instruction:
Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
Documents released by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) show the then  17-year-old Christopher Lewis  shot at the Queen as  she  got out of  her  vehicle on the way to a science fair on Oct. 14 during  her  eight-day tour of the Commonwealth nation.
 âLewis  did indeed originally intend to assassinate the Queen  however did not have a suitable vantage point from which to fire  nor a sufficiently high-powered rifle for the range from the target â said a 1997 SIS memo  that was declassified in February and sent to Reuters on Thursday.
 Lewis   who intelligence documents described as a âseverely disturbedâ youth  was not charged with attempted murder or treason  adding to claims the incident was downplayed to prevent embarrassment to a country hosting a royal visit.
According to intelligence documents  police kept a close eye on  Lewis  during a 1986 visit by the Queen to New Zealand  fearing that  he  was still a risk.
More than a decade after the incident   Lewis  was charged with the brutal murder of an Auckland mother and the abduction of  her  baby daughter  who was later dropped at a nearby church.
According to multiple news reports at the time   Lewis  electrocuted  himself  while in prison in 1997 awaiting the murder trial.  He  denied the murder charge in a suicide note.
answer:
New Zealand teenager tried to assassinate Queen Elizabeth in 1981: intelligence agency


question:
What now? Mrs Merkel will meet with Frank-Walter Steinmeier  Germanyâs federal president  this morning to discuss next steps. Four possible outcomes present themselves. The FDP might be coaxed back to the negotiating table by plausible concessions from the CDU  CSU and Greens. But do not count on it. Mr Lindnerâs language was ominously final. And the Greens (seemingly the main target of FDP recrimination) declared that they had reached their âpain thresholdâ and could not budge another centimetre.
The second possibility is a new âgrand coalitionâ marrying the CDU/CSU and the centre-left Social Democrats (SDP)  who together have a workable majority in the Bundestag. But the SPD has strenuously ruled out the option. Having lost distinctiveness and votes in partnership with  Mrs Merkel    its  leaders and activists fear another spin with the chancellor could do their party terminal damage. Perhaps  just perhaps   Mrs Merkel   the media and Germanyâs European partners can persuade them to take the risk. But months after its worst election result in post-war German history  the SPD will most probably reject the overtures.
In the absence of a viable majority government   Mrs Merkel  could form a minority one  concocting vote-by-vote majorities in the Bundestag. This might combine the CDU/CSU with the FDP  its traditional governing partner (together they would be 29 seats short of a majority). But a more natural fit would now be a black-green coalition with the Greens (42 seats short of a majority). Last night each side found generous words for the other  and they were as one in their contempt for the FDP. At federal level post-war Germany has witnessed no minority administrations  though one ran North-Rhine Westphalia  the countryâs largest state  from 2010 to 2012. Such governments are alien both to the stable  long-termist ways of the German state and to  Mrs Merkelâs  plodding leadership style. How long one would even last in the current circumstances is unclear.
That leaves the fourth  most drastic option: new elections. The route is not as simple as it sounds. Unlike some other European parliaments  the Bundestag cannot just dissolve itself (a legacy of Weimar-era instability) and as  Mrs Merkel  has not yet been reinstalled as chancellor  she  cannot call a straight confidence vote. Instead Mr Steinmeier must nominate a candidate for the job. If  Mrs Merkel  (for  it  would be  she ) failed to win an absolute majority in two successive Bundestag votes  which can be separated by two weeks   she  would go to a third vote at which a simple majority would suffice. Only then could Mr Steinmeier dissolve the Bundestag  triggering a new election within 60 days.
If possible  Germanyâs establishmentâincluding  Mrs Merkel  and Mr Steinmeierâwill seek to avoid new elections. These could most benefit the far-right Alternative for Germany and would not necessarily rupture the deadlock  current polls putting the main parties very close to the results they obtained at the September election. In  her  comments last night  Mrs Merkel  emphasised that  her  party would âtake responsibility for this country  even in difficult timesâ.  She  is determined  in other words  to make the best of the hand the German people dealt  her  in September. Precisely how  she  plans to proceed should become clearer today.
In recent years Germany has been a pillar of stable government in Europe and  Mrs Merkel  a seemingly permanent feature of the landscape (consider that  her  international counterparts when  she  first took office were Jacques Chirac  Tony Blair and George W. Bush). Both of those truths are now  if not dead  then slipping away. The next German government will take months more to emerge and will be distinctly fragile in comparison with its predecessors. The end of the Merkel era has surely begun  though whether it has weeks  months or a short number of years to run is anyoneâs guess. Last nightâs events confirmed Emmanuel Macron as Europeâs top leader while making the French presidentâs grand plans for euro-zone reformâfor which he needs a confident and outward-looking Germanyâyet harder to achieve. The ripples of Mr Lindnerâs doubtful decision will travel far beyond his countryâs borders.
answer:
Germanyâs preliminary coalition talks collapse


