约瑟夫·博伊斯(Joseph Beuys)，德国著名艺术家，以雕塑为其主要创作形式。这个总是戴着帽子的男人，离世三十年后，仍是个超出自己所在时代格局的预言者。他曾公然解释为何金钱不应该被物质化——因为他知道金钱会削弱民主。除此之外，博伊斯打拳击、谈判、演讲、向一只死兔子的介绍摄影作品……他笑着问：“要不要来一场没有欢笑的革命？”他所拓张的艺术疆界至今还深深影响着社会问题的讨论。

The first thing to strike you about this DVD release is its content: a single film, totalling only 10 minutes and 30 seconds, and absolutely no extras. Admittedly that film does come in two versions – with or without its burnt-in English subtitles – but this provides a choice present solely for language reasons; in all other respects both versions are completely identical. As such we’re not faced with the greatest of enticements – beyond the fact that this is already a disc which will sell only to niche audience – but then Beuys isn’t your typical offering. In spite of its barely there running time it manages to be a dense, playful and provocative work; it shouldn’t be gauged simply by the number of minutes it lasts for, but rather the number of repeat viewings it prompts. Indeed, once you’ve selected which version of the film you wish to watch the disc then happens to play on a continual loop – a fitting quality as you’ll wish to return to it immediately. 　　Ostensibly, and as the title should hopefully have suggested, Beuys is a documentary on the German artist Joseph Beuys, a renowned figure in modern/contemporary art circles and one recently treated to a major retrospective at Tate Modern. This may put the film in the same category as, for example, Clouzot’s La Mystère Picasso, Rivers and Tides (on Andy Goldsworthy) or Right Out of History (on Judy Chicago), yet for each of their respective qualities these works offer essentially conventional records of their subjects. Beuys on the other hand takes a more conceptual approach and as a result perhaps shares a closer kinship with Gilbert and George’s contemporaneous feature The World of Gilbert and George. Here we find Beuys effectively given free rein – his is the only voice, indeed only sound, which we hear; he is the only person to appear onscreen, and in a single take at that; and even the opening credits seem unnaturally hasty in their efforts to move out of his way, having been written directly onto the celluloid and over in seconds – but crucially he doesn’t figure in the expected manner. Rather we find him facing a wall, with his back to the camera and placed in a spotlight so that he becomes almost a silhouette. 　　Indeed, all we see are the hands behind his back and his equally stationary right ear, the rest of his body having been engulfed by a hat and sizeable coat. Under such circumstances he resembles nothing more than a big screen gangster, one in a firing line perhaps or an informant trapped in an intense spotlight. Moreover, the décor seem to match such an interpretation: the walls are painted white and are completely bare save for some electrical fittings which presumably no longer work; apart from Beuys himself the only other visible object is a radiator of standard persuasion. All told it appears that we’re in either a disused factory or some abandoned warehouse – either way it’s a stark environment, but also one teeming with atmosphere. 　　So quite how do we take the film? Have directors Werner Nekes and Dore O. got Beuys in the firing line, forcing him to issue some “famous last words” as it were? And if so, are they this from a “friendly” perspective or perhaps something a little more aggressive? Certainly, he’s the star of the piece and gets his name in the title and even though we never see his face, would not a conventional ‘talking heads’ approach have been the more familiar, and therefore anonymous, approach? Indeed, in this instance he’s afforded a great deal of charisma, treating us to long pauses for maximum dramatic effect, sharing the attire, as said, of a movie star, positioned in such a way so that every movement becomes apparent, and, most importantly, able to command our attention from the very first syllable he utters. 　　Of course, there’s a major possibility that Beuys’ conception would outweigh its content, but really this isn’t the case. Rather the film’s true heart lies in what its subject has to say for himself – his theory on art and perception, how this fits into his own artistic output, and the ramifications it will have in the future, during “the next cultural epoch”. The key question to ask ourselves is not whether the concept is more important than Beuys, but whether it has the desired effect. Had Beuys been a conventional documentary portrait would we be paying it so much attention? Would we return to it time and again? And would it still feel, even on the umpteenth viewing, as though it still had secrets to share?

从巴塞尔艺术博物馆买下博伊斯在狂欢节的“火场二号”即兴演出用具引发的争议开始，影片追溯其童年与青年时代对艺术工作的影响，简略记录其挑衅的行为艺术和大型装置艺术、社会与政治活动以及公众反应，同时解释其对艺术和世界的理解。家庭私人影像、同时代人的评价和博伊斯本人的陈述提供多方位展示。（豆瓣电影字幕翻译2.0小组）

影片带领观众重访德国行为艺术家博伊斯的童年居处和以凯尔特文化赋予其灵感的北欧，大量放弃档案录像和生平事实的复述，选取电影杂文的形式将导演对博伊斯的艺术和生活态度的思索作旁白，讨论其对自然、神学、浪漫主义和人智学的研究和对资本主义控制的艺术市场的批判，介绍主要作品时也表达私人疑问。（豆瓣电影字幕翻译2.0小组）

