#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Beuys

(530) 6.7 107 min 2017

Beuys is a movie starring Joseph Beuys, Caroline Tisdall, and Rhea Thönges-Stringaris. A documentary about the 20th century German sculptor and performance artist Joseph Beuys.

Starring
Rhea Thönges-Stringaris, Franz von der Grinten, Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys
Genres
Documentary
Director
Andres Veiel

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Documentary
Director Andres Veiel
Writer Andres Veiel
Stars Rhea Thönges-Stringaris, Franz von der Grinten, Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys
Country Germany
Also Known As Joseph Beuys - Die Revolution sind wir!, ヨーゼフ・ボイスは挑発する, Beuys. Sztuka to rewolucja, Joseph Beuys - kontroversiell ikon
Runtime 1H 47M
Description A documentary about the 20th century German sculptor and performance artist Joseph Beuys.

Top reviews

Wednesday, 24 Jun 2020 17:14

Anyone who is familiar with the political scene in France knows that the current French President Nicolas Sarkozy has always been a favorite target of the right. I have been following this story of Sarkozy and his friend, Prime Minister Pierre Moscovici, since the 1990s, and they have always had a penchant for the dark arts of public relations. The story, so to speak, begins in 2001 when Sarkozy was running for the presidency. The story of how he came to be selected to run in the 2002 election has been told many times. It is not a very popular story that Sarkozy is the President because of his direct association with organized crime. Aided by his friends, Moscovici secured the votes of thousands of French youths, promising to crack down on the criminal activity of the Paris underworld, and then in an apparent attempt to cover up his ties to the underworld, he signed an agreement with the police in 2005 to avoid charges of complicity in the drug trade. The criminal element was indeed organized, but that is not the important part. In reality, it was a result of a series of things that led to the deal. The main ingredient that helped Sarkozy in the election was the number of French youth that he could reach out to, especially youth that were skeptical about the politicians that they thought were corrupt. The problems that he had with the media, his relationships with other political leaders and the families of politicians were among the factors that helped him get elected. The other major factor that helped Sarkozy was the appearance of former high-ranking French officials and some of the people who worked with them on the deal to avoid the charges of complicity in the drug trade. Sarkozy was elected and immediately did what he could to put himself in the center of the drug trade. His press secretary put out a statement that he was going to clean up the streets of Paris, and in one particularly memorable moment in the movie he stands in front of the police station and says, "Do you want to know what we're going to do to clean the streets of Paris?" He took the only big step that he could take, and that was to launch a program that brought hundreds of young people in from the suburbs of Paris. The police and the families of politicians were put under great pressure to push the deal through. The press released a great deal of information on the deal and a great deal of rumors were spread around about it. As Sarkozy became more interested in the job and it was clear that the agreement would not be an easy one, he created a deal to negotiate an agreement with the French Government. At the end of 2004, the deal was made, and Moscovici went to Paris to attend a meeting of the French Government in which the drug deal was presented to the government. He was invited to the meeting, and even though he was a politician, he refused to attend the meeting because of his involvement with organized crime. The other factor that helped Sarkozy was the sheer amount of money that he could gather in his campaign from organized crime, and the money from the drug deal. The drug deal was not the only factor that made Sarkozy the winner of the election. He had been working for years to strengthen his image as a reformer. This was evident in his efforts to crack down on organized crime. He had a program that took young people from the suburbs of Paris, which has a much lower crime rate than the more prosperous suburbs of Paris, and he had set up a program to help those young people find jobs. He had a program to help people become involved in the French labor movement, which has a much lower crime rate than the organized crime in Paris. He had a program to take young people out of the drugs trade. These were all positive efforts. Sarkozy had also been working with the unions to have a high school graduation rate among French youth. In the end, Moscovici was the only politician who was against the deal with the drug deal, and the French left of the political spectrum did not believe that he had been made aware of the deal
Saturday, 20 Jun 2020 13:14

