clownish. Like I said, this isn't a big problem but the first episode it is a little broader than I would have liked.
It is still good though and in essence does the same thing but it does have an edge of absurdity to the fore that the previous perhaps did not. This isn't a big deal but I did prefer that the next episodes didn't seem to do this to the same degree, although they do still retain an air of broader accessibility that the first season didn't have. The laughs are frequent but the show does better with a wry sense of humour that matches the characters and situations. The cast continue to do well with it even if their performances are slightly different from the first season. Hacker is a bit broader but still has the same essential strengths as in season one while Fowlds has plenty of good lines in an unchanged character. Hawthorne is very good of course and, had I not watched the first season I would not have a problem with him, but his material and performance here seems to see him lack a little of the bite and sharpness he had then.
Overall though, season 2 is still a very good political satire that makes for an entertaining comedy. The extreme cynicism of the first season appears to have been softened a little bit and that did irk me throughout the season (even though it does still have a good core of that in place) because it does have an impact on the characters, the performances and the writing, but it is still very good stuff and well worth seeing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
