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）

中央电视台的一档全国性商战真人秀节目，大型励志创业电视活动。获胜者可以获得企业提供的一大笔风险投资。目前已举办三届。第一赛季“赢在中国”前五名依次为：宋文明、周宇、周谨、任春雷、吴志祥。联通世界风通行证获得者：浦滨。第二赛季“赢在中国”前五名依次为：李书文、窦大海、冯志刚、牟文建、张华，联通世界风通行证获得者：韩小兵。 第三赛季“赢在中国”前五名依次为：谢莉、曾花、祖峥、杨俊平、李璇。联通世界风通行证获得者：洪贵宾。

“你是谁？你从哪里来？你往何处去？” ，出身和认同的问题如同一个诅咒。日本战犯遗孤-红卫兵小将-走私犯-爱国商人，身份曝光后无立足之地却仍怀有抱负的革命者。 从四人帮垮台、拨乱反正的大陆到尚处于资本主义阵营的香港。 战犯遗孤身份曝光，被社会所不容，改头换面重返大陆，寄希望于未来

根据丁雨雨同名小说《001在中国》改编，这是一部反映国际刑警侦破贩毒集团的电视剧。

《仲裁在中国》作为中国政法大学仲裁研究院重大创新性科研项目“中国仲裁发展史研究”的阶段性成果，以崭新的表现方式呈现出中国仲裁大量珍贵的历史性研究资料及一线前沿理论。在宣传塑造仲裁形象、普及仲裁知识、支持仲裁行业发展等方面具有深远意义。法大仲裁研究院作为发起人、组织方及智库支持方在纪录片整个拍摄过程中付出巨大努力，获得各参与方高度认可。

美国西雅图导演约翰-赫尔德（John Helde）导演的这部家庭纪录片讲述的是他的父亲，二战前在中国长大的的一个美国男孩的经历，并由此发现了一群有着类似成长经历的美国人群体。这是一段不寻常的家庭历史、也是一段几乎被遗忘的、和中国发生关联的美国记忆。

中国崛起的方式让世界惊奇，并以她特有的开放姿态，向世界提供着全新的发展机遇。《创业在中国》项目聚焦了五位来华创业的外国人。他们来自不同的国家，在完全不同的行业中，敏感的发现和抓住商业机遇，创造财富，创业成功。这些外国创业者们能够从全新的、甚至另类的角度，去发现和挖掘出可能并可行的商业价值——这也许正是本土商业人士未曾觉察到的关键点。本片通过追踪这五个来自不同国家、有着不同文化和教育背景的来华创业者，以他们的亲身创业经历作为切入点，不仅展现了个人成功的案例，更加折射出中国改革开放和经济建设的全进程