[Q]: Given the below context: At the age of seventeen Lancaster passed his final school examinations and gained entrance to Lincoln College, Oxford, to study history. He persuaded his mother to allow him to leave Charterhouse at once, giving him several months between school and university, during which he enrolled on a course of life classes at the Byam Shaw School of Art in London. In October 1926 he started at Oxford. There, as at Charterhouse, he found two camps in which some students chose to group themselves: the "hearties" presented themselves as aggressively heterosexual and anti-intellectual; the "aesthetes" had a largely homosexual membership. Lancaster followed his elder contemporary Kenneth Clark in being contentedly heterosexual but nonetheless one of the aesthetes, and he was accepted as a leading member of their set. He cultivated the image of an Edwardian dandy, with large moustache, a monocle and check suits, modelling his persona to a considerable degree on Beerbohm, whom he admired greatly. He also absorbed some characteristics of the Oxford don Maurice Bowra; Lancaster's friend James Lees-Milne commented, "Bowra's influence over Osbert was marked, to the extent that he adopted the guru's booming voice, explosive emphasis of certain words and phrases, and habit in conversation of regaling his audiences with rehearsed witticisms and gossip." Lancaster's undergraduate set included Stephen Spender, Randolph Churchill, and most importantly John Betjeman, who became a close friend and lifelong influence.Lancaster tried rowing with the Oxford University Boat Club, but quickly discovered that he was no more suited to that than he had been to field games at school. He joined the Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS), acted in supporting roles, designed programme covers, wrote, and choreographed. He contributed prose and drawings to Isis and Cherwell magazines, engaged in student pranks, staged an exhibition of his pictures, attended life classes, and became established as a major figure in the Oxonian social scene. All... Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Osbert Lancaster

[Q]: Given the below context: Youssou N'Dour: I Bring What I Love is a music-driven film that explores one man's power to inspire global change. The film unfolds at a pivotal moment in the life of Youssou N'Dourthe best-selling African pop artist of all time. N'Dour has long been renowned for bringing people of diverse nations and backgrounds together through his collaborations with such musical superstars as Bono, Paul Simon, and Peter Gabriel. But when he releases his most personal and spiritual album yet, he instead alienates his Muslim fans in Africa. Although he garners accolades in the West, N'Dour must brave controversy and rejection at home as he sets out to win his audience back. Director Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi tracks N'Dour's journey over two years filming his life in Africa, Europe, and America. He initially releases his album Egypt in the hopes of promoting a more tolerant face of Islam. Yet, when his fellow Senegalese reject the album, and denounce it as blasphemous, he takes this as a challenge to go deeper, to reach out to those who would attack him, and to work even harder to use his songs to unite a divided world. The resulting portrait is not just of a musician, but also that of a world in which pop culture now has equal power to incite fury and invite new connections. Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Youssou N'Dour: I Bring What I Love

[Q]: Given the below context: In the year 2074, the cybernetics market is dominated by two rival companies: USA's Pinwheel Robotics and Japan's Kobayashi Electronics. 'Cyborgs' are commonplace, used for anything from soldiers to prostitutes. Casella "Cash" Reese is a Pinwheel prototype cyborg developed for corporate espionage and assassination. She is filled with a liquid explosive called "Glass Shadow". Pinwheel's CEO, Martin Dunn, plans to eliminate the entire Kobayashi board of directors using Cash as a suicide bomber to precipitate a hostile takeover of the company and obtain a monopoly over the cyborg market. Cash is programmed to mimic human senses and emotions such as fear, love, pain, and hate. Guided by Mercy, a renegade prototype cyborg who can communicate through any electronic device, Cash and her combat trainer Colton "Colt" Ricks escape the Pinwheel facility so Cash can avoid self-destruction, something that most corporate espionage cyborgs face. They're relentlessly pursued by Pinwheel's hired killer or "wiretapper", Daniel Bench. Bench must also deal with a rival bounty hunter named Chen, who plans on killing Ricks and reprogramming Cash to have her blow up Pinwheel instead as a means to punish the company's director, Dunn, as reprisal for an earlier act from Dunn that displeased her. However, Chen and Ricks get into a fight, which results in Chen getting electrocuted by a fuse box. Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Cyborg 2

[Q]: Given the below context: Oliver was not one to intellectualise her creativity: she preferred to talk about the process of creating her artworks rather than their meanings. Asked about how she approached her art, she stated: My work is about structure and order. It is a pursuit of a kind of logic: a formal, sculptural logic and poetic logic. It is a conceptual and physical process of building and taking away at the same time. I set out to strip the ideas and associations down to (physically and metaphorically) just the bones, exposing the life still held inside. While Oliver was reluctant to discuss meaning in her works, critics have identified recurring themes. Hannah Fink, like art critic John McDonald, noted that there is a pattern to the shapes and structures in Oliver's work. Fink described this as "a consistent vocabulary of elemental forms the spiral, meander, loop and sphere in a repertoire of signature archetypes". McDonald said that Nature is "omnipresent" and referred to them as organisms or their remains.Despite their organic appearance, Oliver's own view was that her work was not grounded in nature's structures. Nevertheless, critics have identified the lifelike qualities of early pieces that resembled shells, claws or tails, or noted the apparent similarities to biological forms. McDonald commented that "For Oliver to deny nature is akin to Balthus saying there is nothing erotic about his paintings or Rothko claiming his works aren't abstract." Both major reviews of Oliver's work (Fenner's 1995 essay and Fink's 2002 journal article) draw attention to dualism and contradiction in the sculptures: Fenner describes them as "delicate and ephemeral, [yet] structurally robust and durable"; Fink sees them as "ethereal but solid, fluid yet rigid, open but closed".Oliver's sculptures are admired for their tactile nature, their aesthetics, and the technical skills demonstrated in their production. Particular works have been singled out for praise. A writer reviewing Vine in the Sydney Hilton admired how it "curls like a fairy... Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]:
Bronwyn Oliver