Well If Art Gets Funding, Why Shouldn't Football? | Yes Minister | BBC Comedy Greats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Jim is ruffling a few feathers by suggesting that football should get funding just like theatre and the arts.
Subscribe: bit.ly/BBCComed...
WATCH MORE:
Yes, Minister: bit.ly/CGYesMi...
Blackadder: bit.ly/ComedyGr...
Live at the Apollo: bit.ly/2L9SAuA
Fawlty Towers: bit.ly/2L9FRYH
Welcome to BBC Comedy Greats, home to the best comedy from the BBC! Whether you're a fan of the classics or if stand up comedy is more up your street then check out our hand picked playlists full of the funniest clips by the best performers. From Only Fools and Horses to Live at the Apollo we can guarantee plenty of awesome Comedy Greats.
Want to share your views with the team? Join our BBC Studios Voice: www.bbcstudios...
This is a commercial channel from BBC Studios. Service & Feedback www.bbcstudios...
#Comedy #YesMinister
Humphrey: “Should we subsidise sex perhaps?”. Bernard: “Oh, could we?”!!! Just brilliant, as always!
Bernard´s face... priceless!
In 2010, a local council in Britain used government funds allocated to provide services for the disabled to send a learning-disabled man to Amsterdam to hire a prostitute, thereby subsidizing sex. There is a thin line between parody and prophecy.
Bernard was the absolute best character
PaREntAl LeaVe pAY
And here we are: 40-50 years after this was filmed and STILL no subsidy for sex! 🤣
If it was a cricket stadium Sir Humphrey would have sold that Art Museum himself
Somehow, we've come to the point that modern top-flight football sounds just like everything that's been described as art in this clip.
You either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain
So many great lines... I can't decide between "Ballet", "Should we subsidise sex perhaps?" "Oh could we?" or "I don't want to make you late for your works outing?"
Shakespeare did in fact get public subsidy - he wasn't writing for the King's Men for nothing.
Yes, Sir Humphrey's case is definitely stronger here
Nopes! It was not subsidy. It was patronage. That is different from subsidy. In the book version Hacker makes this point.
@Lauren Michelle Lynley Might it be inopportune to point out that the Royals owned a significant of the country and were stinking rich to start with?
Slightly besides the point, but the Medici's, the original big bankers, that probably would have made the Rothschild's look like school kids, paid for almost all of the Renaissance.
@@narendrapanse7844 Not inopportune if true. And it is true. Here is a short version of how economic systems evolved: Medieveal Feudalism -> Mercantiilism -> Laissez Faire Capitalism -> Social-Democratic Capitalism. The movement of money was always from the top to bottom regarding subsidies or patronage and from bottom to top regarding production. Serfs give X amount of assets to their lord = lord is rich. Then lord provides X amount of assets to whomever they deem fit. Granted, lords didn't do that much. But someone always had to pay for artworks. In order to pay, these artworks had to be directed at something of interest. So, go to any museum in Europe, look at Renaissance paitings, and you'll see some 90% of painting Biblical motifs.
As with modern system of subsidies, the model of patronage relies on money earned by someone at the top and distributing it to someone below themselves. Now, how did the rich become the rich? That's an interesting question. In Feudalism, it was taxes. In Mercantilism, taxes, or investments via credit or both in combination. In early capitalism, the asset was labor of people in factories (something that deluded Marx in trying to build an economic system out if it - an unsurprising failure at that), and in the modern system it's taxes again, but now with greater accountability than before and with the knowledge of where (for some/the most part) the tax money is going. But that is just public subsidies. Private investing is still present, as it was in mercantilism, and it too can have tremendous public benefit. For instance a bunch of programs on PBS are financed by private foundations.
So, it's a complex topic, and a fascinating array of historical developments, but one common thread is that the arts cannot, and never could have, survived on their own. Someone 'upstairs' always needed to support them, and the public interest was never sufficient for that (the great 'Myth of the Public' would have you believe that once people enjoyed arts more than today, but that is simply not true).
