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:`.

CONTEXT: Many reviews are calling this a black comedy or dark comedy, which is comedy that makes light of a serious subject or a comedy with gloomy or disturbing elements. If this film was just a drama, it would be a serious depiction of four girls going on spring break and the tragedy that unfolded when they got mixed up with a gangster. Instead, there are pink ski masks, bikinis in court, lots of sex, references to Britney Spears, the mere existence of a drug dealer named Alien who shows up to bail the girls out of jail... The basic premise is ridiculous, and the way that violence is interspersed with this ridiculousness sets up an uncomfortable edge that seems to keep audiences talking about this movie. Mostly the characters are flat and the story is not that gripping, but the edge that Harmony Korinne keeps the audience on - never knowing which direction it would go - seems to keep viewers engaged, whether they are engrossed or repelled.  <sep>  Q: How exactly is the movie a comedy? A: reviews are calling this a black comedy or dark comedy  Q: What is a dark comedy? A: comedy that makes light of a serious subject or a comedy with gloomy or disturbing elements  Q: Is the movie supposed to be funny? A: Many reviews are calling this a black comedy or dark comedy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the movie classified as?
Yes

CONTEXT: I haven't seen the show in a while and don't have any references handy but as i recall Louis wasn't as cool and liked by others like Harvey was. Louis was always recognized as good at his job but he was never part of the in crowd, and failed at the interoffice politics necessary to rise as quickly and be as prominent as Harvey. So Louis's personality made it hard for him to have the professional successes that Harvey enjoyed but that same personality made it easy for him to be a good financial steward. Harvey on the other hand was careless with the money he earned but his charisma allowed him to do better in the office politics of the firm leading to more professional success but a worse financial position than Louis. Overall depending on how you define winner or best either one of them could be worthy of those titles. You seem to view their balance sheet as the arbitrator of success, and not professional achievement in the form of being managing partner. In all reality Louis had enough money to maintain his lifestyle if he quit getting a paycheck, unlike Harvey. However, as portrayed in the show becoming managing partner and mastering the relevant politics to become the de facto leader was the holy grail. Harvey was always closer than Louis in attaining this goal, making Harvey the better man in terms of the show like it or not.  <sep>  Q: Why does Louis Litt struggle with self-esteem issues, given that he is the richest in the law firm despite getting a lower salary? A: Louis's personality made it hard for him to have the professional successes that Harvey enjoyed but that same personality made it easy for him to be a good financial steward  Q: Why does he feel more inferior to Harvey? A: Louis was always recognized as good at his job but he was never part of the in crowd, and failed at the interoffice politics necessary to rise as quickly and be as prominent as Harvey  Q: How was it discovered that Louis was the richest person in the law firm? A: he earned but his charisma allowed him to do better in the office politics of the firm leading to more professional success but a worse financial position than Louis  Q: Why were his bosses embarrassed to find out how rich he was? A: Harvey on the other hand was careless with the money  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Jessica careless with money also?
No

CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie come to know where Rent was living? A: Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: DO they all stay in one place?

Yes