 Bennett, and fascination with jazz...
Answer: Cheek to Cheek
[Q]: Found the following article online, use it to answer the question: What is the last name of the person who is being poisoned by his jailers?  The film tells of two very different individuals who share a prison cell in Brazil during the Brazilian military government: Valentin Arregui, who is imprisoned (and has been tortured) due to his activities on behalf of a leftist revolutionary group, and Luis Molina, a transgender woman in prison for having sex with an underage boy. Molina, who self-identifies as "she," passes the time by recounting memories from one of her favorite films, a wartime romantic thriller that's also a Nazi propaganda film. She weaves the characters into a narrative meant to comfort Valentin and distract him from the harsh realities of political imprisonment and separation from his lover, Marta. Valentin encourages Molina to have self-respect and opens her up to political commitment. Despite Valentin's occasionally snapping at Molina over her shallow views of film watching and unrealistic romance, an unlikely friendship develops between the two. As the story develops, it becomes clear that Valentin is being poisoned by his jailers to provide Molina with a chance to befriend him, and that Molina is spying on Valentin on behalf of the secret police. Molina has apparently been promised parole if she succeeds in obtaining information that will allow the secret police to break up the revolutionary group. When Molina declares herself in love with Valentin, a physical consummation of that love occurs on Molina's last night in prison. Molina is granted parole in a surprise move by the secret police. Valentin provides Molina with a telephone number and a message for his comrades. Molina at first refuses to take the number, fearing the consequences of treason, but she relents, bidding Valentin farewell with a kiss.
****
[A]: Arregui
input: Please answer the following: Found the following article online, use it to answer the question: What is the full name of the person that had bottles thrown at them while on stage?  Joy Division toured Continental Europe in January 1980. Although the schedule was demanding, Curtis experienced only two grand mal seizures, both in the final two months of the tour. That March, the band recorded their second album, Closer, with Hannett at London's Britannia Row Studios. That month they released the "Licht und Blindheit" single, with "Atmosphere" as the A-side and "Dead Souls" as the B-side, on the French independent label Sordide Sentimental.A lack of sleep and long hours destabilised Curtis's epilepsy, and his seizures became almost uncontrollable. He often had seizures during performances, which some audience members believed was part of the performance. The seizures left him feeling ashamed and depressed, and the band became increasingly worried about Curtis's condition. On 7 April, Curtis attempted suicide by overdosing on his anti-seizure medication, phenobarbitone. The following evening, Joy Division were scheduled to play a gig at the Derby Hall in Bury. Curtis was too ill to perform, so at Gretton's insistence the band played a combined set with Alan Hempsall of Crispy Ambulance and Simon Topping of A Certain Ratio singing on the first few songs. When Topping came back towards the end of the set, some audience members threw bottles at the stage. Curtis's ill health led to the cancellation of several other gigs that April. Joy Division's final live performance was held at the University of Birmingham's High Hall on 2 May, and included their only performance of "Ceremony", one of the last songs written by Curtis. Hannett's production has been widely praised. However, as with Unknown Pleasures, both Hook and Sumner were unhappy with the production. Hook said that when he heard the final mix of "Atrocity Exhibition" he was disappointed that the abrasiveness had been toned down. He wrote; "I was like, head in hands, 'Oh fucking hell, it's happening again... Martin had fucking melted the guitar with his Marshall Time Waster. Made it sound like someone strangling a cat and, to my mind,...
++++++++++
output:
Simon Topping. The prose of this novel captivates the reader from beginning to end. It is not simply the skilled use of beautiful language, but the aspects of people and events the author chooses to describe. It imbues the reader with many senses – nostalgia, romance, lust, regret, longing and melancholy, and even happiness and joy, something that I seek, but too rarely find in modern novels.
It is the story of three friends – Ruth, Joseph, and Robin; two cities – London and Dublin; and two time periods – the mid-90’s and 2017 and beyond. All three have had upbringings that were dysfunctional in one way or another. All three spend their lives searching for love, fulfillment, a sense of achievement, and reconciliation with their pasts.