Anyway, thanks to the great show for inspiring this diatribe. :)
What’s funny is that he isn’t against subsidising of the arts, he just thinks it should be arts people actually like. The opera could easily afford to fund itself via rich benefactors or if it does get subsidy they could be based in the regions. But it’s in London where very few can access it.
As ever, Bernard sits there for a couple of minutes before delivering the killer line!
Bernard was Stone Cold with that line.
Bernard's best moment during this scene was his expression when Hacker pointed at him and said "Why should the working man on the terrace have to foot the bill for the gentry in the stalls?"
The face Hacker makes when Humphrey says "it's the end of civilization" 😂
But Hacker feels fine
definitely trolling
One of the rare moments Hacker gets the last laugh.
In the end Sir Humphrey was still successful
@@felixlps1 hacker and Humphrey were both successful.
Hacker got another ministry, meaning a slight promotion.
Humphrey made his department bigger, making sure that all civil servants realised his cunning.
Works outing at The Royal Opera House. Priceless, they'll all be on the bus home with their fish and chips, drinking Watney's Red Barrel and singing Nessun Dorma in three different keys at the same time at the top of their voices.
That would be an interesting business - Opera on a bus.
What is Watney's red barrel?
Is it martian beer?
"Why should we subsidise the culture of the Axis Powers.." WOW.. 🤣
(shots 'literally' fired)
@PatchesRips Jim Hacker came to power in part due to nationalistic public sentiment against EU mandates from Brussels, particularly regulations that would force the relabeling of the traditional "English sausage" into something unappealing like the "high-fat offal tube." Jim Hacker was elected to protect the beloved English sausage from the dreaded Eurosausage.
@PatchesRips to be fair, someone who is around their age at the time would have been children/young men during the war. I imagine it can be hard to not have that influence your views on certain countries that you were at war with in your lifetime. I imagine it is understandable.
At the same time, he was a "good European" and tjought about accepting a job in Brussels. Not the man one would expect to be comllaining abiut subsidizing the cultures of Axis Powers.
@@thiagodeandrade7081 well, that wasn't really his issue, he made it as a counter argument for humphrey saying culture must be subside to be preserved and hacker fired back by saying "it's not really english culture is it?" the point was to call humphrey on his bullshit and to point out the real reason is self indulgence of the middle-class.
@@blazypika2 Sure. He was being witty and sarcastic. Still, not the kind of argument he would like to see associated to him in the papers.
The British attitude to arts and culture can best be summed up thus. If the Government burned all the paintings in the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery there would be a few angry letters to newspapers, if the banned Premier League football there would be riots.
"You dont want to miss your works outing" - classic
I had to think about it to understand it LOL, it IS brilliant
I didn't understand this, could you please explain this joke?
@@AnirudhSrivatsa "Work outing" for most people would be a couple beers down at the pub, not a night at the opera in full tuxedo
Hacker is right in everything he says...but somehow I still agree with everything Humphrey says.
That's the beauty of the show. No one's wrong. That's brilliant writing.
@@ahmadyasin8674 I'd say those guys trying to keep a hospital with no patients running were firmly in the wrong.
@@ahmadyasin8674 One side is the people with less power (or money) in the country and the other side is the one with more power (and money) in the country.
@@matthewcoates756 Doesn't mean one side is better than the other - envy of the wealthy has always been a thing, but it doesn't mean that they're wrong.
As I grow older and work longer, more and more I’m on Humphrey’s side.
Love this scene - ‘works outing’. It’s funny that although it was never shown what party Hacker belonged to; many of his causes and speeches were very ‘left’ leaning like this one. Usually he was very anti-establishment. And he was formerly an editor of a satirical newspaper I think before becoming an MP.
I think of this as quite right-leaning. It argues for less government intervention and letting business stand or fall on its own merit. It only uses the left-leaning “subsidizing the middle class” language as a tool.
I think the christmas special indicates. Since Labour are far too queasy about kicking their own out, the Tories where brutal. There's a brilliant scene where Humphrey asks Hacker if he's being Indecisive, and Hacker starts panicking.
The writers have actually indicated Hacker was written with a moderate Conservative party minister in mind. It becomes a bit more obvious in the Yes, Prime Minister series, in particular in the scenes with his political assistant.
