Don't Worry Darling (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Dial]

I saw this on opening night.

I really liked it. For the most part I actually loved it.

Florence Pugh is an absolute star. This is established fact. And she's on full display here. Everything she does is compelling and believable. Even the way she sits in the "head of the table' chair during the dinner party scene was perfect.

Pugh and the architecture are the centre pieces of the show, and neither disappoint.

I also quite liked Harry Styles. I think he and Pugh had real on-screen chemistry, even if it was slightly "off" on account of the story itself. He's a bright spot in the last act.

Chris Pine is menacing in a very real way that's never "fun" (which could easily happen in other films--nothing he does here is played for laughs). His body language is so compelling at times. Like Pugh sitting in the chair, just the way Pine comes through the front door at the dinner party scene oozed threat.

Olivia Wilde's performance is also good. And I'm not being dismissive. She's good here. But her directing is excellent. What else do you want from a director (setting aside, of course, the alleged on-set drama)? She got terrific performances out of her cast, found some incredibly gorgeous shots with her cinematographer, Matthew Libatique (who is always stellar), had some interesting framing and camera moves, and set her editor up nicely to cut together a really solid movie. I don't think I found a single moment of obvious ADR. Wilde apparently got all the coverage she needed. Fantastic direction.

On the look and soundscape, it's all beautiful. Maybe the nicest looking movie of the year, besting even Downton Abbey. Everything worked: the costumes, hair, makeup, set, lighting, colour grade, cars, music. You could feel the menace and paranoia, but neither were ever ratcheted up so high as to become overwhelming.

However, as a mystery, I think the final act falls a bit too short of the mark. I don't have a problem with the reveal. I actually liked it and thought it was interesting (though a bit too similar to the great Black Mirror episode "USS Callister").

My problem is that there were a few too many "mysteries" that weren't solved. I don't mean the audience wasn't spoon fed the answers--I have no problem watching something carefully and figuring things out on my own (in fact I prefer it). But there were some things that were never paid off, or if they were I missed them. And I don't think Wilde and the writers are trying to be cute with these things and were "leaving them open to interpretation". I think they just went unexplained, to the movie's detriment.

The things I'm talking about are:

1. The plane. Why did it crash? This is in all the marketing, including at the literal centre of the leaked cover for the steelbook physical media release (which looks beautiful). My best guess is that the neighbour's son was real and he had a toy plane and it worked its way inside someone. Even if I'm close, why is it a centrepiece of the marketing if it's never explained at all?
2. The earthquakes. They are shared across all the women, so it can't be localized to them. Why did they happen?
3. Shelley's final scene and her final line. I legitimately didn't understand why she said it and the implications. Was it as simple as "now I'm taking over"? If so that's rather boring.

Those problems aside, I still really liked the movie. I'll buy it on physical media and watch it every few years.

I can't help but think there is a slightly longer cut somewhere with just a few more scenes that address my handful of problems.

8.5/10 for me. Pugh is a 12/10.

 

[Jason_V]

1. The plane. Why did it crash? This is in all the marketing, including at the literal centre of the leaked cover for the steelbook physical media release (which looks beautiful). My best guess is that the neighbour's son was real and he had a toy plane and it worked its way inside someone. Even if I'm close, why is it a centrepiece of the marketing if it's never explained at all?

Because this is going to talk about spoilers...

Spoiler: The Plane

My instinct says that things from the real world are bleeding into Victory. Certainly Alice is having visions of the real world and, I'd imagine, the plane is manifested by Margaret and is a by-product of whatever tech this is. Another piece that is never really explained.

As for why this is the image in the marketing, I have no earthly idea.

2. The earthquakes. They are shared across all the women, so it can't be localized to them. Why did they happen?

Another guess: Victory needs a constant flow of folks into the town to keep it running for some reason and/or Frank needs to pad his bottom line. The shakes are the tech starting to fail in some way that, again, is not explained. I would have had another answer in line with #1 above, but that reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

3. Shelley's final scene and her final line. I legitimately didn't understand why she said it and the implications. Was it as simple as "now I'm taking over"? If so that's rather boring.

I took that to be a comment on our world, wherein...

