Given the below context:  The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded...  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Dresden Triptych

Given the below context:  Pat, a hotel switchboard operator and Peter a crane operator are a happy well meaning couple, however because of their different shifts during the day they have no time for each other. While he works during the day on the construction of Waterloo Bridge his patient wife works during the night on a hotel telephone exchange. One morning on his way to work, Peter goes on the London Underground train and spots what seems to be a murder being committed on at the open window of a building overlooking the tracks. Deciding to investigate this "crime" Peter and a policeman arrive at the residence. There they find out that the couple were in fact rehearsing an illusion. Zoltini is a bad tempered magician and his wife Vivienne is his assistant. The suspicious magician becomes sure that his wife is having an affair with Peter - every time he sees her with the handsome stranger. On another night Zoltini and Vivienne have an argument on the backstage - leading to him slapping her in the face. As a result, Vivienne leaves (while her husband performs on stage) and takes a taxi with Peter up to his crane. Furious with Vivienne for leaving during the 'vanishing women' sequence of their performance, Zoltini looks for his wife while Pat has been sacked from the hotel for not paying attention to her job.  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: A Window in London

Given the below context:  Fowzi Nejad was the only gunman to survive the SAS assault. After being identified, he was dragged away by an SAS trooper, who allegedly intended to take him back into the building and shoot him. The soldier reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television. It later emerged that the footage from the back of the embassy was coming from a wireless camera placed in the window of a flat overlooking the embassy. The camera had been installed by ITN technicians, who had posed as guests of a local resident in order to get past the police cordon, which had been in place since the beginning of the siege. Nejad was arrested, and was eventually tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the siege. He became eligible for parole in 2005. As a foreign national, he would normally have been immediately deported to his home country but Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998, has been held by the European Court of Human Rights to prohibit deportation in cases where the person concerned would be likely to be tortured or executed in his home country. Nejad was eventually paroled in 2008 and granted leave to remain in the UK, but was not given political asylum. The Home Office released a statement, saying "We do not give refugee status to convicted terrorists. Our aim is to deport people as quickly as possible but the law requires us to first obtain assurances that the person being returned will not face certain death". After 27 years in prison, Nejad was deemed no longer to be a threat to society, but Trevor Lock wrote to the Home Office to oppose his release. Because it is accepted by the British government that he would be executed or tortured, he cannot be deported to Iran under the Human Rights Act 1998. He now lives in Peckham, south London, having assumed another identity.  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Iranian Embassy siege

Given the below context:  Elizabeth Halsey is an immoral English teacher at John Adams Middle School in Cook County, Illinois. She is foul-mouthed and greedy, drinks alcohol heavily, smokes marijuana, and shows movies while sleeping through class. She plans to quit teaching and marry her wealthy fiancé Mark, but resumes her job when he dumps her after learning she is only after his money. Elizabeth tries to win over substitute teacher Scott Delacorte, who is also wealthy because his family runs a watch company. Amy Squirrel, a dedicated and enthusiastic colleague, also pursues Scott while the school's gym teacher, Russell Gettis, makes it clear that he is interested in Elizabeth romantically, and she is not interested in him because he is a gym teacher. Elizabeth plans to get surgery to enlarge her breasts and becomes all the more motivated to do so once she learns Scott's ex-girlfriend had large breasts, but she cannot afford $9,300 for the procedure. She feels worse when Scott admits that he is interested in Amy, and that he only likes Elizabeth as a friend. Elizabeth attempts to raise money for the surgery by participating in her 7th grade class car wash in provocative clothing and by manipulating parents to give her money for more school supplies and tutoring, but her efforts are not enough. Amy, acting on the growing resentment between them due to Elizabeth pursuing Scott and ignoring school rules, attempts to warn the principal about Elizabeth's embezzlement scheme, but he dismisses her claims as groundless.  Guess a valid title for it!
Ans: Bad Teacher