Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, generate a relevant question to the topic of the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`.

[EX Q]: 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 
[EX A]: 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 Q]: CONTEXT: There was no movie rating system in place back in the 1940's, and movies were greatly censored by the US government. In the 1920's the Supreme Court ruled that free speech did not apply to movies, and a control board was arranged where by all film studios had to submit their scripts for censorship. Movie studios were given guide lines by which they had to follow. So it's not so much that profanity is now widespread, as much as it was strictly forbidden back in the 1940's. This system of governed film making slowly started to collapse over the years and gave birth to the Motion Picture film rating system. Where the film ratings and censorship is controlled by the film industry and not by a single controlling person or government. Now that we have the rating system, films can be classified by their rating. Today's ratings are, at least by idea, implemented by our peers. So as society changes so do those who review and rate films. That is why we see more profanity in PG rated films, as parents who rate the films accept the fact that children in this age group use these profane words or acknowledge that the film works the way the script was written. New ratings were introduced including PG-13. To address the need for films that target a segment of the population that are pre-adult but seek adult style films. Still, I have to wonder who these people are that rate these films.  <sep>  Q: Era of profanity in movie scripts? A: There was no movie rating system in place back in the 1940's, and movies were greatly censored by the US government 
[EX A]: How did that start?

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach? A: perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him 
[EX A]:
What did George mean when he asked Kenny if he was out of his mind?