Q: Given the below context:  In 1970, Lennon and Ono went through primal therapy with Arthur Janov in Los Angeles, California. Designed to release emotional pain from early childhood, the therapy entailed two half-days a week with Janov for four months; he had wanted to treat the couple for longer, but they felt no need to continue and returned to London. Lennon's debut solo album, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (1970), was received with praise by many music critics, but its highly personal lyrics and stark sound limited its commercial performance. Critic Greil Marcus remarked, "John's singing in the last verse of 'God' may be the finest in all of rock." The album featured the song "Mother", in which Lennon confronted his feelings of childhood rejection, and the Dylanesque "Working Class Hero", a bitter attack against the bourgeois social system which, due to the lyric "you're still fucking peasants", fell foul of broadcasters. In January 1971, Tariq Ali expressed his revolutionary political views when he interviewed Lennon, who immediately responded by writing "Power to the People". In his lyrics to the song, Lennon reversed the non-confrontational approach he had espoused in "Revolution", although he later disowned the message, saying that it was borne out of guilt and a desire for approval from radicals such as Ali. Lennon became involved with Ali in a protest against the prosecution of Oz magazine for alleged obscenity. Lennon denounced the proceedings as "disgusting fascism", and he and Ono (as Elastic Oz Band) released the single "God Save Us/Do the Oz" and joined marches in support of the magazine. Eager for a major commercial success, Lennon adopted a more accessible sound for his next album, Imagine (1971). Rolling Stone reported that "it contains a substantial portion of good music" but warned of the possibility that "his posturings will soon seem not merely dull but irrelevant". The album's title track later became an anthem for anti-war movements, while the song "How Do You Sleep?" was a musical attack on McCartney in response...  Guess a valid title for it!
A: John Lennon

Q: Given the below context:  De Long's party found no immediate sign at their landing-place of any human habitation, and had only a sketchy idea of where they were—Petermann's map provided few useful details. On September 19, having buried their non-essential possessions in a mound marked by a tent pole, they set out in search of settlements. Progress was hampered by the poor physical condition of the men, in particular Eriksen, who was badly affected by frostbite. On September 21 they halted at two empty huts, probably part of a hunting camp, where Alexey raised spirits by shooting a deer to replenish their dwindling food stocks. De Long allowed his exhausted party several days' rest before resuming the march.On September 28 the party found a large hut, with signs of recent occupation–edible food in the store, and moccasin tracks in the snow. When searches in the locality brought no sign of people, De Long decided to move on. By October 4, Eriksen could not continue; the party halted at another abandoned hut where, on October 6, Eriksen died. On October 9, with the condition of several men worsening, De Long decided to send two of the fittest in the group, Nindemann and Noros, to seek help. Ambler was offered the opportunity to go with them, but felt that his duty as a doctor required him to stay with the main body.For the next week De Long's party struggled on, sometimes making barely a mile a day. Although they jettisoned more of their possessions on the way, De Long insisted on carrying his maps and journals. His entry for October 10 recorded that there was "nothing for supper but a spoonful of glycerine". A few days later Alexey, the group's principal hunter, shot a ptarmigan which provided soup. But Alexey was weakening, and on October 17 he died.On October 20, trapped by the weather and without supplies, the party came to a final halt. Throughout the march De Long had written up his journal each day, but after October 20 his entries became intermittent, largely limited to terse statements of the dying and the dead. He noted the...  Guess a valid title for it!
A: Jeannette Expedition

Q: Given the below context:  In his first leading role Ben Mendelsohn plays Danny Clark, a bumbling eighteen-year-old guy. He knows what it takes to be cool and have some style, it is just that he seems to struggle to get there. Danny has enthusiasm and passion and only wants two things more than anything in the world. A Jaguar XJ6 and a date with the gorgeous Joanna Johnson (an early role for then 17-year-old Claudia Karvan). Get these and his life will be complete. Unfortunately for Danny, when he finally gets the courage up to ask Joanna out, he somehow manages to promise her a ride in his new Jaguar. She is not particularly impressed by cars, but still agrees to his invitation. The problem is, Danny does not own a Jaguar. His form of transport is his recently received birthday present - and it most certainly is not a Jaguar. His eccentric parents have decided to pass on their pride and joy to Danny for his use. Their 1963 Nissan Cedric has been in the family for years and is immaculate  but extremely uncool. Danny is aghast at the thought of driving around in a car as dorky as a Cedric and, with the promise of a date with Joanna and the need for a Jaguar in a hurry, decides to trade in the old Nissan. He heads out to search the car yards to find his dream machine.  Guess a valid title for it!
A: The Big Steal (1990 film)

Q: Given the below context:  Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 was his final major compositional project, occupying him intermittently from the mid-1920s until around 1938, though he never published it. During this time Sibelius was at the peak of his fame, a national figure in his native Finland and a composer of international stature. A fair copy of at least the first movement was made, but how much of the Eighth Symphony was completed is unknown. Sibelius repeatedly refused to release it for performance, though he continued to assert that he was working on it even after he had, according to later reports from his family, burned the score and associated material, probably in 1945. Much of Sibelius's reputation, during his lifetime and subsequently, derived from his work as a symphonist. His Seventh Symphony of 1924 has been widely recognised as a landmark in the development of symphonic form, and at the time there was no reason to suppose that the flow of innovative orchestral works would not continue. However, after the symphonic poem Tapiola, completed in 1926, his output was confined to relatively minor pieces and revisions to earlier works. During the 1930s the Eighth Symphony's premiere was promised to Serge Koussevitzky and the Boston Symphony Orchestra on several occasions, but as each scheduled date approached Sibelius demurred, claiming that the work was not ready for performance. Similar promises made to the British conductor Basil Cameron and to the Finnish Georg Schnéevoigt likewise proved illusory. It is thought that Sibelius's perfectionism and exalted reputation prevented him ever completing the symphony to his satisfaction; he wanted it to be even better than his Seventh. After Sibelius's death in 1957, news of the Eighth Symphony's destruction was made public, and it was assumed that the work had disappeared forever. But in the 1990s, when the composer's many notebooks and sketches were being catalogued, scholars first raised the possibility that fragments of the music for the lost symphony might have survived. Since...  Guess a valid title for it!
A:
Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)