Q: Given the below context:  Deep in the African jungle, a tribe of aboriginal warriors are having a celebration. Their leader is a tall man in a white cloak. Secretly, he's a Nazi commander, and the tribe's sacred temple is actually an underground Nazi outpost. The Nazis eagerly await the arrival of an American convoy with information about an Allied attack. When a military plane flies overhead, the Nazis shoot it down. The commander sends the warriors to search for survivors. At the wreck site, the mortally wounded Lieutenant hands his secret documents to the crew's only survivor, Lois Lane. He tells her to destroy the documents. Then he dies. Lois is caught by the natives and tied up, but frees herself, runs into the jungle and avoids capture long enough to hide the documents under a rock. She is then captured and brought back to the temple for interrogation where she is tied to a chair. When she refuses to talk, the commander orders the warriors to burn her at the stake. Meanwhile, Clark Kent and another pilot are flying out to meet with Lois' convoy. They spot the wrecked plane not far from the aboriginal village. Clark parachutes down to investigate. Once on the ground, he changes into Superman. He flies to the village. Lois is already being burned at the stake with the commander watching her. Just then, one of the warriors approaches the commander and gives him a set of papers. It's the documents Lois hid in the woods. Overjoyed with success, the commander has his men radio headquarters and send the Nazi U-boats to attack the Allied fleet. Superman arrives and saves Lois from burning to death. When the warriors see a man who can walk through fire, they run in terror. The Nazi soldiers futilely fight back against Superman. Meanwhile, Lois takes a spare white cloak and sneaks in to use the radio. The commander catches her but before he can do anything to stop her, Superman comes to her rescue. She sends a message to the American headquarters, warning them about the Nazi subs.  Guess a valid title for it!
A: Jungle Drums (film)

Q: Given the below context:  After graduating from the Academy in 1930 Solti was appointed to the staff of the Hungarian State Opera. He found that working as a répétiteur, coaching singers in their roles and playing at rehearsals, was a more fruitful preparation than Unger's classes for his intended career as a conductor. In 1932 he went to Karlsruhe in Germany as assistant to Josef Krips, but within a year, Krips, anticipating the imminent rise to power of Hitler and the Nazis, insisted that Solti should go home to Budapest, where at that time Jews were not in danger. Other Jewish and anti-Nazi musicians also left Germany for Budapest. Among other musical exiles with whom Solti worked there were Otto Klemperer, Fritz Busch, and Kleiber. Before Austria fell under Nazi control, Solti was assistant to Arturo Toscanini at the 1937 Salzburg Festival: Toscanini was the first great musical impression in my life. Before I heard him live in 1936, I had never heard a great opera conductor, not in Budapest, and it was like a lightning flash. I heard his Falstaff in 1936 and the impact was unbelievable. It was the first time I heard an ensemble singing absolutely precisely. It was fantastic. Then I never expected to meet Toscanini. It was a chance in a million. I had a letter of recommendation from the director of the Budapest Opera to the president of the Salzburg Festival. He received me and said: "Do you know Magic Flute, because we have an influenza epidemic and two of our repetiteurs are ill? Could you play this afternoon for the stage rehearsals?"  Guess a valid title for it!
A: Georg Solti

Q: Given the below context:  Monument 6 is a zoomorph sculpture discovered during the construction of the road that passes the site. It was moved to the Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología in Guatemala City. The sculpture is just over 1 metre (39 in) in height and is 1.5 metres (59 in) wide. It is a boulder carved into the form of an animal head, probably that of a toad, and is likely to date to the Late Preclassic.Monument 7 is a damaged sculpture in the form of a giant head. It stands 0.58 metres (23 in) and was found in the first half of the 20th century on the site of the electricity generator of the Santa Margarita plantation and moved close to the administration office. The sculpture has a large, flat face with prominent eyebrows. Its style is very similar to that of a monument found at Kaminaljuyu in the highlands.Monument 8 is found on the west side of Structure 12. It is a zoomorphic sculpture of a monster with feline characteristics disgorging a small anthropomorphic figure from its mouth.Monument 9 is a local style sculpture representing an owl.Monument 10 is another monument that was moved from its original location; it was moved to the estate of the Santa Margarita plantation and the place where it was originally found is unknown. It is about 0.5 metres (20 in) high and 0.4 metres (16 in) wide. This is a damaged sculpture representing a kneeling captive with the arms tied. Monument 66 is a local style sculpture of a crocodilian head that may date to the Middle Preclassic. It is located to the west of Structure 12.Monument 67 is a badly eroded Olmec-style sculpture showing a figure emerging from the mouth of a jaguar, with one hand raised and gripping a staff. Traces of a helmet are visible. It is located to the west of Structure 12 and dates to the Middle Preclassic.Monument 68 is a local style sculpture of a toad located on the west side of Structure 12. It is believed to date to the Middle Preclassic.Monument 69 is a potbelly monument dating to the Late Preclassic.Monument 70 is a local style sculpture of a frog or...  Guess a valid title for it!
A: Takalik Abaj

Q: Given the below context:  The attribution of the panel reflects the progression and trends of 19th and 20th-century scholarship on Early Netherlandish art. It is now thought to have been completed c. 1438–40, but there are still arguments for dates as early as 1424–29. As with the pages ascribed to Hand G in the Turin-Milan Hours manuscript, the panel was attributed to Jan's brother Hubert van Eyck in the 1875 Gemäldegalerie catalogue, and by a 1911 claim by art historian Georges Hulin de Loo. This is no longer considered credible and Hubert, today, is credited with very few works. By 1912 the painting had been definitively attributed to Jan in the museum catalogue.Attempts to date it have undergone similar shifts of opinion. In the 19th century the panel was believed to be an early work by Jan completed as early as c. 1410, although this view changed as scholarship progressed. In the early 20th century, Ludwig von Baldass placed it around 1424–29, then for a long period it was seen as originating from the early 1430s. Erwin Panofsky provided the first detailed treatise on the work and placed it around 1432–34. However, following research from Meyer Schapiro, he revised his opinion to the late 1430s in the 1953 edition of his Early Netherlandish Painting. A 1970s comparative study of van Eyck's 1437 Saint Barbara concluded that Madonna in the Church was completed after c. 1437. In the 1990s, Otto Pächt judged the work as probably a late van Eyck, given the similar treatment of an interior in the 1434 Arnolfini Portrait. In the early 21st century, Jeffrey Chipps Smith and John Oliver Hand placed it between 1426 and 1428, claiming it as perhaps the earliest extant signed work confirmed as by Jan.  Guess a valid title for it!
A:
Madonna in the Church