Q: Given the below context:  John Michael Wright, who at the height of his career would interchangeably sign himself "Anglus" or "Scotus", is of uncertain origin. The diarist John Evelyn called him a Scotsman, an epithet repeated by Horace Walpole and tentatively accepted by his later biographer, Verne. However, writing in 1700, the English antiquarian Thomas Hearne claims Wright was born in Shoe Lane, London and, after an adolescent conversion to Roman Catholicism, was taken to Scotland by a priest.  A London birth certainly seems supported by a baptismal record, dated 25 May 1617, for a "Mighell Wryghtt", son of James Wright, described as a tailor and a citizen of London, in St Bride's Church, Fleet Street, London.What is known is that, on 6 April 1636, the 19-year-old Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone, an Edinburgh portrait painter of some repute. The Edinburgh Register of Apprentices records him as "Michaell, son to James W(right), tailor, citizen of London". The reasons for this move to Scotland are unclear, but may have to do with familial connections (his parents may have been London Scots) or the advent of plague in London. During his apprenticeship, Wright is likely to have lodged at the High Street tenement near the Netherbow Gate that served as Jameson's workplace. The apprenticeship was contracted for five years, but may have been curtailed by Jameson's imprisonment in late 1639. There is no record of any independent work by Wright from this period (his earliest known painting being a small portrait of Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury, painted in the early 1640s during his time in Rome).It is also possible that Wright met his wife during his Scottish residency. Nothing is known of her, except from a statement of thirty years later which describes her as "related to the most noble and distinguished families of Scotland." If this is accurate, it may explain how Wright was later able to find aristocratic patronage. All that is known for certain is that Wright had at least one child by her, a son, Thomas.  Guess a valid title for it!
A: John Michael Wright

Q: Given the below context:  Genetic engineers Clive Nicoli and Elsa Kast hope to achieve fame by splicing animal DNA to create hybrids for medical use at the company N.E.R.D. (Nucleic Exchange Research and Development). Their work previously yielded Fred, a dog-sized vermiform creature intended as a mate for their female specimen, Ginger. After successfully mating them, Clive and Elsa plan to create a human-animal hybrid that could revolutionize science. Their employers Joan Chorot of N.E.R.D. and William Barlow forbid them from doing this. Instead, they are to find and extract proteins used for commercial drug production from Fred and Ginger. Clive and Elsa, however, disobey their superiors and pursue their own agenda in secret, developing a viable prepubescent female creature. Although they had planned to terminate the hybrid before it reached full term, Elsa persuades Clive to let it live. They discover that she is aging at a vastly accelerated rate. Elsa discovers that the creature is undergoing mental development such as that of a young human child. Elsa names the creature "Dren" after the creature spells out NERD, having seen the letters on Elsa's shirt. After moving Dren to a new location for fear of discovery, they find she has a dangerously high fever. In an attempt to save her they place her in a large industrial sink filled with cold water. Later on Clive fully submerges Dren in the sink, and in doing so discovers that Dren is amphibious, but remains ambiguous in whether he tried to save Dren or kill her. While studying Dren, Elsa and Clive neglect their work with Fred and Ginger. At a highly publicized presentation of their work, Fred and Ginger savagely fight to the death. It is subsequently discovered that Ginger had spontaneously changed to a male, but Elsa and Clive failed to notice because they were focused on Dren.  Guess a valid title for it!
A: Splice (film)

Q: Given the below context:  Further recognition came with the hanging of one of Fuller's paintings, Summer Breezes, at the Royal Academy in 1904. Other Australian artists whose works were hung at the same time included Rupert Bunny, E. Phillips Fox, Albert Fullwood, George Lambert, and Arthur Streeton. Fuller was the only woman painter to be represented. A critic writing in The West Australian observed:The work ... is essentially Australian in almost every detail. Standing in a sunlit Australian paddock, a lithesome Australian blonde holds her summer hat on against the rude caresses of an Australian breeze—a subject simple but grand in its simplicity ... Next to its suggestion of breezy sunshine and the incidental portrayal of willowy grace the picture is to be admired for its colour scheme ... The details of the picture disclose untiring care. By the time Summer Breezes was on display, Fuller had returned to Australia, not to her previous home in Melbourne but to Perth in Western Australia, where she joined her sister, Amy Fuller, who was a singer. Although only in her mid-thirties, Fuller's background made her "one of the most experienced artists in Western Australia at this time". For the next four years, she painted portraits, including one of Western Australian politician James George Lee Steere, undertaken posthumously from photographs and recollections of those who had known him. It was acquired by the gallery whose board he chaired. She also took on students, including French-Australian artist Kathleen O'Connor. Fuller's paintings from this period included A Golden Hour, described by the National Gallery of Australia as "a masterpiece ... giving us a gentle insight into the people, places and times that make up our history". The painting, an oil on canvas 109 cm (43 in) high and 135 cm (53 in) wide, portrays a woman and a man standing together in a rural setting in late afternoon, surrounded by grass, scattered gum trees, and Xanthorrhoea. When the painting was put up for sale in 2012, the auction house catalogue stated that it...  Guess a valid title for it!
A: Florence Fuller

Q: 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!
A:
A Window in London