影片讲述了一个善良的经历过二战的兽医变成银行抢匪的故事。在战后的背景下，Eddie Boyd去好莱坞成为明星的梦想和照顾他年轻的家庭背道而驰。于是他发现…

该片讲述一位“不安分”的年轻女子阿娜伊斯，她遇见了有妇之夫丹尼尔，但相较丹尼尔，他的妻子艾米莉对于她更具吸引力……

生在法国平民区的伊斯特•康（Summer Phoenix 饰），自幼被父母送往裁缝处当学徒。她的性格孤僻，与周围人乃至父母关系都很冷淡；工作也枯燥乏味，鲜少乐趣。 　　某晚，伊斯特和朋友去剧院观看话剧演出，心中遂萌生当演员的念头。凭借偶然的机缘，她从龙套演员做起，一步步走上梦想舞台的中央。半路出家的她在老戏骨纳•加兰（Ian Holm 饰）的指点下，演技不断提高。为了演好爱情戏，她不惜献出自己的处子之身。戏剧评论家菲利普•埃卡尔（Fabrice Desplechin 饰）闯入伊斯特的生活，令她真实体验到爱情的滋味，却不曾思量着爱情的来去匆匆……

这是一个讲述一座吊桥坍塌造成5个人离奇死亡的故事，一个牧师要去解开它的原因，在秘鲁首都利马拍摄，改编于Thornton Wilder novel的小说.

以下文字by lake 　　David Barison 和Daniel Ross拍的一部长达189分钟的纪录片(2004)。Barison生于1972年，澳大利亚墨尔本大学读哲学。Ross是Barison的校友，最初学物理，后来碰到Barison转哲学。因为热衷于海德格尔的警句，想让人们知道海德格尔的理论今天并不过时。So, 他俩03年买了一部DV，从伦敦出发，顺着Danube河流，拍下了这部 公路哲学片子。先八卦这么多，同时承诺，不主动谈电影结构，不拒绝谈获奖情况，对于叙述部分的正误不负任何责任, 接着看： 　　The Ister是德国诗人Holderlin未完成的一部诗的标题，背景是Danube river。诗的开头是这样的：Now come fire! / Eager are we / to see the day。猜对了，电影也是这样开始的。第一个问题是：荷尔德林是谁。反正最后疯了。第二个问题是：荷尔德林同海德格尔什么关系。我读前者不读后者，所以只能简单的说，海德格尔在1942年开讲座，探讨诗歌的意义，技术的自然性，古希腊同德国当年的联系，政治和生存的本质，正好荷尔德林的《The Ister》正好可以满足海德格尔。 　　本片子逐句拆开这首诗，穿插进一些当代哲学家随意的观点。当然，不同地点的画面必不可少，最后是海德格尔朗诵这首The Ister, 最后的结尾，同开头一样，一只鸭子向前消失。我的简介这么多已经足够。OK, 接着八卦：片子中找到了三位哲学家，Bernard Stiegler，写过《时间和技术》，当然法国5月革命时做过几年牢。海德格尔的拥趸，同时推进老海的主题。提出Spirit, 片子的后面德国导演Hans-Jurgen Sybergberg有顶他的戏。 　　Jean-Luc Nancy, 探讨政治和意识形态。10分钟年华老去 里面，他在火车上向他的女学生讲人生的那个人，仔细想想。Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe：因为瞧不起海德格尔当年加入纳粹，同时拒绝道歉。出版过《艺术和政治》，搞政治的不是什么好鸟。不过他是个烟鬼，这点让我有认同感。 他还提到Paul Celane的一首诗，忘记了是那首，兴奋了一下。 　　Hans-Jurgen Sybergberg老帅哥出场，问，岂不机器也有精神 (spirit)？或许有，但肯定不是那种装在马桶里面，看女人在上面做什么的摄像机。 　　这些主题很大，探讨自然，技术，时间，存在，政治等等。最绝望的是Stiegler说了这样一句：什么是自然？自然已经沦为一种幻觉（in our time, Nature has become a phantasm）。这样的观点，虽然不怎么淫荡，但是够贱，够贱。 　　自然真的就是一种幻觉么？那么第一就是高呼原始社会好的艺术家，第二就是工业社会里快乐的淫荡的艺术家。可能还有其他。 　　电影叙述着当年，也混同当年的记忆，纪录着现在。生活真的可以叙述么？现在 真的就可以记录么？于是怀念那些以最拙劣的步子走着路的人。 　　这部纪录片帮我整理了一下自己的视角，但是很多难言之隐依然无法洗去，当然也并不幻想这种哲学方式带给我终极的对话。其实，属于自己体内的战争，还要继续扛下去。不过总有一天，这些终究消失，仅仅为自己生存的第二天而战(Tom Waits)。 　　的确，“我看到的你不过是我自己”。纪录片的故事讲完了，然后呢，刷卡，等地铁，上车，走人。