Given the below context:  The two sides to Poulenc's musical nature caused misunderstanding during his life and have continued to do so. The composer Ned Rorem observed, "He was deeply devout and uncontrollably sensual"; this still leads some critics to underrate his seriousness. His uncompromising adherence to melody, both in his lighter and serious works, has similarly caused some to regard him as unprogressive. Although he was not much influenced by new developments in music, Poulenc was always keenly interested in the works of younger generations of composers. Lennox Berkeley recalled, "Unlike some artists, he was genuinely interested in other people's work, and surprisingly appreciative of music very far removed from his. I remember him playing me the records of Boulez's Le marteau sans maître with which he was already familiar when that work was much less well-known than it is today." Boulez did not take a reciprocal view, remarking in 2010, "There are always people who will take an easy intellectual path. Poulenc coming after Sacre [du Printemps]. It was not progress." Other composers have found more merit in Poulenc's work; Stravinsky wrote to him in 1931: "You are truly good, and that is what I find again and again in your music".In his last years Poulenc observed, "if people are still interested in my music in 50 years' time it will be for my Stabat Mater rather than the Mouvements perpétuels." In a centenary tribute in The Times Gerald Larner commented that Poulenc's prediction was wrong, and that in 1999 the composer was widely celebrated for both sides of his musical character: "both the fervent Catholic and the naughty boy, for both the Gloria and Les Biches, both Les Dialogues des Carmélites and Les Mamelles de Tirésias." At around the same time the writer Jessica Duchen described Poulenc as "a fizzing, bubbling mass of Gallic energy who can move you to both laughter and tears within seconds. His language speaks clearly, directly and humanely to every generation."  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Francis Poulenc

Given the below context:  As an artist, Francis Bacon was a late starter. He painted sporadically and without commitment during the late 1920s and early 1930s, when he worked as an interior decorator and designer of furniture and rugs. He later admitted that his career was delayed because he had spent so long looking for a subject that would sustain his interest. He began to paint images based on the Crucifixion in 1933, when his then-patron Eric Hall commissioned a series of three paintings based on the subject. These abstract figurations contain formal elements typical of their time, including diaphanous forms, flat backgrounds, and surrealist props such as flowers and umbrellas. The art critic Wieland Schmied noted that while the early works are "aesthetically pleasing", they lack "a sense of urgency or inner necessity; they are beautiful, but lifeless". The sentiment is echoed by Hugh Davies, who wrote that Bacon's 1933 paintings "suggest an artist concentrating more on formal than on expressive concerns". Bacon admitted that his early works were not successful; they were merely decorative and lacking in substance. He was often harshly self-critical during this period, and would abandon or destroy canvasses before they were completed. He abandoned the Crucifixion theme, then largely withdrew from painting in frustration, instead immersing himself in love affairs, drinking and gambling.When he returned to the topic of the Crucifixion eleven years later, he retained some of the stylistic elements he had developed earlier, such as the elongated and dislocated organic forms that he now based on Oresteia. He continued to incorporate the spatial device he was to use many times throughout his career—three lines radiating from this central figure, which was first seen in Crucifixion, 1933. Three Studies was painted over the course of two weeks in 1944, when, Bacon recalled, "I was in a bad mood of drinking, and I did it under tremendous hangovers and drink; I sometimes hardly knew what I was doing. I think perhaps the drink helped me to...  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

Given the below context:  Anne is in Cannes with her husband Michael, a prominent movie producer. As the festival ends she learns that the vacation she and her husband were supposed to go on in Paris will be slightly delayed as they need to go to Budapest first. They plan to fly to Paris, but the pilot suggests Anne not fly due to an ear infection. Michael's producing partner Jacques offers to drive Anne to Paris himself. What is supposed to be a short car ride quickly devolves into a pleasant leisurely trip as Jacques, a French foodie, can't resist taking any opportunity he can to stop every hour or so to sample new food. He is also openly flirtatious with Anne but she begins to question his intentions when he repeatedly uses her credit card to foot the bill for the gourmet meals they are sampling. They visit a church where Anne grieves the baby she lost, and tells Jacques she wears her locket necklace in his honor.  They share a romantic dinner together where Jacques admires Anne's photography, and asks why she doesn't share it with her husband. Later, on the road, Jacques confides that only he knows his brother's death was a suicide, and he carries that burden so his nephew doesn't have to know.  They finally reach the place where Anne is staying and almost kiss, but the elevator doors close in on them.  Anne sees Jacques has driven away, but he returns to kiss her passionately and ask her to a rendez-vous with him later in San Francisco. Days later, she receives a package from Jacques with chocolate roses and the money she had lent him on the trip.  It includes a note that reminds her of the restaurant they will be meeting at, and she smiles at the camera suggestively.  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Paris Can Wait

Given the below context:  On her 18th birthday, India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska)—a girl with a strong acuteness of the senses—has her life turned upside down after her loving father Richard dies in a horrific car accident. She is left with her unstable mother Evelyn. At Richard's funeral, Evelyn and India are introduced to Richard's charming and charismatic brother Charlie, who has spent his life traveling the world. India, who didn't know Charlie existed, is perturbed by his presence. He announces that he is staying indefinitely to help support India and Evelyn, much to Evelyn's delight and India's chagrin. Shortly after, India witnesses Charlie argue with Mrs. McGarrick, the head caretaker of the house. Mrs. McGarrick complains to Charlie that she has been his "eyes and ears" since he was a boy. Mrs. McGarrick then disappears. Charlie and Evelyn grow intimate while India continues to rebuff his attempts to befriend her. Later, her great aunt Gwendolyn visits the family, much to Evelyn and Charlie's dismay. At dinner, Gwendolyn shows surprise at Charlie's claims of traveling the world and tells Evelyn that she needs to talk to her about Charlie. Gwendolyn ends up changing hotels due to an unexplained fear and suspicion of Charlie. However, she loses her cell phone and tries to call the Stokers' home from her hotel payphone. Charlie corners her in the phone booth and strangles her to death with his belt. Meanwhile, India discovers Mrs. McGarrick's body in the freezer and realizes Charlie is a murderer.  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Stoker (film)