How We Built Britain was a series of six television documentaries produced by the BBC in 2007 and repeated in 2008. The series was written and presented by broadcaster David Dimbleby. In the series Dimbleby visited some of Britain's great historic buildings and examined their impact on Britain's architectural and social history. 　　The series was a follow-up to Dimbleby's 2005 BBC One series, A Picture of Britain, which celebrated British and Irish paintings, poetry, music, and landscapes.

How We Built Britain was a series of six television documentaries produced by the BBC in 2007 and repeated in 2008. The series was written and presented by broadcaster David Dimbleby. In the series Dimbleby visited some of Britain's great historic buildings and examined their impact on Britain's architectural and social history. 　　The series was a follow-up to Dimbleby's 2005 BBC One series, A Picture of Britain, which celebrated British and Irish paintings, poetry, music, and landscapes.

Two-part documentary in which Jonathan Meades makes the case for 20th-century concrete Brutalist architecture in an homage to a style that he sees a brave, bold and bloodyminded. Tracing its precursors to the once-hated Victorian edifices described as Modern Gothic and before that to the unapologetic baroque visions created by John Vanbrugh, as well as the martial architecture of World War II, Meades celebrates the emergence of the Brutalist spirit in his usual provocative and incisive style. Never pulling his punches, Meades praises a moment in architecture he considers sublime and decries its detractors.

Two-part documentary in which Jonathan Meades makes the case for 20th-century concrete Brutalist architecture in an homage to a style that he sees a brave, bold and bloodyminded. Tracing its precursors to the once-hated Victorian edifices described as Modern Gothic and before that to the unapologetic baroque visions created by John Vanbrugh, as well as the martial architecture of World War II, Meades celebrates the emergence of the Brutalist spirit in his usual provocative and incisive style. Never pulling his punches, Meades praises a moment in architecture he considers sublime and decries its detractors.

电影就是在戈雅的《裸体的玛哈》的画作上用“倒叙”的手法展开了它的故事，电影围绕着公爵夫人 　　被毒死的前因后果讲述了一段“西班牙宫廷内部恩怨情史”（绝非简单十几个字就一语概括的所谓： 　　一个男人与两个女人的故事）。画家陪同首相、公爵夫人等一行人在路上艳遇了跑路不羁的姑娘 　　（佩内洛普·克鲁兹饰），其实，首相和公爵夫人也是如胶似漆的沉迷于“情欲”的嬉戏当中不能 　　自拔；首相更是为了自己的地位和王后保持着“密切”的君臣关系……他喜欢公爵夫人，但是王后 　　为了政治目的让他娶了红衣主教的妹妹，他依然爱着的“平民姑娘”也陪伴在他身边……画家也敬仰 　　公爵夫人，可能更是有一种”情愫“在内心深处，他为她绘画，他把对少女的爱，和公爵夫人的情 　　融汇在一起，画出来一幅穿衣服的“贵族夫人”和裸体的“贵族夫人”给了“首相”。最终，公爵夫 　　人的争强好胜害了她，她把这一切称之为：宫-廷-怨-史（恕我听不懂西班牙语）。围绕着谁“毒死” 　　公爵夫人，首相和画家还有那个因爱被“卷入”这场“宫廷恩怨”的姑娘（被贵族夫人斥为：娼妇） 　　都有一段“罗生门”式的注解，其实，电影最后，谁杀死了公爵夫人已经不重要了，因为在激烈的 　　宫廷斗争里面，这样的男男女女的“纠缠”更是无足轻重。一切都成了“利益”的根本，为了个人 　　私欲，可以“牺牲”任何的所谓的爱与被爱。看着首相为了“讨好”王后所做的一切“肉麻”的举动 　　我们就不难理解什么是“政治利益”和“个人前途”的结合了。公爵夫人成了这场“游戏”的牺牲品。 　　影片前半部分是讲述了这些人的关系；后半部分，用公爵夫人的死展开了每个人和她的利害关系，和 　　众说纷纭的观点，信不信由你了。

