Problem: Given the below context:  In the West of the 1890s, a trio of outlaws, Bill Bowdre, Jesse Coe, and Tom Fitch, robs, tortures and brutally kills the white father and Indian mother of young Max Sand. The outlaws have stolen the father's grey horse with a double SS brand. Max sets out to avenge their deaths and uses this clue to trail the men. During his travels in the desert, Max uncovers an old and rusty gun. When he comes upon Jonas Cord, Sr, a traveling gunsmith, he tries to rob him. Cord,  recognizing that Max's revolver is not loaded and is useless, convinces Max that his plan has failed. Max tells Cord of his vengeful journey. Cord takes pity on him, takes him in, feeds him and teaches him how to shoot. Max hunts the killers, who have separated. He tracks down Jesse Coe to Abilene, Texas. With the help of dancehall girl Neesa, a woman from the same tribe as his mother, he confronts him in a salon. Coe escapes and a knife fight ensues in a nearby corral. Coe is killed but Max is severely wounded. Neesa takes him to her tribe's camp, where she nurses him back to health. They become lovers. Once he recovers, Max leaves Neesa to continue his pursuit. He reads that Bowdre is in a prison camp in Louisiana for a failed bank robbery. He commits a bank robbery, deliberately gets caught, and is sent to the same prison where Bowdre is serving time. Bowdre does not recognize Max whose plan is to convince Bowdre to join him in an escape attempt and kill him in the swamp. Pilar, a local Cajun girl working in the rice fields near the convicts' camp, gives Max comfort. She knows nothing about Max's plan to kill Bowdre but knows her way around the swamp. She finds a boat and joins the escape. The boat capsizes early on and Pilar is bitten by a snake. Max kills Bowdre and Pilar dies of the snakebite.  Guess a valid title for it!

A: Nevada Smith


Problem: Given the question: Given the below context:  After the painter's death in 1528, the portraits were held by his brother, and then his brother's widow before they passed into the collection of Willibald Imhoff, a grandson of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Inventories from the Imhoff collection from 1573–74, 1580 and 1588 list both panels. The next surviving Imhoff inventory, of 1628, again lists the mother's portrait, but it disappears after mention in the 1633–58 account books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff, after which its whereabouts became unknown. Dürer expert Matthias Mende described the missing portrait of Barbara Holper as "among the most severe losses in the Dürer oeuvre". In 1977, art historian Lotte Brand Philip proposed that Unknown Woman in a Coif, held by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, was the original portrait of Barbara Holper. The Nuremberg panel was previously thought to have originated from a member of Wolgemut's workshop, a Franconian artist in his circle, or the anonymous Mainz painter Master W. B. Brand Philip's attribution was based on striking similarities in composition and its shared tone, theme and size with the father panel at the Uffizi. In both works the sitters are holding rosary beads, and Dürer attentively describes their hands. Both portraits show the sitter in the same pose, against a similarly coloured background. Both are lit from the upper left. The boards are identically cut in width and depth, although 3 cm was removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel. Brand Philip noted the similarities between the panel and Dürer's 1514 charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63. Fedja Anzelewsky agreed with the attribution, noting that both portraits bear, on their reverse, the catalogue number recorded in the Imhoff inventories, as well as "precisely the same design of masses of dark clouds".Anzelewsky speculated that the father's portrait, which was not listed in the 1628 Imhoff inventory, had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria. Hans Hieronymus Imhoff's lukewarm...  Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents


[Q]: Given the below context:  Troops are massacred at a Furnace Creek fort in 1880 after an army captain, Walsh, cites orders forcing him to abandon a wagon train. Apache Indians hid inside the wagons to gain access to the fort. General Blackwell is blamed for the incident and court-martialed. Denying that he sent any such order, the general has a stroke and dies on the witness stand. No written evidence of the order is presented. One of his sons, Rufe, a captain from West Point, travels west to find out what happened. His brother, Cash, reads of their father's death in a Kansas City newspaper and also heads toward Furnace Creek in search of answers. Using an alias, Cash learns that Capt. Walsh has become a drunkard. A mining boss, Leverett, is impressed by the stranger in town and hires him, not knowing Cash's real name or intent. Rufe arrives in town and also assumes a false identity. Cafe waitress Molly Baxter, whose father was killed at the fort, still considers General Blackwell the man to blame. But the real villain is Leverett, who bribed Walsh and organized the Apache raid. A guilty conscience causes Walsh to write a confession. Leverett sends one of his henchmen to do away with Walsh, but the confession is found by Cash. Rufe is framed, arrested and tried, but escapes. Cash gives him the confession and tells him to take it to the Army as proof. Wounded in a gunfight with Leverett but victorious, Cash recovers and reads in the paper about the proof of General Blackwell's innocence.  Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]:
Fury at Furnace Creek