Please answer this: Given the below context:  Tom Stansfield is a researcher at a publishing company who works under the tyrannical Jack Taylor. Tom has a crush on his boss' daughter, Lisa, who is completely controlled by her overprotective father. She reveals to Tom that her father is making her house-sit the same night as a party she wants to attend, but Tom convinces her to stand up to her father and attend the party anyway. Lisa asks him to come to their house that night, leading Tom to think that she has invited him to the party; in reality, she just wants him to fill in for her - he reluctantly agrees. A comedy of errors ensues, including the return of Lisa's older brother, Red, on the run from drug dealers. Red dumps drugs into the toilet, and instead returns a bag of flour to the drug dealer. One of Tom's tasks is to guard their owl, O-J, which lives in an open cage (it has not been able to fly due to a deep depression, from the loss of a prior mate). When the bird drinks from the toilet polluted with drugs, it flies away. Jack's ex-secretary Audrey goes to the house to try to earn her job back. After fighting with her boyfriend, she stays over at the house. Lisa returns home after finding out that her boyfriend Hans is cheating on her. Tom hides from her everything that happened and she spends some time with her thinking he is homosexual. He clarifies to her that he's actually straight and she starts to like him. Audrey's friend thinks she has breast cancer and asks Tom to feel her breasts. Lisa walks in on them and is disgusted by the situation.  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++
Answer: My Boss's Daughter


Problem: Given the below context:  Paul Gregory, a Canadian confidence trickster operating in London, targets a wealthy Canadian woman in Britain to sell her collection of valuable coins. After meeting her at an ice hockey match, he sets about winning her confidence until she is prepared to give him legal control over the sale. He completes the deal without her knowledge, puts the money from the sale in a safe deposit box, and then deliberately waits to be caught by the police. Gregory plans on getting a five-year sentence, with time off for good behaviour, and then collecting his loot when he is released. However, the judge makes an example of the uncooperative Gregory by handing down a ten-year term. Not wishing to spend so much time in jail, Gregory pays Victor Sloane, one of his associates on the outside, to help him escape. Almost immediately, things begin to go wrong. Fearing arrest, he is unable for the moment to recover the money from the safe. Sloane also now begins to demand more money, threatening him with violence, and Gregory is forced to retaliate. Gregory tries to get help from his fellow criminals, calling upon an established code that exists between them. But when his former associate Sloane is found dead – accidentally having choked to death on the gag Gregory placed in his mouth – they refuse to offer him any assistance, as he is now too "hot". With the manhunt rapidly closing in, he tries to escape with the help of Bridget Howard, a disillusioned ex-débutante and niece of a Chief Constable. She drives Gregory to a deserted cottage near her family's home in rural Wales. While in hiding, he witnesses the police arrive to question Bridget, assumes the worst, and flees again. Attempting to steal a farmer's bicycle, he is shot in the shoulder. He drives away in a stolen truck but crashes and passes out, where he is found by another farmer. Bridget tells the police nothing. She waits in vain for Gregory at the cottage, then walks into the distance.  Guess a valid title for it!

A: Nowhere to Go (1958 film)


Q: Given the below context:  Given the standings of the two men, the painting was received in both social and political terms. A number of writers mentioned Bertin's eventful career, in tones that were, according to art historian Andrew Carrington Shelton, either "bitingly sarcastic [or] fawningly reverential". There were many satirical reproductions and pointed editorials in the following years. Aware of Bertin's support of the July Monarchy, writers at the La Gazette de France viewed the portrait as the epitome of the "opportunism and cynicism" of the new regime. Their anonymous critic excitedly wondered "what bitter irony it expresses, what hardened skepticism, sarcasm and ... pronounced cynicism".Several critics mentioned Bertin's hands. Twentieth-century art historian Albert Boime described them as "powerful, vulturine ... grasping his thighs in a gesture ... projecting ... enormous strength controlled". Some contemporary critics were not so kind. The photographer and critic Félix Tournachon was harshly critical, and disparaged what he saw as a "fantastical bundle of flesh ... under which, instead of bones and muscles, there can only be intestines – this flatulent hand, the rumbling of which I can hear!" Bertin's hands made a different impression on the critic F. de Lagenevais, who remarked: "A mediocre artist would have modified them, he would have replaced those swollen joints with the cylindrical fingers of the first handy model; but by this single alteration he would have changed the expression of the whole personality ... the energetic and mighty nature".The work's realism attracted a large amount of commentary when it was first exhibited. Some saw it as an affront to Romanticism, others said that its small details not only showed an acute likeness, but built a psychological profile of the sitter. Art historian Geraldine Pelles sees Bertin as "at once intense, suspicious, and aggressive". She notes that there is a certain amount of projection of the artist's personality and recalls Théophile Silvestre's description of Ingres;...  Guess a valid title for it!
A:
Portrait of Monsieur Bertin