I had the pleasure of seeing this documentary last night at the Toronto International Film Festival. As a German, I was reminded of my own country in the 70's and 80's, with my homeland being the region where my brother lived at the time. I think that both the documentary and the film are very well done, as I believe they help show the reasons for a feeling of belonging to Germany, as well as how that feeling of belonging is more or less suppressed during the transition of the country from the first days of unification to the third-time unification. If you've been in Germany during the transition period, you know how the Germans were torn between their longing for freedom and their desire to feel like part of a European nation. The German cinema was plagued by a lack of content and a lack of content in the form of well known directors, but there were still some great ones in the country. Thus, one of the themes of the documentary was how filmmakers and other artists had to face the difficulty of adapting to the country in which they were working, but also how German cinema was affected by the unification. This was a great documentary that captured very well how the films of the German cinema were affected by the transition, but also how the German cinema has always been somewhat special and has always made the transition from being a mainstream cinema to a very particular one. Overall, I think that the documentary was very good, but I would not compare it to those great films of the German cinema of the 70's and 80's. It was more of a collection of important documentaries that came out during that time. Overall, I would highly recommend this documentary to everyone who wants to know more about Germany and why it was divided into two nations. The documentary definitely will be remembered and I believe it will become a very important reference point in German cinema for years to come.
Wednesday, 17 Jun 2020 22:20

The main story of this film is about a group of South African women who are survivors of apartheid who are now living as full members of the national parishes. These women have different stories to tell, but they all tell the same story: that of the "forsaken", as they are referred to by the white community in this country. It's a story of privilege and oppression, of "white-lives-over-black-lives" mentality, of "softer-than-thou" views of women, and the persistence of these things throughout all of the lives of these women. It's also a story of survival and, yes, the struggle for survival of these women, against all odds, all of their lives, no matter what their personal history. It's an incredibly important film, because it gives us a glimpse into the lives of these women, who are in an incredibly difficult position, and the situation of being persecuted and oppressed for the majority of their lives, without the protection and support of their own communities. What I found most powerful about this film was the fact that the women were willing to go to all the lengths to tell their stories, and this was done not only in a case of survival, but also to show that they have a lot of strengths and wisdom to give to others. If you've ever been in a family with a strong, and strongly-willed father, you'll feel a lot of sympathy for these women, and also a lot of understanding, compassion, and support for their courage and determination. The only reason they are able to hold on to this fight is because of their husbands, or even a relative, who is willing to support them, and to offer the support they need. The film itself is absolutely brilliant, and I have no doubt that it will be one of the most highly-anticipated films of 2014. As a whole, it is incredibly well-crafted and intelligent. It's clear that this is not just another film, but is a great film in its own right. I also believe that it will be one of the best films of 2014, because of how it deals with the issue of apartheid. This film talks about the issue of the effects of segregation, of the consequences of these social attitudes and philosophies on the people of South Africa, and how it is a major problem. It also talks about the fact that there were times in South Africa when the women's liberation movement was "just the beginning" of the struggle for the women's liberation movement in South Africa. It also talks about the different motivations of these women, and their different reasons for going to be in this film. I also think that the film is smart and engaging in its look at the experiences of these women, and the reasons why they decided to go in to make this film. Overall, it's a very powerful film, with a very interesting and entertaining story to tell.
Saturday, 13 Jun 2020 18:19

I knew nothing about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. before watching this film, which, I feel, was a good thing. I didn't know what to expect going in, I was just interested in seeing a documentary about a great man. The film wasn't on my radar, I'd never heard of it, and the general mood I got from the opening scene was of a casual yet genuine discussion of Dr. King. I never really thought much of Martin Luther King, but I wasn't expecting the movie to be very deep. It wasn't, but it was thoughtful and intriguing. There were some great bits of history, as well as an engaging love story. The filmmaking and editing were very professional, but I feel that the way the film was filmed could have been better. This could be because the film was shot on a digital camera, which had a limited amount of resolution. I think the film could have benefited from a more natural quality of image. This could have helped me in getting the viewer to identify with the characters in the film, and to know how they were feeling. Overall, the film was very professional, but it did have a little too much focus on the lives of the main characters. I felt like there could have been more that could have been added to the film to make it more personal, and less about Dr. King. I was able to identify with Dr. King, and that's why I liked the film. I recommend this film to anyone who is interested in understanding a man, or a movement, that was so important in the history of the world.
Thursday, 28 May 2020 19:32