Spoiler: The End

...the idea men have to take care of the women, as stated by Jack near the end, is rejected. Some of the women know Victory isn't real and what is happening and choose to live in that delusion. Others don't know and have no memory outside of Victory. What Shelley and Bunny both come to realize is that they need to reject being taken care of and take the world for themselves. There has to be more to it, I agree, since this is a pretty "meh" reason. Maybe I missed something.

 

[TravisR]

My problem is that there were a few too many "mysteries" that weren't solved. I don't mean the audience wasn't spoon fed the answers--I have no problem watching something carefully and figuring things out on my own (in fact I prefer it). But there were some things that were never paid off, or if they were I missed them. And I don't think Wilde and the writers are trying to be cute with these things and were "leaving them open to interpretation". I think they just went unexplained, to the movie's detriment.

Yeah, I'm all for respecting the audience's intelligence and letting them figure things out but that's not what happened here. They just flat out didn't tell the audience what was happening which is one of the places where I think the last 30 minutes/climax of the movie went really wrong after a solid first 3/4.

Spoiler

The earthquakes. They are shared across all the women, so it can't be localized to them. Why did they happen?

See, my thought was that they weren't earthquakes but planes going very close overhead. I'm probably wrong but that I could even think that shows that they needed to give more info.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I didn't much like this film, but I did like Pugh's performance, while Styles was mostly outclassed by Pugh in the acting department.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I generally agree with the consensus here: a beautifully photographed and stylized film with terrific performances, that nonetheless underserves the audience by providing deeper mysteries than it is willing to solve.

What I’m curious now is what the original screenplay draft was like. Apparently the script, written by one set of writers, was a hot property subject to a bidding war, and when Olivia Wilde signed on to make it, the writer she worked with on her previous film rewrote it. (Which begs the question - why bid on a script only to hire someone else to rewrite it?) I wonder if the final draft improved deficiencies in the original draft, or if in reshaping it, some of the mystery plot mechanics were discarded in favor of emphasizing other aspects of the story.

It feels to me almost like there’s a better version of this, either on the page or the cutting room floor, that is less timid about leaning into the sci-fi elements that would have brought more color to the storytelling.

 

[Josh Dial]

I generally agree with the consensus here: a beautifully photographed and stylized film with terrific performances, that nonetheless underserves the audience by providing deeper mysteries than it is willing to solve.

What I’m curious now is what the original screenplay draft was like. Apparently the script, written by one set of writers, was a hot property subject to a bidding war, and when Olivia Wilde signed on to make it, the writer she worked with on her previous film rewrote it. (Which begs the question - why bid on a script only to hire someone else to rewrite it?) I wonder if the final draft improved deficiencies in the original draft, or if in reshaping it, some of the mystery plot mechanics were discarded in favor of emphasizing other aspects of the story.

It feels to me almost like there’s a better version of this, either on the page or the cutting room floor, that is less timid about leaning into the sci-fi elements that would have brought more color to the storytelling.

The original script is out there (being on the Black List it's openly available on a number of sites). I've read it. The original ending is both worse and better than the film's ending. Here's a good summary if you want.

Your comment about the movie under serving the audience by providing deeper mysteries than the movie is willing to solve is perfect.

Like I wrote above, I think there's truly excellent 20 minute longer film somewhere.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Quick glance at that summery, and I agree with what you’re saying about the original ending being both better and worse. I think it better fleshes out the why and how of the thing, and probably at a better moment - but then seems to go on too long. Whereas in the filmed version, it seems to end earlier than it should, which necessitates putting the answers both earlier and giving less expansive answers because Pugh’s character doesn’t have all the pieces at that point.

My old screenwriter professor used to constantly remind us students always to “show, don’t tell.” The first two thirds of this movie do a lot of showing, and then at the end it switches to merely telling us things.

The movie telegraphs very early on that things aren’t quite what they seem; it makes it a foundational part of the film’s structure. It sort of plays that note again and again, in a way that seems to invite us to try to figure it out. And then it sort of waves all of that away later, as if it shouldn’t matter, even though the very setup of the movie tells us we should be concerned about those things.

I don’t know what I’d do different? Maybe spend a little less time covering the ground it did at the beginning, and allow the story to continue a little further past where it ends?