question:
Given that Oscar season is upon us  itâs hardly surprising that Darkest Hour is being pushed  first and foremost  as an awards showcase for Gary Oldman  who excels in the thunderous role of  Winston Churchill . But the film works so well because of the care its director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice  Atonement  Anna Karenina) takes in balancing the British prime ministerâs big  theatrical public presence with his more tormented inner life. Darkest Hour follows  Churchill  in May 1940   his  first month in office  as  he  seeks to balance the desires of  his  political party  which wants to avoid mass bloodshed on the scale of World War I  against  his  own resolute belief in resisting Nazi Germany at all costs.  Churchill  was seen by the party (and by Britainâs King George VI) as a warmonger responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign in the last war. But  he  doubted  himself   too:  Wright  depicts  the leader  wondering if  his  demands of âvictory at all costsâ from  his  country were too much. Related Story Darkest Hour Is a Thunderous Churchill Biopic The Atlantic talked to  Wright  about crafting a fresh portrayal of Churchillâs character  the typical pitfalls that come with making a biopic of a well-known public figure  and whether audiences might see any present-day parallels in Darkest Hour. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. David Sims: Recently  thereâs been such a glut of Winston Churchills on screen. Were you worried about that at all going into Darkest Hour?
 Joe Wright : I wasnât  because they hadnât happened [yet]. When I started working on the movie  it was like January 2016  and so The Crown hadnât aired  Dunkirk hadnât happened  a  Churchill  movie hadnât happened  and so I felt like I was being quite original  really. It seemed like one of those ideas  like Pride & Prejudice  that was so obvious it was surprising. Because there hadnât been a Pride & Prejudice movie  thereâd just been the TV series  and there hadnât been a  Churchill  movie. But really  I just responded to the screenplay and the story  about a man who is placed in this impossible position where no one wants him  and who suffers a massive crisis of confidence and doubt. And through doubt  he discovers wisdom. I responded to that on a personal level  and then  it âs Churchill . Sims: But it is interesting to think about  his  interiorityâthatâs not something  Churchill  stories usually touch on as much. Wright: Especially in England   Churchill  is this giant bronze statue sitting on a plinth 15 feet high. [This was] the opportunity to bring  him  down from that plinth  and instead of facing the icon  facing the man who has been reappropriated by so many different parties.  He âs become a kind of icon of British nationalism  and I donât think thatâs who  he  was at all. So I wanted to reclaim  him  as an individual  and say  this man  was deeply flawed  profoundly complicated  and at this point in history  he  kind of saved the world. Those flaws are integral to  the man  and to  his  achievements  and thatâs what I find really interestingâthe idea that our flaws and our virtues are kind of the same thing.
Sims: By  his  flaws  do you mean  his  stubbornness  and  his  bellicose nature? Wright: Yes  and his extraordinary will  really. Will is a dangerous thing  and can be detrimental as well as a virtue. Sims: The image youâre talking about   him  as this iconic symbol of Britishness â¦ I didnât really know that [when  he  took office]  he  was greeted with such suspicion in Parliament. Wright: He was one of the first great [public-relations] prime ministers: The whole look  the hat  the cigar  the âVâ for victory  was all carefully considered. We have this idea that  he  was always the embodiment of the bulldog spirit  but actually thatâs not the case. Thatâs one of the things I think people might find interesting and new about this movie: how suspicious  his  own party was of  him   and that it was this moment that turned and defined  him   and defined our history. Sims: Because  he âs an unproven person coming into office  in a lot of ways. Wright:  He âs not trusted.  He âs made a lot of mistakes.  He âs had a long parliamentary career;  he âs been in Parliament since  his  20s.  His  policies on womenâs suffrage   his  policy on Indian independence  and what happened in the Gallipoli Campaign [of the First World War] was a complete disaster. The invasion of the Dardanelles was a great idea militarily  but time slipped away from [British forces] and they didnât act quickly enough. And when it became apparent that things werenât going to go as planned   he  should have withdrawn  but  his  will forced it forward and caused many deaths. Thatâs what I mean by will being a detriment as well as a benefit.
Sims: So when the script comes to you  whatâs the process like for casting  Churchill ? Because so many thesps have bitten into the role. Wright: Which is the dangerâI donât want another thesp biting into it. A lot of those guys of a certain age kind of look right. But when casting  you can either choose someone who looks right or someone who has the essence of the character. And I always think itâs wiser to choose the latter. I always had this idea that  Churchill  should be a dynamo of energy.  He  walked fast;  he  was a little man. Sims: You always think of  Churchill  as hulking. Wright: Right  and from all the footage I was watching  physically and mentally  he  was incredibly energized to the point that you think  he  might short-circuit and collapse  and thatâs probably when the depressions came. So I wanted someone with a kind of intensity  and Gary has always had  and still has  that intensity as an actor. So then the question became about the physical transformation  which is less of an issue to me than the character transformation. Gary and I talked  we discussed options  and we thought this guy Kazuhiro [Tsuji] would be the man to see. He was retired  living in a warehouse in downtown Los Angeles  making sculptures  and we went to see him. And over a period of five months  we developed the exact balance between looking like  Churchill  and getting Gary âs performance. Sims: Was it hard to win Gary over  or was  Churchill  something  he  was ready to sink  his  teeth into?
Wright: I think  Churchill  was like a dog in the corner that was always there  and that Gary was always kind of turning away from. And yet  finally  he had to address it. I felt that maybe heâd be the kind of actor whoâd do his thing and Iâd arrange everything around him. And that didnât sound great  but I was interested to have a front-row seat to Garyâs performance. And then what I discovered is that heâs an actor who wants direction  and so it became a very close collaboration. We made the film together  we walked through it together  and it was one of the most gratifying creative partnerships Iâve ever experienced. Sims: With Ben Mendelsohn as George VI  thatâs another character whoâs been recently done in The Kingâs Speech and The Crown. Wright: The obvious choices were British  and the fear was that weâd get a lesser version of Colin Firth. So I knew it had to be a kind of off-center choice. I was looking at Ben  and they look kind of similar  in profile. And George had a temper  and Ben has that kind of vital energy. And the fact that heâs not British was actually kind of important to that. Sims: Just because thereâs less reverence for it? Wright: Yeah  just because he didnât come with the British baggage. Iâm not necessarily a royalist. Iâm not necessarily a republican in the British sense  but when dealing with the royal family youâre always dealing with the institution of monarchy. And actually  what Ben brilliantly brought to it was a sense of dealing just with the individual â¦ this very specific individual in this very specific time in this very specific dilemma.
answer:

Joe Wright 'Darkest Hour' Interview: Creating a Real Winston Churchill