I don’t know why but “yes har har” is still one of my favourite parts of this show I think it’s the delivery of it

The Conservatives and Labour are making my country bleed for sure

Is that small boy a youg Russell Tovey?

A stunning series crammed with brilliant performances, none exceeding Derek Jacobi's mesmerising portrayal of the eponymous character.

I wonder if Ash remembers their friend Violet.

This show is hysterical and I am sad that I just discovered it about a week or so ago. I wish they had made many more episodes.

Getting in touch with my inner Benedictine monk.

This is one of the funniest comedy I have seen in a long time, and two of our greatest actors showing us how it’s done from Shaspere to comedy that’s talent ,I just wish there was more.

Here is a proper transcript with a couple of apposite annotations by myself: [ Interviewer ]: I’ve been furnished with some details of your work Mr Turing, most of which I have to tell you, I find almost totally incomprehensible. [ Alan Turing ]: Yes, it's hardly surprising! [ I ]: I used to be rather good at, uh, mathematics when I was younger but, um, this is, well, baffling (Excuse this intrusion, but does this sound familiar to the reader?). For instance, this thing here, on computable numbers with an application to the Ent Scheid Ung Problem. Can you tell me something about it, well anything, a few words of explanation, in general terms? [ A T ]: A few words of explanation? [ I ]: Yeah! [ AT ]: In general terms? [ I ]: If possible! [ A T ]: Well, um, it's about right or wrong, in general terms. It's a technical paper in mathematical logic, but it's also about the difficulty of telling right from wrong. You see, people think that, well most people think, that in mathematics we always know what is right and what is wrong. Not so! Not anymore! It's a problem that's occupied mathematicians for 40 or 50 years. I mean, how do you tell right from wrong? Yes, Bertrand Russell has written an immense book on the subject in his Mathematica Principia. His idea was to break down all mathematical concepts and arguments into little pieces and then show that they could be derived from pure Logic. Well, it didn't quite work out that way. And after many years of intensive work, I mean, all he was able to do was to show that it's, um, it's terribly difficult to do anything of the kind, but yeah, it was an important book. Important and influential. It influenced both David Hilbert and Kurt Goedel. It's rather like, what physicists call splitting the atom. As analysing the physical atom has led to the discovery of a new kind of physics, so the attempt to analyse these mathematical “atoms” has led to a new kind of mathematics. David Hilbert took the whole thing a stage further. I don't suppose his name means much, if anything to you? [ I ]: No, no! [ A T ]: Well there you are! You see it's the way of the world! People never seem to hear about the really great mathematicians. But, um, Hilbert looked at the problem from a completely different angle. He said, “if we have any fundamental system for mathematics (like the one, um, Russell was trying to work out) then it should satisfy three basic requirements, “Consistency”, “Completeness” and “Decidability”. Now, “Consistency” means that you won't ever get a contradiction in your own system. In other words, you'll never be able to follow the rules of your system and end up showing that two and two make five. “Completeness”, means that if any statement is true, there must be some way of proving it by using the rules of your system. And “Decidability” means, the “decidability” means that there must exist some method, some definite procedure or test which can be applied to any given mathematical assertion, and which will decide, whether or not that assertion is provable. Now, Hilbert thought this a perfectly reasonable set of requirements to impose. But within a few years Kurt Goedel showed that no system for mathematics could be both consistent and complete, and he did this by constructing a mathematical assertion which said, in effect, “This assertion cannot be proved”! A classic paradox! This assertion cannot be proved! Well, either it can or it can't! If it can be proved, we have a contradiction, and the system is inconsistent. If it cannot be proved, then the assertion is true but it can't be proved, which means the system is incomplete, thus (the) mathematics is either inconsistent or it's incomplete. It's a beautiful theory! It's quite beautiful! I think Goedel’s theorem is the most beautiful thing I know. But the question of “Decidability” was still unsettled. Now Hilbert ,as I said had thought that there should be one single, clearly defined method for deciding whether or not mathematical assertions were provable, the decision problem he called it the “Ent Scheid Ung Problem”. Now, in my book on computable numbers, I wanted to show that, no one method can work for all questions. Solving mathematical problems requires an infinite supply of new ideas ( case in point being the production of an infinite supply of “original thought” ). Well, it was one thing to make such a claim and it was a monumental task to prove it. I needed to examine the provability of mathematical assertions past present and future. I mean how on Earth was anything to be done? But eventually one word gave me a clue. People have been talking about a mechanical process; a process that could be applied mechanically to solving mathematical problems without requiring any human intervention or ingenuity. “A machine!” That was the crucial word! I conceived the idea of a machine, a Touring Machine, which will be able to scan mathematical symbols. It would read them, if you like, it would read a mathematical assertion and then arrive at a verdict as to whether or not that assertion were provable, and with this concept I was able to show that Hilbert was wrong! My idea worked! [ I ]: yeah see! Well i don't, but i see something… AllFrom rosapurpureaDerek JacobiRelatedRecently uploadedWatched Conclusion by: A: Tarjanyi (HH) The Turing Test “In general terms” requires a computer system to demonstrate that it can “think” and communicate like a human. It is incumbent, however, upon humanity, both as the individual and as the collective, as it is approaching the Technological Singularity, to demonstrate that it is able to “think” like a computer!

