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）

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）

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。

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?

约瑟夫是一名退休警察，曾在喀拉拉邦警察局任职，因其卓越的调查能力而获得嘉奖。约瑟夫的孤独背后有着一段情感往事。如今，他大部分时间要么独自饮酒，要么与几个好友小聚。每当发生一些复杂案件时，警方都会寻求约瑟夫的协助。有一天，约瑟夫仍然在乎的某个人遭遇了可怕的事情。

位于印度东北部的曼尼普尔邦在1990年代常年发生叛乱斗争，百姓伤亡惨重，一名父亲不得不踏上寻找失踪儿子的旅程。大器晚成的印度导演豪巴姆·帕班·库马尔曾凭借处女作《湖上的女人》入围釜山国际电影节新浪潮单元，本片延续了导演处女作有关叛乱的主题，从受害者的角度侧面呈现曼尼普尔邦的政治历史，以固定长镜头舒缓描摹普通人坚强面具背后的精神痛苦。采用曼尼普尔语、唐窟语、梅泰语等多种方言，象征分裂冲突之下的民族融合，映现患难之中的多民族友好情谊，将此片献给在叛乱斗争中去世的人们。

1956, a handful of families survive in makeshift shelters in appalling poverty and daily violence. A man, Joseph Wresinski , a priest, himself born into great poverty, decides to settle among those he calls "his people". Among these families, that of Jacques. His life will be transformed by his meeting with Father Joseph. His own, but also that of the people who will join the fight of this revolutionary priest. A fight against assistance and charity which, he says, “push the poor into indignity

主人公一直和母亲住在一起，从不知道自己的父亲是谁。在几经斟酌之后，一场精彩纷呈的寻父大冒险正式展开的《约瑟夫之子》。