In this task, you're given passages that contain mentions of names of people, places, or things. Some of these mentions refer to the same person, place, or thing. Your job is to write questions that evaluate one's understanding of such references. Good questions are expected to link pronouns (she, her, him, his, their, etc.) or other mentions to people, places, or things to which they may refer. Do not ask questions that can be answered correctly without understanding the paragraph or having multiple answers. Avoid questions that do not link phrases referring to the same entity. For each of your questions, the answer should be one or more phrases in the paragraph, and it should be unambiguous.

Q: Passage: The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedländer's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederländischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedländer focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedländer's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance.
Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedländer's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting – as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pächt and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the research of Friedländer, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

A: What is the full name of the person who effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study?
****
Q: Passage: The story concerns a veteran playboy screenwriter named Richard Benson who has been paid to write a screenplay for his boss, Mr. Alexander Myerheim. Overly set in his playboy and carousing ways, he procrastinates the writing of the screenplay until just two days before it is due. Gabrielle Simpson, a temp secretary hired by Benson to type the script, comes to Richard's hotel room where they are to work on the script, only then finding out about their tight deadline and that not one page or line of script has been written. The desperate and self-loathing writer Richard begins to be awakened and inspired by the beautiful Gabrielle, and comes up with various scenarios for his screenplay, The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower, which is based on their unfolding romance. The screenplay, with small but inspired and comedic roles for Noël Coward, Tony Curtis, and other famous stars of the day, makes fun of the movie business, actors, studio heads, and itself, and is rife with allusions to the iconic earlier roles of the two main stars.

A: What was the woman who inspires Richard originally going to do for him?
****
Q: Passage: When Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche escaped Tibet in 1959, he settled in Italy, where he married and had two children, of which Yeshi was the first. Yeshi was recognized as the reincarnation of Rinpoche's uncle, a renowned Dzogchen master, who had died after the Chinese invaded Tibet. Yeshi grew up in Italy and wanted nothing to do with this legacy. He had no interest in being a teacher like his father. Nor did he want to return to Tibet and the monastery of Rinpoche's uncle to meet the students waiting for him since his birth – something that his father continually admonished him to do. Instead, he dreamed of a normal life, away from the hordes of devoted students that always surrounded his father.
Through intimate scenes Yeshi is shown growing from 18 years old to 39 years old and maturity, and his father who begins the story in his 50-year-old prime ages to 70 years and his senior years. As the story unravels, what is at stake for Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is his spiritual tradition, for Yeshi it is his own identity. Will Yeshi's Western lifestyle replace his family tradition and his spiritual roots? Will his father succeed at transplanting the vanishing Tibetan heritage to the Western world? As time moves forward, both father and son begin to change.
The image of water and swimming, Namkhai Norbu's beloved pastime, is used as a repetitive thematic pillar through the film as a representation of his teachings of integration and emptiness. The natural sounds of chanting and song, combined with added effects and carefully scored music, is used to express a non-verbal sense of the spiritual world Norbu Rinpoche seeks to transmit to his son, and to the West.

A:
Who dreamed of a normal life?
****