Woderfull!!!

One thing is pretty evident about Freddy and Stuart. They both love drinking especially tea 😅and so cool moves when they dance at the club

Im trying to learn this (and all the other scenes) for my upcoming play of Breaking the Code - this is sooooo difficult to learn

It's so intriguing how one of the comedic hooks of the show is how Ian and Derek's characters, in a gay relationship, lean in to the popular discontent heterosexual marriage dynamic ("I hate my nagging wife" / "oh my dumb oaf husband") and make it so over the top as to be absurd. I just find it interesting.

When the time comes, I'm going to do enjoy unplugging you, that line, said with a mild acidness 😂

Wish they did more of these they were fantastic. Acting genius.

Those text machines are driving me mad! They misunderstand, misunderstand AND misunderstand words. I know the text, so I would like to do correction, if a job like that exists.

Catchphrase comedy

These two stole the show!

Where can I get this version of Hamlet? Full version used to be on here but no longer.

Omg how did I miss this Comedy. I definitely will have to find the full episodes. 😂

WHY have I never heard of this until today?! I did at least THREE spit takes and I think I hurt myself laughing TWICE at this. I never knew that Sir Ian McKellen was so savagely hilarious.

This entire film really is incomparable.

I love the fact that as much as they hate to admit it they're soul mates

This adaptation is nothing to do with the context but everything to do with acting It's brilliant. Brilliant brilliant brilliant

This version of HAMLET is my favorite; Jacobi is superb in the role.

Back when awards ceremonies were worth watching

This was from Victoria's 2000 Christmas special, which to me was the pinnacle of her career. That Christmas special I remember was just superb

I personally think Derek based his portrayal of Claudius in Branagh's version on Patrick Stewart's in this one.

This is how I want me and my future wife to be when we're old 😂😂😂

What a great show. I can't stop watching it.

“Are you so poor that you don hat and muffler indoors?!” “…it’s a look”

Not a bad “performance” from Annette Crosbie! 😉

Um som muito lindo, no filme "os intocaveis" ela cai muito boa

Tracked down this video tribute again 15 years later. Still absolutely fantastic!! I grew up on Brother Cadfael, and own all the books by Ellis Peters. I love this song “The Mass” by Era.

They should dub or sub it in Italian...so i can share this amazing show with all the Italian people I know. 😍💙🤣

I bet he was a vegetarian.

SHE WAS AMAZING!!!!!, Sir Derek has to do more comedy!!!!

_This was a merry prologue._ See what I did there? Huh? Huh? (Exit. Stage Right.)

Sir Derek Jacobi can read a newspaper article and it sound like the greatest words ever spoken coming from him. He's a genius and true thespian actor.

Derek Jacobi, as Alan Turing, manifests the identical stammer-stutter that he crafted for his award-winning performance playing the lame Roman emperor _Claudius_ in the BBC series _I, Claudius_ (1976).

Shrewsbury hasn't changed...

Is nobody going to say anything about Patrick Stewart as Claudius?

Great scene

why do none of these videos have dialogue i just want to hear him talk jesus

this scene is the best

Lo adorooooo. Impeccabile in ogni ruolo poi è bellissimo e sexy

Celal hocadan geldim.

I love this show , I have downloaded all episodes

The best Hamlet actor ever. Kenneth Branagh’s rendition is terrible. Derek Jacobi is the best Hamlet on film.

Jacobi's performance here as Hamlet is the best ever filmed, in my humble opinion. It's hard to watch anyone else play the Prince of Denmark once you've watched this a few times...