instruction:
Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
FRANKFURT/LONDON (Reuters) -  Gucci-owner Kering (PRTP.PA)  plans to spin off German sports brand Puma (PUMG.DE) to the French conglomerate’s shareholders as  it  sharpens the group’s focus squarely on its luxury brands.
 Kering  said  it  planned to distribute 70 percent of Puma shares in kind to  its  investors  leaving  it  with only a 16 percent stake in the sportwear group  confirming an exclusive Reuters report.
 Kering  is a little more than 40 percent controlled by the French Pinault family  who would receive about 29 percent of the sporting goods company  while Puma’s free float would stand at about 55 percent.
Shedding Puma  meanwhile  would turn  Kering  into a pure player in the high-margin luxury business  where  it  rivals larger peers such as French conglomerate LVMH (LVMH.PA).
 “Kering  would dedicate  itself  entirely to the development of  its  luxury houses ”  Kering  Chairman and CEO Francois-Henri Pinault said in a statement.
Puma struggled for years after it was bought by Kering for 5.3 billion euros ($6.4 billion) in 2007  but recent improved performance has raised expectations that the French group would sell its stake this year.
Puma’s shares rose by 45 percent over the past year  bringing its market capitalisation to 5.3 billion euros  back at the level at which  Kering  bought.
 Kering  emerged as one of the big winners in a luxury goods revival last year as Chinese demand picked up  with a stellar turn at brand-of-the-moment Gucci helping earnings and other labels such as Yves Saint Laurent and Balenciaga.
answer:
Kering


question:
Among darts tossed at Sen. Ted Cruz after his Twitter account "liked" a sexual video clip was an allegation that Cruz has backed a ban on sex toys . 
It ultimately was Cruz 's duty to defend the law , each lawyer said . 
Krupkin said : "Cruz in his official capacity as solicitor general supported a ban . 
It gets too close to the line when you say Ted Cruz" personally "did this . 
Ted Cruz did that in his official position . 
We 're unaware of Cruz , elected in 2012 and seeking re-election in 2018 , calling for a ban on sex toys . 
The Post 's tweet linked to the newspaper 's news story , which said , without added detail : "Cruz , a Republican from Texas , is known for his strong religious convictions and family values stance -- and once even supported a ban on sex toys ." 
Earlier , the state framed its arguments for upholding the law in a January 2007 brief listing the names of the then-attorney general , Greg Abbott , and five state attorneys working for the agency helmed by Abbott -- including Cruz , Todd and Davis , whose signature alone appears on the brief and , again alone , on the state 's unsuccessful post-ruling motion for rehearing . 
The New York Post 's tweet called Cruz "the same senator who once supported a ban on sex toys ." 
Cruz did not respond to our inquiry for this fact-check . 
This statement incorrectly suggests that Cruz called for a ban on sex toys while serving in the Senate or otherwise personally held that belief . 
There 's no doubt in my mind that Cruz would have reviewed it in some way ." 
"No ," Cruz said . 
To our inquiries , Todd and Gary Krupkin , a Dallas First Amendment lawyer who represents businesses selling such products , each commented that Cruz supported restricting sex toys but that defending state laws also was his duty . 
Cruz was Texas ' solicitor general at the time , making him the attorney general 's office 's top appellate lawyer . 
In his position as a state lawyer , Cruz helped in the unsuccessful defense of a Texas law barring commercial promotion of sex toys -- an action giving this claim an element of truth . 
New York Post Statement : Says Ted Cruz is the "same senator who once supported a ban on sex toys ." 
So , Todd said , Cruz "defended it . 
It 's a stupid law ," Cruz said , adding that he believes consenting adults should do what they please in the privacy of their bedrooms .
answer:
Ted Cruz


question:
The camera is an instrument of suspense. Given a movie frame  you want to understand what's happening in it â and what will happen next. That balance of wonder and dread is a fundamental draw of film  and a touchstone of the horror genre. The questions Kendall R. Phillips asks in A Place of Darkness: The Rhetoric of Horror in Early American Cinema are: How did we get from the nickelodeon special-effects "cinema of attractions" to understanding horror narratives as their own genre? And what does America's relationship with horror tell us about the idea of being American in the first place?
A Place of Darkness is about as academic as they come; expect discussion of the "paradigm of monstration" and the ways weird films "provided a counternarrative to the emerging American rationalist epistemology." But the book's central arguments make for great reading  as  Phillips  lays out the ways that proto-horror movies contained distinct and disparate rhythms (suspense  surprise  superstition)  how the need for legitimacy led to literary adaptation as a horror standard  how movies developed alongside audiences to bring new immediacy to onscreen dread  and how shifting visions of the Other forced movies to constantly renegotiate what  exactly  people were meant to be afraid of.
 Phillips  draws these elements together under the idea of horror as an exploration of cultural fears within 'acceptable' parameters. When "the pressure to create a homogeneous American culture necessitated securing the popular American movie screen for the purpose of indoctrinating immigrants " the past was an old world fraught with terrors  and the present was a new one full of uncertainty. "Both on the screen and in the discussions surrounding early screen practice  a line of demarcation was drawn between the incredulous  civilized  white American male and the superstitious  uncivilized  gendered  and racialized Other." (Though this book ends with Dracula and Frankenstein  there's a straight line to the cultural conversations modern films are having with their own genre histories â look no further than Get Out for a horror movie that tackles this dynamic head-on and radically redraws that line of demarcation.)
As with many academic texts  this effort to frame a new argument means the book only scrapes the surface of some of its most interesting suggestions. We're duly warned that  Phillips  intended "an exercise in rhetorical criticism  in that  its  focus has been on the way these horrific elements were depicted  discussed  and contested " but that question of American identity and the shifting Other is compelling enough to overwhelm some of the rhetorical specifics. (Several early thrillers that use inheritances  wagers  and other greed as the motive for crime and terror are listed in order to slot them into the 'melodrama' aspect of emerging horror. But was this merely a reason to fill a house with false ghosts? Was there some deeper American unease about money and the wealthy in the late 1920s that spurred so many successful movies in which the unscrupulous rich made life miserable for others? Perhaps the book's designed to prompt such questions from the reader; if there's one thing an academic text will tell you  there's always room for more research.)
answer:

Kendall R. Phillips