This is not an ordinary love story, nor one of lost opportunities. Rather it examines three imperfect people, their relationships to each other, and what binds them for life whether they want that or not. And it is about fidelity and infidelity. This is a book that could easily be missed and overlooked. It hasn’t gotten the hype that other books, less worthy, are buried under. And it is a book that I won’t soon forget.Rupert Murdoch’s Times is now a far better paper than the Telegraph, which is heavily slanted towards the pro-Brexit brand of hard Toryism.
Anyone who questions my pessimism about the chances of serious action on global warming – or global heating, as the Guardian now calls it – should ponder the result of the Australian general election. The division between the main Australian parties on environmental policies was particularly stark and much talked about. Labor said it would target a 45 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030; the centre-right Liberals approved a new coal mine just before campaigning started and promised more. In a poll this year, more than 60 per cent of Australians agreed that global warming requires action now “even if this involves significant cost”. Yet the Liberals and their coalition partners, warning that Labor’s plans entailed higher energy prices, were unexpectedly returned to office.
If any country should be clear that we face a climate emergency, it is Australia, which has suffered prolonged droughts and record heatwaves in recent years. By the end of the century, it may be possible to live comfortably only off the southern coast on Tasmania, regarded by most Australians with the disdain that the British used to reserve for Ireland. But like voters in other affluent countries, Australians think that, whoever pays the costs of preventing such an outcome, it shouldn’t be them.
Mention of Tasmania reminds me that, when I was a child, it was confidently asserted that, with a bit of a squeeze, the entire world population could fit on to the Isle of Wight (384 sq km). As the population grew, Zanzibar (2,462 sq km) was cited instead. But Tasmania, with 68,401 sq km, would feel positively roomy even for a world population predicted to reach 11 billion by 2100.
Jesting aside (at least I think I’m jesting), the millions of mostly poor people who live in equatorial zones that could be made uninhabitable by global warming won’t be allowed into Tasmania, the Isle of Wight or anywhere else in the temperate zones that remain (relatively) comfortable. The treatment of those fleeing areas that already suffer climate stress makes that clear. As the planet heats up, attitudes will harden and refugees will be perceived almost as sub-human. My fear is that, as people become convinced that climate scientists are right, they won’t vote for a Caroline Lucas, but for a Donald Trump or a Nigel Farage.
Sometime this year, almost certainly, the Times’s sales will overtake the Daily Telegraph’s. The Telegraph was once the “quality” market leader, selling more than a million copies in the early Noughties, with the Times in the 700,000s. While both titles, like other papers, have since suffered heavy circulation losses, the Telegraph fell faster and is now, at 335,742, less than 5,000 ahead of its rival. (You may have read that the Times is already ahead, but that counts copies distributed free to businesses to hand out to customers.) Rupert Murdoch’s Times is now a far better paper than the Telegraph. Although the latter occasionally gets a spectacular scoop, such as the details of MPs’ expenses claims, its news is heavily slanted towards the pro-Brexit brand of hard Toryism. It sometimes allows commercial considerations to influence editorial decisions, prompting its former political commentator Peter Oborne to resign in protest. Its columnists are mostly narrow and dogmatic. The annual £275,000 it pays Boris Johnson to write a poorly crafted piece for each Monday morning – and the frequency with which his ramblings lead the front page – has earned it the nickname “the Borisgraph”.
The Times also has its failings – notably that much of the paper seems written for people who send their children to fee-paying schools or aspire to do so. But its news is sharp, its sports coverage (once a Telegraph strength) unsurpassed, and most of its comment middle-of-the-road and thoughtful. Against the Telegraph, it deserves its success.
The average Briton, it is reported, gets drunk 51.1 times a year – that is, nearly once a week and more often than any other nationality. Such figures tend to embed themselves in public discourse