Spoiler

I like the idea of her knowing something is wrong but not knowing what it is until she escapes. I like the original script’s placement of the reveal better than where it lands in the movie. I like the horror of her waking up and discovering that everything she thought she knew was fake. But the idea of her willfully jumping back in for revenge is boring to me, so I think she needs a better reason to go back in than the original draft gives her. The finished film has her forced back in, which solves that problem, but it undercuts her awakening and regaining her agency in the process.

Earlier in the film when it’s just Pugh and Pine one on one, the vibe I got in the moment was “this has nothing to do with the men and their mysterious work - it’s the women that are being toyed with and studied.” It might have been more interesting to develop that thread - that perhaps he meant what he said about wanting her to succeed at challenging him. That might have added some depth if all of this was his life’s work, and her tearing it down is the success he’s going for - with the duality of him wanting to her succeed because that means the project is a success, but also with the sadness that her succeeding ends his sense of purpose.

There are so many great individual pieces here and I truly wish it had come together better - this really had potential to become an all-time favorite movie. Being simply a movie I liked watching a lot seems like such a small consolation prize for something so ambitious that played with so many elements that I enjoy in storytelling and filmmaking.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I generally agree with the consensus here: a beautifully photographed and stylized film with terrific performances, that nonetheless underserves the audience by providing deeper mysteries than it is willing to solve.

What I’m curious now is what the original screenplay draft was like. Apparently the script, written by one set of writers, was a hot property subject to a bidding war, and when Olivia Wilde signed on to make it, the writer she worked with on her previous film rewrote it. (Which begs the question - why bid on a script only to hire someone else to rewrite it?) I wonder if the final draft improved deficiencies in the original draft, or if in reshaping it, some of the mystery plot mechanics were discarded in favor of emphasizing other aspects of the story.

It feels to me almost like there’s a better version of this, either on the page or the cutting room floor, that is less timid about leaning into the sci-fi elements that would have brought more color to the storytelling.

This is something that can be asked over and over again about "hot scripts" that as they change hands get rewritten. I think the original script is read, some people really like it, think it is going to make a great picture, so people get excited and purchase it. Then it is given to a director who has ideas about who they want to cast and how they want to shoot it. Here the rewriting begins, to make it fit that vision. Then as cast is brought on board more suggestions are made. Sometimes to tailor a part toward a specific actor. As further changes are made someone notices that while changing this aspect it impacts another aspect and so they rewrite some more. Then somebody notices that all of these rewrites have shifted the story to be more about something else so they rewrite to emphasize that aspect that now stands out. By the time you get here you now have a different take on the thing and then shooting begins and as they shoot, in the shooting they find some things don't quite work the way they wanted them to so they rewrite again, then alter things in the editing suite when they are cutting, maybe find some ways to do things in the cutting they like better and then because the film is changing in the cutting room they want to rewrite some things and do reshoots.

Many people will tell you that a script is just an outline and many filmmakers treat it as such. It is just a way to point you in a direction you think at the start you want to go in. Then there are guys like Clint Eastwood who shoot the script. It all depends on who is making the picture.

I am always fascinated by the choices that get made and within a story why certain things happen. You know with a piece of fiction that someone crafted the whole thing, planned it out, and gave it an arc they wanted to follow to tell the story. Often though, when you watch something, you do end up scratching your head and asking "Why did they do this?"

I think the answer sometimes is that the filmmakers have been so bathed in the story they see every nuance of what they are doing and the story they feel they are telling so if something is removed or changed they totally understand why they did it but someone watching the story for the first time might not understand that at all.

 

[benbess]

 

[JoeStemme]

Olivia Wilde's film invited comparisons to Ira Levin's The Stepford Wives and Andrew Niccol/Peter Weir's The Truman Show right from the first trailer. The screenplay by Katie Silberman was based on a Black List script by Carey Van Dyke and Shane Van Dyke, added in a cult plot to the familiar stew.

DON'T WORRY DARLING plunges the viewer directly in the world of a strange isolated community where the inhabitants never leave. The enclave is designed as a throwback to mid-20th century middle class America with dial telephones, small tube TVs, vinyl record players etc.. The retro vibe continues as the women are all stay at home spouses who wave their husbands off to work in the morning and remain home to cook, clean and then perform their housewife duties when their men beckon. Dubbed the Victory Project, and run by a charismatic leader, Frank (Chris Pine) and his wife Shelley (Gemma Chan), everybody seems happy on the surface including a loving couple, Alice (Florence Pugh) and Jack (Harry Styles).

