是，大臣第三季

From://cinemascopicravings.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-suits-of-yes-minister/
Costume design is an important element of characterisation. Invariably, how a person is dressed has an influence on other people’s perceptions of that person, and this fact is just as important in film or on TV. Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are interesting examples of this, as the costume design is very subtle. Indeed, I’ve been re-watching them lately and it is only because I’m a style hack that I noticed the costume design at all. There are three key characters in the series, namely the Minister and later Prime Minister, Jim Hacker MP; the Minister’s Permanent Secretary and later Cabinet Secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby; and the Minister and later Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley. There are key differences between all three upon which shall be elaborated throughout.

Jim Hacker (Paul Eddington) was educated at the London School of Economics, which is actually an extremely respectable but practical university founded in the 19th century, and therefore commands disdain from both Appleby and Woolley, graduates of the ancient Oxford. Hacker tends to dress slightly less traditionally, or perhaps ‘more in tune with the times’ is a better way of putting it. He tends to favour double-breasted suits, which lend him a traditional air of statesmanship. Generally, Hacker ties his tie using a four-in-hand, or “schoolboy” knot. This knot lends a more casual air to the formality of a suit and tie, and appears less fastidious than a Windsor knot, which is often associated with the well-to-do.


<图片1>


Since the Global Financial Crisis, the four-in-had has become popular with politicians again today as politicians strive to be more ‘at one’ with the voters. Hacker’s pocket squares tend to be puffed in his pocket and are usually brightly coloured, dating the programme to a time when many people still wore pocket squares on the daily. The influences on Hacker’s choice of clothing are alluded to in the episode, “The Ministerial Broadcast”, where it is suggested that on television he wear a light coloured, ‘business-like’ suit for delivering no new information, or a dark coloured suit for announcing big changes, in order to appear more sincere. In the elements of his outfits, though, Hacker is dressed like a man of the people, in a manner that is authoritative and yet also friendly.

This is in direct contrast to Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorne). An Oxford man with a privileged upbringing, Sir Humphrey always wears single-breasted, two-button suits, usually with a light coloured shirt and pocket square. His ties vary, but all are tied with a perfect half-Windsor (you can tell by the size of the knot). This knot signifies the difference in monetary value of Humphrey and Hacker. Here is a man who is on at least £30,000 a year, according to Yes Minister – this is more than Hacker earns, and it shows! With the exception of the YPM episode, “The Key”, Humphrey never looks untidy or dishevelled, and all his outfits are perfectly tailored. Refreshingly, Sir Humphrey’s suits do not follow the 1980s fashion for having a particularly low gorge (where the collar meets the lapel), and so have not dated at all, as opposed to Hacker’s double-breasted suits, which are a complete product of their age.




In all his behaviour, Humphrey is a stickler for tradition, and his costume design reflects this. As a sidenote, Ian Fleming had this to say about Windsor knots: “Bond mistrusted anyone who tied his tie with a Windsor Knot. It showed too much vanity. It was often the mark of a cad.” Perhaps Hacker should have taken heed of this advice.

Bernard (Derek Fowlds), also an Oxford man from the upper classes, tends towards the same standards as Humphrey, most notably the Windsor knot. Interestingly, however, Woolley’s costuming changes the most out of all the leads over time. Throughout Yes Minister, Woolley is learning the ropes of the civil services, still quite young and green compared to the experienced Sir Humphrey. Bernard, in his youthful idealism, is yet to gain the automatic jaded outlook of Sir Humphrey. Perhaps as a reflection of this, Bernard’s dress sense in the earlier series is quite dandyish. A proponent of the navy single-breasted suit – often a three-piece – Bernard frequently pairs it with pink shirts or the occasional merchant banker, often with a collar pin and cufflinks to boot.





