Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. 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:`.

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  Q: A first person account of what exactly? 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: I don't think it's a Czech-specific quip, actually. I believe the idea is that the lines are crude and not very intelligently written, as if someone were translating actual decent dialogue from a language they have poor command of, making the translation very rudimentary and child-like. Or possibly, if there was not a robust movie industry in that nation in the early 1980s, the quality of the output was considered pretty poor. Or some combination of the two. So, languages that were pretty common in the "western" and US part of the world would not work, even if the country was not really familiar (where the language was Spanish, French, German or Italian) or if there were not examples of any movies from a country. Portuguese? Maybe, but a Slavic or Balkan nation or language would be ideal for that line. Probably not Poland, because there was already a Polish stereotype about intelligence that was commonly used in jokes, so there might be some confusion about intent. "Czech" was merely chosen because it's a country an English speaking audience would be aware of, but there would be almost no movies, as of that time, that anyone could reference, making it an obscure scenario. They could have easily used Romania, Bulgaria, but could not use Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, etc (nations that were, at that time, considered part of the USSR).  <sep>  Q: What's wrong with subtitles for a Czech movie, as referenced in Tootsie? A: I don't think it's a Czech-specific quip, actually  Q: Why does Julie say my lines sound like subtitles for a Czech movie? A: I believe the idea is that the lines are crude and not very intelligently written, as if someone were translating actual decent dialogue from a language they have poor command of  Q: Is there something characteristic about the...like bad grammar? A: Czech" was merely chosen because it's a country an English speaking audience would be aware of, but there would be almost no movies, as of that time, that anyone could reference  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, anything else you can tell me about Tootsie?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: He's talking about the stress of the job. It's a common "joke" (though not really funny when you consider recent suicide rates) that is based on either suicide or stress. "I'm not sure what's going to kill me first, the stress from these people or the stress from this job" "I'm not sure what's going to make me kill myself first, dealing with these people or dealing with this job" Sam is essentially saying, "I always knew somehow this train would be the death of me." It's not really clear whether he was saying it in jest or if he truly believed it, but that's essentially what that quote means.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Sam's words? A: He's talking about the stress of the job. It's a common "joke" (though not really funny when you consider recent suicide rates) that is based on either suicide or stress  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he able to disconnect the last car of the train?

A:
No
****