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:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  Q: How is this expressed in the film? A: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is  Q: What about the other accents that can be found in the film? A: Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney  Q: Are these actors own accents that they bring to the film or is it intentional? A: fake 

Answer: Can you tell me anything else about Les Mis?


Question: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence 

Answer: What did Charlie take one of?


Question: CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard 

Answer:
What was the cataclysmic event?