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 Q]: 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 A]: 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

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him. The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack. Therefore Nina basically has to get Alexis free for the Drazen to make the final assasination attempt  <sep>  Q: Why does Nina Myers call Palmer in episode 22 to help save Jack from the Drazens? A: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him  Q: Okay, I'm confused about one thing...why did Nina help Jack if she was a mole? A: The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh I see, why does Nina unexpectedly call Palmer and asks him to help save Jack in episode 22?
[EX A]: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Luke had discovered that his father was a Jedi and that he had some skill with the force from his time with Obi-Wan. He was advised by Ghost Obi-Wan to seek out Yoda to further his training. So he seeks out Yoda for training. Leia on the other hand does not know of her parentage, had not experimented with any Force training and had no time with Obi-Wan at all. She does not even really understand the Force, never mind seeking out a master for her training. I think it is also clear that Leia is not as inherently strong with the force as Luke. Vader has her in captivity, even tortures her and doesn't seem to sense her latent abilities. Luke, despite very brief training on the flight to Alderaan, is quickly identified by Vader as being strong, even when he is just another pilot in the battle over the Death Star. I think Yoda and Obi-Wan view Leia as a backup, to be used if Luke failed, and that to keep her parentage secret from her, Vader and the Emperor was the best way to keep her safe.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Yoda train Princess Leia as a Jedi? A: Leia on the other hand does not know of her parentage  Q: Didn't he say that the force was strong with her as well? A: I think it is also clear that Leia is not as inherently strong with the force as Luke  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is it not as strong with her?
[EX A]:
Vader has her in captivity, even tortures he