Being quite the (dubiously successful) dandy myself, I would certainly mark Bernard as the best dressed of the three in Yes Minister. However, by Yes Prime Minister, Bernard’s style has toned right down, almost to the same level of tradition as Sir Humphrey. Gone are the brighter shirts, to be replaced with whites and blues the same as Sir Humphrey. This shift in style is quite notable, and I interpret it as a sign of Bernard’s advancing up the ranks of the Civil Service and a consequent maturity – though this is not necessarily reflected in his behaviour and puntastic dialogue! He remains the best dressed, however.

The contrasting styles of all three characters give the audience an insight into their personalities right off the bat, and these insights are later backed up by the characters’ roles in the plots. I’ve been unable to find any analysis of the costume design online, or indeed any comments from the programmes’ creators to back up the interpretations I’ve made here. However, in the book adaptations of the series released in the 1980s, numerous references are made to Ministry of Defence officials wearing baggy blue suits as their civilian uniforms. This leads me to believe that there would have to have been some attention paid to the significance of certain sartorial elements in the design of the show. But, maybe I’m just being over-analytical.

UPDATE 27/09/13: According to S Granville of To Bed With A Trollope, Hacker often also wears a London School of Economics tie, reflecting his alma mater. This makes me think there was lots of attention paid to the costuming, and that perhaps I’m not being as over-analytical as I might have thought…

最近迷上了英剧《Yes，Minister》。

英国讽刺幽默，主要情节围绕 由于所属党派获得大选胜利，行政部长Jim Hacker和行政部常务秘书Humphery的故事展开。

行政部长，和外交部长，国防部部长同级，但是低于首相。属于政务类公务员，俗称政客。

行政部常务秘书,permenant secretary，属于业务类公务员，也就是我们众所周知的“公务员”。

政务类公务员实行任期制，由民选产生或由政府首脑任命，负责政党政策在政府工作中的贯彻执行。

业务类公务员实行常任制，多数通过考试录用，主要负责执行政府的日常业务。两者不得相互转任。

所以，本剧所有的笑点也诞生于此。

行政部常务秘书Humphery，是考试产生的，不烦原则性错误，基本等于终身制，可以服务到退休，服务过无数个部长。

行政部长Jim Hacker，是大选产生，剧中，平均任期11个月。。

不理解这个背景，理解剧中笑料还真不容易理解。

部长Jim Hacker要进行改革，裁剪臃肿的公务员系统，缩减政府成本。当然，这个目的不是他多高尚，而是，他可以获得很好的公众效应，继而有利于本党派大选。

常务秘书Humphery，作为高级公务员，保护的是公务员群体的利益。于是，各种暗中阻挠，拖延他的上级的改革。。

这个制衡，确实很降低政府运行效率，但是，保证了政府公务员系统的稳定，不随政党轮替而轮替。

这要求以常务秘书Humphery为代表的业务类公务员，必须保持政治中立。西方国家既要坚持“政党轮流执政”，又要避免“政党分赃”的腐败现象，因而特别强调业务类公务员得保持政治中立：必须忠于政府，不得带有党派倾向和其他政治倾向，不得参与党派活动，同时其管理也不受政党干预。

这样的制度，确实是我以前不知道的。。我们大陆的公务员考试应该也是借鉴这个制度。当然，我们只是借鉴了那么一点。。我们的政党和政府还是交织在一起的。

好，本文的目的只是普及一下知识，随便推销一下英剧《Yes，Minister》。

当然，想要黑这种体制也是轻而易举的，整个《Yes，Minister》都是对英国政治体制的各种嘲讽。

不得不承认，政党政治，制度设计，的确是西方的对人类文明的巨大贡献。

比如，本文关注的现代公务员制度就是最早起源于英国，至今也才不过150年的历史。是政党制度的直接产物：政党轮流执政的结果。

政党轮流执政的缺点就是造成政府所有工作人员“与政党共进退”，使政府工作经常处于一种不稳定的状态。

在这样的背景下，英国率先建立起一支独立于党派之争的稳定的业务类公务员队伍。在我看来，是一项必要的制度修补。

制度设计没有一开始就是完美的。西方在制度设计上的自我修复功能，的确值得我们的执政党学习。