I'm lean slightly to the right and I agreed with almost everything he said. That's actually the brilliance of the writers. They don't make things like this anymore. More like they can't.
Hacker is always looking to cut costs, cut taxes and is only too happy to pick a fight with the unions. So clearly a conservative but perhaps small c
Even the name "Humphrey" is so suitable! Such a wonderful production
Genius writing and supreme talented delivery. Timeless
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in some sense Shakespeare did get subsidies. His company, the King's Men had a royal patron after all, in the person of James I.
i think it was patronage - different from subsidies. But then, i could be wrong.
Shakespeare did sort of get a "public subsidy". Obviously that didn't exist in his day, but he was a beneficiary of royal patronage.
Patronage (which still exists) is the very opposite of public subsidy. If wealthy people/companies want to subsidise "Art" good for them...
Oh.. U missed..
"flying dutchman!"
"Ah, another one of our European partners"
If people want it, they'll pay for it. Football clubs are commercial ventures, they are formed by money to make money. If they run out of money, they close, nothing is really lost. I think Humphrey said it best: "Subsidies are for what people don't want, _but ought to have."_
You wouldn't have an Internet on which to say this if it hadn't been for public subsidy.
Well opera houses aren’t things that ‘ought to be having’ either, if u come to think about it and some others would beg to differ.
And who gets to decide what the people aught to have?
If people don’t want it they shouldn’t ought to have it.
@@ZATennisFan a conservative government....local or central
Love the way Hacker mocked him like a schoolgirl for going to the Opera.
The direction is superb. 2:20 "why should the working man on the terraces" (minister points out to Bernard ) then he gives a quick glance to minister then contineues
this comedy is truth. never thought about art like this before.
It's worth noting that 9 million pounds, even in the 1980s, is nothing by the standards of Government expenses.
That 9 million pounds would be worth about 35 million pounds today, roughly comparable to what was spent to build the first Wembley Stadium in the 1920s (750k, 45 million in today's pounds).
Both of those suns are small fry compared to the 60 billion pound defense budget, the 115 billion pound budget for the NHS, and the other 700 billion pound in the budget over all. If a Minister is complaining about 0.004% of the budget being wasted, he's probably politically grandstanding, and if a country like the UK can't afford to spend more than 0.004% of its budget on art *and* more than 0.004% of its budget on sport at the same time, and still do everything else it needs to, it's in serrious trouble.
@@jesseberg3271 sums
@@jesseberg3271 No one here is claiming that we can't build infrastructure. If there is a demand for more theaters, I say the government should step in and help to some extent...although, if there was such a high demand for more theaters then the government wouldn't have to subsidise anything - they would have the money to do it themselves.
The issue at hand is government sponsoring of a highly unprofitable branch which only serves as a mean of acquiring feelings of moral and intellectual superiority among the select few.
Throwing in national defense and healthcare in that conversation is completely ridiculous.
@@markomarkovic8177 yeah gotta love the false equivalence of literal lifesaving with literal snobbery
@@markomarkovic8177 I can tell you that all theaters, museums etc... would have to close (also btw. not only rich people go to theaters, but without cheap tickets no one from below the high class could afford a ticket).
And if you CAN'T see that this would make society poorer and more boring even, than you should maybe go to North Korea or to Afghanistan to see how you like a life without music, theater, movie theaters, sports.
Living in cities without variety even without public displays of art like sculptures, paintings, artful parks etc...
Not really worth living. Only a sociopath might enjoy such a society like very fitting Kim Jong-Un.
They can’t make good comedy like that anymore
Hlarious! The whole debate took place on the BBC, which is subsidized by a tax on TV and radios.
...which is enjoyed by the masses majority of whom, probably couldn't afford cable or subscription based tv.
If its left to Bernard (and, yours truly too!), we'd be subsidizing for better quality on The Sun's Page 3, which is of course, still enjoyed by the masses .....
"subsidizing by popular demand" is the exact opposite of why subsidizing exists in the first place
Apart from comedy,it is very healthy discussion about topic.
the GAA gets 57 mil a year from the irish government
the Smallest towns in Ireland may not have a shopping centre or any other facilities but damn they will have immaculate Gaelic pitches
As we should.