电影就是在戈雅的《裸体的玛哈》的画作上用“倒叙”的手法展开了它的故事，电影围绕着公爵夫人 　　被毒死的前因后果讲述了一段“西班牙宫廷内部恩怨情史”（绝非简单十几个字就一语概括的所谓： 　　一个男人与两个女人的故事）。画家陪同首相、公爵夫人等一行人在路上艳遇了跑路不羁的姑娘 　　（佩内洛普·克鲁兹饰），其实，首相和公爵夫人也是如胶似漆的沉迷于“情欲”的嬉戏当中不能 　　自拔；首相更是为了自己的地位和王后保持着“密切”的君臣关系……他喜欢公爵夫人，但是王后 　　为了政治目的让他娶了红衣主教的妹妹，他依然爱着的“平民姑娘”也陪伴在他身边……画家也敬仰 　　公爵夫人，可能更是有一种”情愫“在内心深处，他为她绘画，他把对少女的爱，和公爵夫人的情 　　融汇在一起，画出来一幅穿衣服的“贵族夫人”和裸体的“贵族夫人”给了“首相”。最终，公爵夫 　　人的争强好胜害了她，她把这一切称之为：宫-廷-怨-史（恕我听不懂西班牙语）。围绕着谁“毒死” 　　公爵夫人，首相和画家还有那个因爱被“卷入”这场“宫廷恩怨”的姑娘（被贵族夫人斥为：娼妇） 　　都有一段“罗生门”式的注解，其实，电影最后，谁杀死了公爵夫人已经不重要了，因为在激烈的 　　宫廷斗争里面，这样的男男女女的“纠缠”更是无足轻重。一切都成了“利益”的根本，为了个人 　　私欲，可以“牺牲”任何的所谓的爱与被爱。看着首相为了“讨好”王后所做的一切“肉麻”的举动 　　我们就不难理解什么是“政治利益”和“个人前途”的结合了。公爵夫人成了这场“游戏”的牺牲品。 　　影片前半部分是讲述了这些人的关系；后半部分，用公爵夫人的死展开了每个人和她的利害关系，和 　　众说纷纭的观点，信不信由你了。

Horrified by the cruelty of the Turkish society, a beautiful French schoolgirl, sold into white slavery, seizes power within her sultan's kingdom when he is killed. She implements changes to form a more civilized society and leaves her eternal mark before her death. Based on the true story of Aimee Dubucq De Rivery. 　　艾梅.杜贝克.德.薇茜，一个美丽高难度傲的法国姑娘，被作为白人奴隶卖到土耳其。被当时东方最强大的人—土耳其王国稣丹选中，年迈的稣丹无药可救地爱上了这们美丽固执的法国姑娘。艾梅亲眼目睹了土耳其的残暴陋习，被土耳其宫廷的相互倾扎深深震憾。她的纯洁天真一点一点被磨掉，她怀了稣丹的儿子后，老稣丹在一次起义中被杀害，整个国家一片混乱，当新的的稣丹继承王位后，艾梅适时地把握机会，夺得权力，她进行了一系列改革，在历史上留下深远的影响。 　　http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/filmtv/1/81184.shtml

Horrified by the cruelty of the Turkish society, a beautiful French schoolgirl, sold into white slavery, seizes power within her sultan's kingdom when he is killed. She implements changes to form a more civilized society and leaves her eternal mark before her death. Based on the true story of Aimee Dubucq De Rivery. 　　艾梅.杜贝克.德.薇茜，一个美丽高难度傲的法国姑娘，被作为白人奴隶卖到土耳其。被当时东方最强大的人—土耳其王国稣丹选中，年迈的稣丹无药可救地爱上了这们美丽固执的法国姑娘。艾梅亲眼目睹了土耳其的残暴陋习，被土耳其宫廷的相互倾扎深深震憾。她的纯洁天真一点一点被磨掉，她怀了稣丹的儿子后，老稣丹在一次起义中被杀害，整个国家一片混乱，当新的的稣丹继承王位后，艾梅适时地把握机会，夺得权力，她进行了一系列改革，在历史上留下深远的影响。 　　http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/filmtv/1/81184.shtml

Filmed in two versions 　　In Europe, quite a few pornographic films from the early 1980s were shot in two versions, hard and soft - partly because the industry wasn't sure where things were heading and partly to keep their feet in two rather separated markets. This film is an example for that. 　　Sadly, it is also an example that shows the fundamental problems of this approach. The soft version suffers from an unprofessional cast that can't act and an over-reliance on sex scenes: it is not wall-to-wall, but comes uncomfortably close, interrupting the narrative and ultimately failing to pick it up again. The hard version enjoys production values modern porn makers can only dream about, but the photography of the coital scenes is unimaginative and rather anonymous, making one wonder how often body doubles were engaged. The smutty dialogue has also badly aged: its novelty value is lost, revealing so much clearer its unsuitability for the historical context in question.

Filmed in two versions 　　In Europe, quite a few pornographic films from the early 1980s were shot in two versions, hard and soft - partly because the industry wasn't sure where things were heading and partly to keep their feet in two rather separated markets. This film is an example for that. 　　Sadly, it is also an example that shows the fundamental problems of this approach. The soft version suffers from an unprofessional cast that can't act and an over-reliance on sex scenes: it is not wall-to-wall, but comes uncomfortably close, interrupting the narrative and ultimately failing to pick it up again. The hard version enjoys production values modern porn makers can only dream about, but the photography of the coital scenes is unimaginative and rather anonymous, making one wonder how often body doubles were engaged. The smutty dialogue has also badly aged: its novelty value is lost, revealing so much clearer its unsuitability for the historical context in question.