The opening shot of the movie shows Kunti praying for Lord Krishna's protection for the Pandavas . Lord Krishna consoles Kunti and promises to ever protect the Pandavas and guide them through troubles and problems that may occur in life . The sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra progeny break into an argument . When Duryodhana insults the Pandavas as '' dependents '' , Bheema counters by saying that , the Kauravas are the progeny of a widow . Duryodhana asks Veda Vyasa for an explanation . He is then told that , since his mother , Gandhari had an astrological defect , she is first married of to a goat and then married to his father . Duryodhana gains animosity towards the kingdom of Gandhara where the king , the father of his mother Gandhari , rules . He attacks Gandhara and lays waste of the whole kingdom . He them imprisons the royal family in his prison . He gives them only one rice grain per prisoner . The king of Gandhara then stops everyone from grabbing the little food that is provided . He says that instead of everyone dying , they could keep at least one of their princes alive . He chooses Sakuni to be alive . Sakuni takes an oath that he will do everything he can to destroy the entire Kaurava clan . He makes magic dice from his father's spinal cord . The magic dice show exactly the number that he would want . Duryodhana takes pity on the lone prisoner , Sakuni after the rest of the Gandhara royal family dies in prison out of starvation . Sakuni joins the evil of coterie of Duryodhana , Karna and Dushyasana .

Question: "Why does Duryodhana attack Gandhara?"

Answer: "Duryodhana is told that his mother Gandhari had an astrological defect, so she is first married to a goat before marrying his father. This builds Duryodhana's animosity toward Gandhara, Which is ruled by his mother's father"

Response: yes

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The most eagerly anticipated animated film this year hits big screens this weekend, as "The Simpsons Movie" opens worldwide. The Screening Room spoke to creator Matt Groening and writer Al Jean in London about everyone's favorite two-dimensional yellow family. Simpsons supremo Matt Groening with his creations at the film's premiere in Springfield, Vermont Matt Groening told the Screening Room that fans had driven the demand for the movie. "We've had fans clamoring for a movie for the past 18 years," he said. The film has taken four years to come to fruition, as writer Al Jean explained. "What really held us up for a long time was to have enough people to do the show and the movie," he said. "We talked for a while about doing the movie after the show is done, but the show is never done! So it really started in earnest in 2003, when we started working on this story that became the movie." Technology has also played its part. Jean continued, "The technology to do this film really wasn't even around five years ago. For example, there was this joke I once pitched and David Silverman, the director, started drawing and as I was pitching it, it went into the film and it was cut a day later. To go from pitch to cut in two days is pretty impressive." Its creators hope that "The Simpsons Movie" will both satisfy long-term fans and bring Homer and Marge's family to a new audience. Groening told the Screening Room, "This movie is designed to both honor the people who have loved the show all this time, so there's lots of little details for them in the movie, little characters and stuff who they know and love, but we also want people who don't know the family to not be completely confused. It is a complete movie experience, but again, we have a lot of little details that only the really, true die-hard fans are going to get." And fans can expect to be entertained by plenty of cartoon mishaps. Groening said, "When you see somebody fall off the roof in a live-action film, it's funny -- we all love it. But it's not as funny as when Homer falls off the roof.

Question: "Who is the creator and writer of the most eagerly anticipated animated film this year?"

Answer: "Matt Groening"

Response: yes

Modern criticism of Pope focuses on the man, his circumstances and motivations, prompted by theoretical perspectives such as Marxism, feminism and other forms of post-structuralism. Brean Hammond focuses on Pope's singular achievement in making an independent living solely from his writing. Laura Brown (1985) adopts a Marxist approach and accuses Pope of being an apologist for the oppressive upper classes. Hammond (1986) has studied Pope's work from the perspectives of cultural materialism and new historicism. Along Hammond's lines, Raymond Williams explains art as a set of practices influenced by broad cultural factors rather than simply the vague ideas of genius alone. Hayden Carruth, wrote that it was "Pope's rationalism and pandeism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature." In Politics and Poetics of Transgression (1985) Peter Stallybrass and Allon White charge that Pope drew upon the low culture which he despised in order to produce his own "high art". They assert Pope was implicated in the very material he was attempting to exclude, not dissimilar to observations made in Pope's time. Colin Nicholson reads the poetry in terms of the Financial Revolution, showing how Pope responded to the corruption of the traditional 'landed interest' by the newly dominant 'moneyed interest'. Feminists have also criticised Pope's works. Ellen Pollak's The Poetics of Sexual Myth (1985) argues that Pope followed an anti-feminist tradition, that regarded women as inferior to men both intellectually and physically. Carolyn Williams contends that a crisis in the male role during the 18th century in Britain impacted Pope and his writing.

Question: "Who are Pope's critics?"

Answer: "Carolyn williams"

Response:
no