These scripts are absolute gems
Brilliant program and probably very close to the truth.
Perfectly
To be fair, Shakespeare did (sort of) receive public money as pay for his work. He was a member of a theater company called The Lord Chamberlain's Men, founded by a Baron who was in charge of court entertainment under the reign of Elizabeth the First. All money that funded such endeavors would have come from the crown, which by definition was all public money...
But that came with restrictions.
A lot of artists want to make their cake and eat it.
Get Public money and no restrictions.
2:40 okay, this is a nit pick, and one that is up to interpretation, but Shakespeare and his theatre company were sponsored first by Queen Elizabeth and then by King James. It’s not a public subsidy per say, but it seems pretty comparable.
No its not. PATRONAGE is not "public subsidy" and patronage is exactly what should be supporting the Arts. Build tax breaks into it if necessary... but make it PRIVATE sponsorship.
'Why should we subsidise the culture of the Axis powers?' to this day when you want to make yourself heard you invoke WW2. I would almost approve of a 3rd one if it meant no more invocations of the 2nd.
0:34 "culturrrral herrritage" makes it sound better
There's only two other programs equal to this, the new statesman and the thick of it but yes minister is my favourite.
There are two other shows made here in Australia that are in the same vein, both made by the same production company. There was The Hollowmen, which was about the civil servants who have to work around the offices of power and now there's Utopia, which is about the Nation Building Authority, which is a new government organisation and how they cope with bureaucracy combined with the ambitions of government. Both are HIGHLY recommended, although you might get a bit frustrated by the latter show, as you really feel for the protagonists and how they're forced to cope with things. Still great though :)
@@jeremyadler9620 nice one thanks I'll have a look at them 👍
@@robmarrin6720, Hope you enjoy them :)
@@jeremyadler9620 Oh this does sound good, hopefully not too difficult for non-Australians to understand.
@@MrThorfan64, I doubt it'll be difficult to get. It's all pretty straightforward :)
It's nice to see Hacker win one here and there.
"I don't want to make you late for your works outing..." Beautifully put!
I agree with Humphrey on this one.
I agree somewhat with Hackett's sentiment about the arts being primarily accessible to the elites of society, but I disagree with his takeaway. The solution should not be to just fund things that are accessible to the greater mass of the public (like commercial sports), but rather to make the arts more accessible to the wider public. Demand subsidies for galleries and symphonies be used to make tickets cheaper. Have set nights where the opera or symphony is free, and the performance in a large enough venue to accommodate as many people as possible. Limit the number of tickets that can be sold in advance to avoid them only going to people with connections. I firmly believe these things have benefits to society and people, and having them trapped behind a paywall is almost obscene...
@@Robert-hz9bj Yeah, if the complaint's that only the wealthy/influential get in, taking subsidies away isn't gonna make things any better.
Both are right neither should be subsidised
Does anyone siding with Hacker on this one realise that by watching this video, they have been enjoying subsidised art?
Yes, the subsidised art that can be enjoyed by the masses, the same kind he promoted in the first place
I'm with Humphrey on this one
I'm with Hacker more but 100% with him when he mentions films.
Timeless and brilliantly played and written!!!!
Subsidising sex is not a joke in Australia, but actually is reality. The government financially helps poor people with special needs to visit brothels which are legal in many Australian states.
Philistinism, nationalism, brazen pandering to the lower class, commercialism, sheer demagoguery...Sir Humphrey is absolutely right here.
Do you seriously think that if the average person had the time and money to see a play or opera that they would not? It is one of the things in the ex-Socialist countries that the people miss the most! They could see the entire Wagner library over the weekend for pocket change. You think people in America wouldn't do the same for a Sondheim series? I know a dozen.
@@jeffreymeehan3116 in socialist countries the art world be censored
They don’t make ‘em like this anymore! 😆
Mostly because they do not need to. This will be applicable in all governments, for ever.
