Problem: Given the question: 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!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Portrait of Monsieur Bertin


input question: Given the below context:  Julian Berniers returns from Illinois with his young bride, Lily Prine, to his family in New Orleans. His spinster sisters, Carrie and Anna, welcome the couple, who arrive with expensive gifts. Julian tells them that, though his factory went out of business, he did manage to save money.  Although the sisters are sceptical, there is much talk of a long-hoped-for trip to Europe for the two sisters.  In fact, Julian has money from a real estate deal that he pulled off with the help of a former lover, Charlotte Warkins, who is now in an abusive marriage. Carrie is obsessed with her brother. Her jealousy, deriving from her sublimated incestuous desires for her brother, is aimed at Lily.  Carrie tricks Lily into informing Charlotte's husband of a rendezvous between Charlotte and Julian, at which Julian was to give Charlotte her half of the money, and Charlotte was then going to leave her husband and flee town.  Charlotte's husband sends thugs who beat up Julian, maim Charlotte and take both halves of the money. Julian  discovers that Carrie manipulated Lily into making the phone call to Charlotte's husband, by convincing Lily that Julian and Charlotte were going to leave together.  After Carrie hurls insults at Julian and Anna, telling them they will both be failures, both leave the house, Julian to find and reconcile with Lily, and Anna to Europe.  Carrie is left alone, deluding herself into thinking they will both return one day.  Guess a valid title for it!???
output answer: Toys in the Attic (1963 film)


Please answer this: 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!
++++++++
Answer:
John Michael Wright