It's all creepy and somewhat involving at first, but, because the references are so obvious (you could also toss in Jack Finney's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Levin's Rosemary's Baby, the cult film SECONDS and the more recent Jordan Peele movie GET OUT), DON'T WORRY DARLING soon gets repetitive and a bit dull. It's the kind of movie where the audience is far ahead of the characters. One keeps urging them to figure it out and get on with it, or, at the very least, explore it more head on. The performances are good, particularly Pugh's, but it becomes a monotonous episodic cycle waiting for the characters to catch up with the viewer.

Silberman's script seems to building to a tense boiling point when Alice directly confronts Frank at a dinner party. A battle of wits and will is promised, only to end up having a most predictable outcome.

And, then, all of a sudden, the movie wildly veers into a rushed climax - or, more accurately, a series of them. The result of which is a film where the viewer gets whip-sawed between seeming knowing too much to suddenly getting too little explanation. Worse, when some of the answers do come, they are wholly unsatisfactory, and leave open more questions than solutions (The original script by the Van Dykes differs in several specific details). There is little genuine suspense because what is shown for most of the running time is too simple to suss out, while what info is necessary to create real tension is withheld. Updating the tech doesn't make it any more relevant. The balance is utterly skewed.

DON'T WORRY DARLING is a terrific looking movie with apropos locations, well designed (Katie Byron) and decorated sets (Rachel Ferrara) and excellent cinematography by Matthew Libatique. John Powell's eerie score keeps the viewer uneasy throughout (Styles contributes a lulling song to the aural mix).Wilde's technical Direction is solid even if she never fully shapes the material (she also has a strong supporting role as one of the wives). While the story has possibilities, and the tech aspects are fine, the lack of a cohesive narrative ultimately undoes the project.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Beautifully shot and scored but kinda predictable.

Matthew Libatique is lowkey one of my favorite cinematographers working today. Not all of the movies he's worked on are good, but the lighting and camera work are never the problem.

John Powell's score here was only so-so for me. I enjoyed the fifties post-war nostalgia stuff, but once Pugh's character started unraveling, the score became all about the jarring discordant notes.

But it's another one of those cases from my pov where the whole is less than the sum of the parts. The supposed pay-off didn't quite pay off.

That's it in a nutshell for me. I was really intrigued by the start of the film, with us dropped into this insidiously unblemished fifties world with no context or explanation. The problem was that, the more the movie revealed, the less interested I was. The question was better than the answers.

Loved every second, though I need to sort out what it all means. I mean, I get what’s going on in the story, but I think there’s something much deeper the movie is trying to comment on, too.

I think that was part of my problem; the commentary never felt very deep to me. I believe that (twist spoilers) there are plenty of men out there who want to turn back the clock on feminism, and wouldn't let a little thing like consent get in the way if given the means but I didn't feel like the movie had anything new or exciting to say about the oppressive nature of patriarchy and rigid gender roles.

Spoiler: Massive spoilers

So, I understand present world Jack is trying to make things better for Alice in the only way he thinks he can. He lost his job, she’s working insane hours and he’s been taken in by the videos from Frank he’s watching.

I think that's how he rationalized it to himself, but I don't think it's the truth:

Spoiler

Alice was a surgeon who was far more accomplished and successful than Jack. Jack had been laid off from a job where he probably made far less money than Alice to begin with. And despite being home all day while she picked up extra shifts in the OR to cover his lost income, he was completely useless around the house. He felt emasculated, and this was his means of rectifying that.

Spoiler: Massive spoilers

I’m going to further assume that’s the same basic story for all the recruits: the men feel a responsibility to make lives better for their wives than they can actually afford to ok the world.

I think your interpretation is too generous:

Spoiler

While Jack believed he was doing what he did for Alice's benefit, I don't think that's true of the others. One of the doctor's criteria was whether the man and wife had an existing relationship prior to enter the simulation. In the case of Jack and Alice they did. But in other cases, I think it's just men who are pissed off that the world doesn't revolve around them anymore, and are willing to pay for the privilege of turning back the clock.

Spoiler: Massive spoilers

So they hook up to Frank’s tech, go into the real world every day to, what, scrounge for money to give Frank to provide for their wives? Is that franks angle: to make money?