Hi great video. Have an awesome day. Hugs from Argentina
Love the ending of this episode where Jim asks if he can attend the opera with Humphrey as well
Absolutrly top notch this show. Not one bad episode..genius from writing to production
The BBC does two things very well. Sitcoms/Comedy and Documenties.
God I love this so much
it is actually quite difficult issue to decide. I can't even take sides here.
Nice to see Hacker get the better of Sir Humphrey for a change.
I think subsidizing sex would be very popular haha.
what Jim says, and what Hump says are EXACTLY what was said in the past about the Art funding Opera vs Football issue. It's gone away now since Arts Council England get loads of money from the Lottery. So the Arts are still subsidised by us, or rather people who buy lottery tickets
I love this episode, especially, when Hacker ends up accompanying Humphrey to the opera to Humphrey's delight
03:41 "lorrts-of-premanenmmfptsecretariesgonnabe there??"
"some... no doubt."
"Hmm. Ooorrf you go, then. 🙂"
another great informative insight to how the system works all done with comedy by great script and great actors . this series is still relevent to by the way gvrmt works to its own advantage
Reportedly, Maggie Thatcher loved it.
When this was made in the 80s, of course there was no money in football. Seems like a world away now! Actually there is more money, but most of it's fuelled by debt. So today the minister is more likely to make the case that subsidising football is to promote sport and 'inclusion'.
One quibble - the clock behind Jim reads 10.05. Assuming this is morning, isn't it bit early for Humphrey to need to leave for the Opera?
Based on what I've read about white tie attire, he may need every second he can get...
Shakespeare was sponsored by the crown...
What's the humour behind the humour is - it's still relevant today!
Brexit, ironically dreamed up by those who wished to sobatage Brexit.
Jim points to Bernard when he says - the man on the street. Bernard is not a man on the street
Bernard is a stand-in that represents the wider audience, the people who are watching the show (hence the questions that he usually asks Jim/Humphrey that the audience themselves would). So he really refers to "the working man" even though it is a fourth-wall-breaking kind of a deal.
Pure gold!
I've just noticed one thing: there's a clock on the mantelpiece which shows 5 past 10, and judging by the picture outside the window, it's 10:05 AM.
So Humpy is really dedicated to making damn sure he's dressed up impeccably for "work's outing", even at the expense of most of the working day time. But then again, more work was probably done at such outings, as next scene testifies.
Unless the clock has just stopped, of course 😃
A professional football club has numerous revenue streams (tickets, sponsorship, broadcast contract, merchandise etc).
An art gallery doesn't
It is long past due we stop comparing this comedy with any other.
Yes Minister/Prime Minister has no equal. It has established it's own class which I don't expect to be reached by any other.
To be fair, if it wasn't for the royal and noble patrons of art during the Renaissance, we would all still be in the dark ages. Culture is not meant for mass consumption, yet it is the common identity of the people. After all how many of us wear our ethnic dress or eat our national dish on a daily basis?
Culture is what people consume. Mona Lisa is just a nice portrait. Made for sale.
"Why should we subsidise the culture of the Axis powers?" GUFFAW1
Cause England will always lose in penalties. In spite of whatever funding the FA receives.
Football is part of culture, too.
Sad thing is that during lockdowns people turn to the arts and culture to sustain them, but government support in the UK is so limited
Sport shouldn't be subsidised but neither should a niche thing like Opera or Interpretive dance. I love how YM and YPM are still gas funny and relevant today as when they were launched.
In the USA, we fund massive stadiums and not enough for the arts.
What arts?
massively profitable sporting franchises getting multimillion stadiums on the taxpayer's dime
You have arts?
It's from a later episode, but:
"ALL governments are ALWAYS being criticized for not giving enough to the arts."
@Henry Wallace - Sport should get funding at the education levels of primary, secondary and university, but not professional.
Arts definitely need funding.
all very valid points !
I love football. It is the best game in the world. I have especially loved english premiere league since I have been a child. A MAN U fan through and through! But even I find it appalling that an art gallery would be sold to fund a football club. It is appalling, it is a desecration of culture. The world has already lost a great deal of art and culture due to religion and war, without subsidiary, we would lose even more art and culture.
Would you say it was...Barbarism?