At a time when the rights of religion are being used to justify totalitarianism and terrorism, this film offers a good reminder of how religion can also provide a sense of moral and ethical compass. Director Joel Parker (American Beauty) presents a series of interviews with scientists and religious leaders who demonstrate that the mere fact that some believers profess to believe in God does not mean that they believe in a supreme being who created the universe. Dr. Greg Laden (Shawn, World Trade Center) explains that our existence is nothing more than a natural process, and that to deny this would be to deny the fundamental point that life begins with the creation of our universe. Dr. Aimee Desai (Hannah, Titanic) explains that this point has been proven by science, and that even if a person believes in God, there is no need to invoke him as a divine creator. Dr. Willy Cox (Arthur, Mars Needs Moms) agrees, and maintains that even if we do not believe in God, we should recognize that a supreme being is involved in the formation of the universe. Dr. Marty Smith (Thomas, Up in the Air) says that the only truly dangerous thing is ignorance. Religion is a social construct that is used to control society. Dr. Leo Houser (Lewis, Grand Canyon) says that religious belief is a primitive form of behavior control. He also says that religion is a poison, and a source of terror. Dr. Thomas Kincaid (Ed, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring) concludes that religion is a force that needs to be eliminated, because it has no inherent value and its purpose is to promote intolerance. He says that religion is a factor in the production of hate. Dr. Arie Wiesler (Ariel, Sideways) says that the only reason a person can become religious is through certain stimuli that he or she experiences in life. The religious component of this film, and all other human religions, is about the desire to be accepted as part of the "Other" in life, and to have a sense of belonging. The film shows how that desire can take a person to a place where we believe that we are not the "Other" but part of the "Others" that are in this world. In this regard, religion is a wonderful tool that we should use in our society, because without it, the human race would be doomed to a future devoid of hope. "The Religion of Love" provides a good point of view that most people would be willing to make.
Wednesday, 06 May 2020 01:50

A modest documentary on the work of British philosopher, Paul D. Cohen. It is worth watching for Cohen's ability to go into a depth of thought and life. He is very interesting, and was once called the 'Invisible Philosopher' of the English language. Cohen is one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and was interviewed by Richard Brinsley (the great director who did the documentary The Man Who Knew Infinity) for his work in developing the scientific method. Cohen is a very deep thinker and his insight into the world and the human psyche is inspiring. There is also some very moving footage of Cohen playing chess with his son. Cohen died from AIDS at the age of 54. It is quite amazing how a man who had such a profound impact on modern philosophy and was considered one of the great philosophers of our time, had such a peaceful and happy life. Cohen was a man of many contradictions, and was tragically killed by AIDS. It is a shame that a great philosopher was killed so young. I find the interview with Cohen fascinating, and although it does have some things to be critical of, it is also fascinating to see his spirit and his kindness. Cohen was an extraordinary man and a teacher of the philosophy of life. He was able to give advice to people who have nothing else to do, and many people use his philosophy in their lives. For instance, Cohen told his son he should be polite to all people, and then the son started to study etiquette. Cohen was a man who believed in the human spirit and always wanted to learn from people. In an interview with Daniel T. Nelson, Cohen said that the most important thing a person can learn from life is "knowing that you're more than what you're told, and that others can learn from you". He said that his philosophy was that every human being should have a dream, and that the only thing that we can truly learn from another human being is how to become the person he wanted to be. His philosophy is truly inspiring and very important. It is very nice to see a man who had such an impact on so many people. The documentary is a shame that he was killed so young, but it is a reminder that a philosopher still has a lot to learn.
Sunday, 26 Apr 2020 10:13

It is evident that during this period, British government ministers took some incredible and highly questionable decisions about an environment that was already dead and dying. The above quote is from a 2009 documentary about a decision by the British government to close the last remaining nuclear power station of the world. They have promised to close the station if an environmental impact report on the site's pollution is not delivered by March 2018. The nuclear plant was taken over by the French company Areva, which had been given the power plant by the British government in order to be the third supplier of electricity. It's now one of the most polluting power stations in the world. The plan was to take it over by a consortium of Chinese and French companies, but Areva, backed by the British government decided to leave the nuclear station as a 'public service' to save the government money. Despite the very poor financial situation of the British government, it was willing to take the chance on the worst possible outcome. To my knowledge, there have been no compensation claims for this decision and all that was done was a slight deterioration of the plant. The point of this documentary is that, the British government has been in the business of destroying and lying to the public about the health and environmental effects of nuclear energy for many decades and the Americans are right behind them. The film is interesting and informative. It shows how the British government was able to get control over the final nuclear power station in the world without a proper environmental impact report, and then declared that the decision to shut it down was a public service. In other words, the British government had taken the opportunity to make money without actually doing the right thing, and there was no follow-up to prevent this. The US government was also found guilty of not following any federal environmental standards for nuclear power. It has been reported that the US had a problem with the electricity supply of the entire world, and not only the UK. It was found that the US was involved in the shutting down of several other nuclear power stations. The documentary did not mention this but this was confirmed by the director himself. Another interesting fact was that the French company had never planned to close the plant. In other words, the company had failed to deliver the environmental impact report, and was a private company without any public obligations. The company had been shut down, but in France, the government had taken over the corporation and allowed it to operate for another 5 years.


Write a review