I think it's more that:

Spoiler

They have to pay rent for the apartment where their bodies are stored, formula for the feeding tube, etc. As Frank made clear, the physical upkeep for each woman is her man's responsibility.

Whatever fee they are paying to access the Victory Project either goes into upkeep for the hardware and software, or toward financing the next step in Frank's grand vision.

Spoiler: Massive spoilers

Does Frank’s wife kill him because she is tired of being manipulated?

I think it was more disappointment/disgust:

Spoiler

She married Frank because he was an alpha male who was going to be the next Steve Jobs or perhaps the next Jesus Christ. And then it became clear that Frank was full of shit and had neither the talent nor the insight to get the situation under control. And she wasn't going to spend the rest of her life chained to a disappointment. If he couldn't pull off the Victory Project, she'd have to do it herself.

Spoiler

I think a minor problem with the movie is that it doesn't answer alot of these questions. I assumed that Frank was using these people as proof of concept and he planned to make money on it later but there's nothing that allows you to know. However, he could have been making money or he could have been a mad scientist.

Yeah, that's sort of left up in the air. I think:

Spoiler

That he was a true believer in the ideology underpinning the Victory Project. The glimpses we get of the "real" near-future world are even more dystopian than our present world, so in his mind all of the progress since the Eisenhower years has really been a slow and steady advance into the abyss.

Clearly, he has aspirations to use the vision of the Victory Project to remake the world. Maybe that would have involved a global simulation, or maybe it would be about recreating the Victory Project in the real world.

But I don't think it was a get rich quick scheme. He wouldn't have jeopardized everything by taunting Alice if it was about the money. He believed he was superior to her, and he wanted the chance to prove it.

Spoiler

I could be wrong but I thought Olivia Wilde's character was the only woman who willingly lived there.

The only other possibility, from what I could tell, is:

Spoiler

Frank's wife

Florence Pugh is an absolute star. This is established fact. And she's on full display here. Everything she does is compelling and believable. Even the way she sits in the "head of the table' chair during the dinner party scene was perfect.

What struck me is how her body type is not at all the fifties hourglass ideal, and yet she sells it such that you never once doubt Alice's sex appeal.

And when you look back at her performance in light of later reveals, it holds up; the choices feel true not only to the fifties housewife she thinks she is but also the highly competent and educated surgeon she actually is.

Chris Pine is menacing in a very real way that's never "fun" (which could easily happen in other films--nothing he does here is played for laughs). His body language is so compelling at times. Like Pugh sitting in the chair, just the way Pine comes through the front door at the dinner party scene oozed threat.

What really impressed me with his performance is that there's nothing overtly threatening about it. Much like Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the self-control is near absolute. A lesser actor would have played Frank as a scenery chewing villain. Pine plays Frank like he's the magnanimous hero of the story, someone blind to his own flaws and defects. The main clue to the latter, prior to Frank's conversation with Alice in the kitchen, is a certain deadness behind the eyes, like a shark.

The things I'm talking about are:

1. The plane. Why did it crash? This is in all the marketing, including at the literal centre of the leaked cover for the steelbook physical media release (which looks beautiful). My best guess is that the neighbour's son was real and he had a toy plane and it worked its way inside someone. Even if I'm close, why is it a centrepiece of the marketing if it's never explained at all?
2. The earthquakes. They are shared across all the women, so it can't be localized to them. Why did they happen?
3. Shelley's final scene and her final line. I legitimately didn't understand why she said it and the implications. Was it as simple as "now I'm taking over"? If so that's rather boring.

Yeah, those are all frustrating, especially:

Spoiler

The first one, since that's what sets the entire story into motion. Given that the whole world is a simulation, the plane wouldn't have been real, so who put it there? If they had gotten a similar route to The Village, with an actual community built in the middle of the desert in the southwest using some sort of obscure outside financing, the plane would have made sense as an unplanned intrusion of the real world into the controlled environment. But as executed here, someone would had to do it. If it was just her brain triggering off a memory of Margaret's son's toy, that needed to be more clearly established.

The second one was a red herring; I initially thought that the entire thing was at a Manhattan Project compound, and those detonations were distant atomic blasts. But given that that was not the case, an alternate explanation should have been provided.

