Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, answer a follow-up question from the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office? A: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Michael was jealous that he had a corporate position or just upset that he had authority over him in some small way?

Ex Output:
Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Let's look at the two circumstances that resulted in her move. The Bet Monica and Rachel lose the apartment after a game with Joey and Chandler. When Joey and Chandler are moving in, Rachel seems to think it's a joke. Think about it for a second, if someone told you to get up and move into another apartment, especially one that seems smaller than Monica's would you do it? Her bed room is probably customized the way she likes it, if she were to move, she would have to spend time re-customizing it. Chandler Moves In Remember again, Rachel didn't think she would have to move out, she thought Chandler would move in, and it would be the three of them. However, the circumstances are different, after Las Vegas, Monica and Chandler agree to move in together. She attempts to move in with Ross, but they are still married unknowing to Rachel until the lawyer calls, at which point she furious. She eventually moves in with Phoebe, but the apartment burns down. This leaves Joey which means, Naked Thursdays or Wednesdays ;D. Out of necessity she moves in with Joey. She still lives close to her friends, and she doesn't need to get to know a new roommate.  <sep>  Q: Why does Rachel hate living at the other apartment? A: smaller  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any other reasons?

Ex Output:
Her bed room is probably customized the way she likes it


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: A first person account of what exactly?

Ex Output:

That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story