Religion is one of the driving factors behind culture.
Black when Paul Eddington could walk 😢
Subsidising art is a tax on the poor and working class for the enjoyment of the rich.
What a great argument against subsidising art.
That assumes that the poor and working class can't enjoy art.
@@draconianTL I've never understood why the hobbies of posh people get subsidized by the government. while the hobbies of ordinary people get almost nothing. That stinks if you ask me. If the opera houses can't fund themselves, when they aren't actually showing opera they should be required to earn extra revenue by renting out space to be a reception venue or do similar things, rather than just leaving taxpayer funded buildings empty most of the time.
@@draconianTL Or that the poor aren't the artists being subsidized. That's infact much more likely. Being an artist is for the vast majority of artists equivalent with being poor.
@@Dave_Sisson Have you not seen the full episode? In order to win Hacker over, Humphrey arranges for him to be the new Minister for the Arts (an extra for his role in the DAA) then asks him if the first decision in his new role is to close an art gallery. It makes me wonder if any government could possibly avoid corruption.
@@draconianTL How often the poor and working class get a chance to go into royal opera house and see the show?
Humphrey is right.
I really love these where Jim gets it over SIR Humphrey
Prophetic, unfortunately.
Like all great satire, killingly funny, but with a stiletto concealed under its cloak. Why should art - especially unpopular art - be subsidised by the State?
Maybe because popular art like films etc can survive on its own.
@@shreyaskumaragarwal3343 Is it the business of the State to ensure the survival of art that _can't_ survive on its own?
@@puffin51 Its quite a pertinent point. But I do feel that a sort of heritage is attached to some unpopular art and that heritage we should try and conserve.
@@shreyaskumaragarwal3343 Who is "we"? Obviously not people who would not pay for that art, if it were not enforced via their taxes. Why should they be forced to subsidise the tastes of others? I don't think so. It's not like a health system that everyone contributes to - that's a vital service that everyone will need sooner or later. If that means the death of opera and ballet and little art novels and paintings or sculpture of nothing on earth, then that's what it means. The ancient and honourable choices remain: starve in a garret; find a patron; or produce something that sells at a profit. Or get a day job.
@@puffin51 That is one way of looking at it and it not wrong at all. Maybe you are right after all, such art should not be subsidised by government but rather the rich few who still like it or people like me who would want it preserved.
For a man with no interest in it being forced to subsidise it by a part of his hard earned money is indeed apalling.
Very topical.
I mean I kind of agree with Sir Humphrey on this one. Art and culture are necessary to be subsidised because there's things that are supposed to be preserved for future generations. Sports is something that just sort of happens. A group of people get together and decide to play a sport or do a sport. They decide to finance their own sports teams etcetera and people decide whether they want to go to the sports and spend money. It's one of the reasons why I absolutely hate American politics because we subsidize sports over art and culture way too much. It gets so ridiculous that millions and millions of dollars are spent on new stadiums that people don't even really care about and don't need. They even built an aquarium inside a baseball stadium that cost 4 million dollars and has cracked in the last few years
Paul Eddingtons / jim hackers facial expressions when he trumps Humphry is great.....
Amusing. But out of such attitudes, has come U.K's present buffoon society. They make Kiwis come across well
How 2021 this is!
Only today does this program becomes dated with the change of her majesty to his majesty.
Absent the Sky-funded premier league, as true today as it was then…
God bless Bernard. That 'oh, could we' was so full of hope.
I loved it when the minister got the better of the bureaucrat! 😂
Brilliant!
Patronising old toad Humphrey is…
Sir Nigel had a long time in the theatre career, which probably made him more angry
Gala night is it?
... It is, since you ask.
2:38 Jim Hacker turns into a Muppet!
Did Hacker just called the most powerful man in the UK "middle class" lol
This "middle class" man literally controls the PM later on
I think in Britain, "upper class" is reserved for actual, bona fide aristocrats, with titles and land holdings going back however many centuries.
holaa
That wallpaper needs to be napalmed!
ooooooh love it , why do great hings have to stop ?
That ballet could torch your ankle.
Hacker really has no couth.