Spoiler

See, my thought was that they weren't earthquakes but planes going very close overhead. I'm probably wrong but that I could even think that shows that they needed to give more info.

If they had wanted a quick explanation:

Spoiler

They could have had an elevated subway train rumbling right over the top of Jack and Alice's apartment.

But they didn't even give us a hand wave like that.

It feels to me almost like there’s a better version of this, either on the page or the cutting room floor, that is less timid about leaning into the sci-fi elements that would have brought more color to the storytelling.

Or, alternatively, executing the story without the science fiction elements, which would have cast the characters' choices in an even darker light.

The original script is out there (being on the Black List it's openly available on a number of sites). I've read it. The original ending is both worse and better than the film's ending. Here's a good summary if you want.

That was an interesting read, thanks for sharing. I like a lot of the original ending better, but I still think there's one or two twists too many.

This is something that can be asked over and over again about "hot scripts" that as they change hands get rewritten.

I've seen Black List scripts go both ways. Sometimes the ones that are made as-is don't quite work either, but they're usually at least exciting failures.

Many people will tell you that a script is just an outline and many filmmakers treat it as such. It is just a way to point you in a direction you think at the start you want to go in. Then there are guys like Clint Eastwood who shoot the script. It all depends on who is making the picture.

Eastwood shoots really fast, so he doesn't rewrite things when his movies are in production. But he definitely gets the scripts tailored to his interests before shooting begins.

Silberman's script seems to building to a tense boiling point when Alice directly confronts Frank at a dinner party. A battle of wits and will is promised, only to end up having a most predictable outcome.

That was definitely the high point of the film. If what had followed had been more interesting/exciting/unexpected, the movie would have fared a lot better with critics and audiences, I think.

 

[Tino]

Available to stream now on HBO MAX

 

[Jeff Cooper]

If it was just her brain triggering off a memory of Margaret's son's toy, that needed to be more clearly established.

Spoiler

I believe this is exactly what's happening. It is the same plane that the toy was. The clue that it wasn't real was extremely subtle. As you watch it fly overhead, for a brief moment, you see the plane kind of 'ripple' like a reflection in water would, indicating that it is not a real object.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I’m going to watch this movie again when I have a chance and try to better appreciate it for what it is rather than what it might have been.

It had all the potential to be an all-time favorite for me. I was really rooting for it and wished it had come together better. The performances are great, the cinematography is beautiful, and it aspires to more than most.

I think in the end I’d rather have a movie that aims high and doesn’t quite make it than one that doesn’t try at all. But that doesn’t make it any less disappointing.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Eastwood shoots really fast, so he doesn't rewrite things when his movies are in production. But he definitely gets the scripts tailored to his interests before shooting begins.

That he does. I recall Matt Damon telling a story of his first day of shooting on an Eastwood picture and his character involved an accent. Damon was nervous and he comes out and they shoot the first take and Eastwood says "OK, got it. Lets move on." and Damon asks "Can we do one more?" and Clint says "Why? You want to waste everybody's time?" and that was that.

 

[JohnRice]

Available to stream now on HBO MAX

Somehow, tonight seems like a fitting time to watch this. I have no idea why.

 

[JoeStemme]

Spoiler

I believe this is exactly what's happening. It is the same plane that the toy was. The clue that it wasn't real was extremely subtle. As you watch it fly overhead, for a brief moment, you see the plane kind of 'ripple' like a reflection in water would, indicating that it is not a real object.

Intersting, little detail.

Spoiler

Olivia Wilde has cited TRUMAN SHOW as an inspiration, so, yes, I took the plane as not being "real" as well, just a part of the simulation. It also works as a sort of analogy to the scene in the Peter Weir film where Truman sees a light fall from the sky, shattering for a brief moment the separation between the TV show and his life

 

[Richard Kaufman]

Pugh was excellent, but what a mess of a film. Within five minutes you have only one question:

Spoiler

cult isolation or Matrix

. And then it drags itself out for much too long until you get the answer to that question and by then who really cares.
But, hey, if you can make a movie where people's

Spoiler

eyes

are held open for months at a time

Spoiler

and they don't go blind,

what does any other sort of logic matter.

 

[Alex...]

 

[Tino]

A completely useless “award”.