Finally free and available on streaming platforms, ‘Don’t Worry Darling’ charges its watchers by stealing their time.
Recent success with psychological thrillers like John Peele’s “Get Out” and Martin Pensa’s “Fresh” shifted the genre towards one that welcomes social commentary and provokes constructive conversations. Olivia Wilde’s “Don’t Worry Darling,” an eagerly anticipated feminist critque, fell flat with critics, earning a mere 33% on Rotten Tomatoes. It has generated conversation in all the wrong places, primarily Wilde’s involvement with the leading man. With a star studded cast lead by the critically acclaimed Florence Pugh, the movie had the potential to be a hit. So what went wrong?
“Don’t Worry Darling” tells the story of a couple, Alice and Jack, living in the 1950s in ‘Victory’, the ‘perfect’ patriarchal community. Whilst the men of this town head off to work on a mysterious project, their wives are ‘fortunate’ enough to spend their time living the good life – beauty, dance and homemaking lie at their fingertips. As the wives embody the role of perfect domestic servants, they are praised for their ‘sacrifice’ of staying home so that their husbands might pursue their ‘mission’, according to company president Frank, played by Chris Pine. Little do they know that this sacrifice is exceedingly more taxing than they realize. After a slow plot progression, Alice begins to catch on that something is amiss about this town. She discovers that ‘Victory’ is a simulation, and that her ‘sacrifice’ is a forced involvement by the pathetically desperate Jack who, in a bout of unemployment-driven depression, has signed up to this idealized existence of husband and obedient wife. After vocalizing her suspicions about the community and enduring shock therapy as punishment, Alice remembers that she lives as a surgeon in modern day. Wanting to reclaim her life, she kills Jack and escapes the simulation.
As the film builds to the reveal of the simulation, it does so too obviously. Plot twists in psychological thrillers make them impactful because to some extent, they aren’t expected. There’s certainly foreshadowing, but it’s subtle. In this movie, the foreshadowing was far too obvious, from the instantly eerie movie score to the ominous introduction of characters such as that of Gemma Chan’s character. It felt like the film was building up to the plot twist from the second it began, undermining the reveal itself.
And then, there’s the topic of the miscast leading man.
Harry Styles, new to the acting scene, was not fit to partner the powerhouse that is Florence Pugh. The lack of chemistry between their characters was off putting. The urgency with which the script avoids dialogue between the characters and instead favors random sex scenes indicates that the filmmakers themselves had little faith in their on-screen connection.
According to Wilde, the emphasis that these intimate scenes placed on female pleasure was intended to liberate women from the stigma of bold female sexuality. The movie was marketed as ‘for the feminists’, but I did not leave the cinema feeling empowered. The premise of housewives taking back control of their lives feels a bit too unrelatable in today’s Western society to have had a real impact in the targeted market.
What did strike a chord was the commentary on incel culture, and for this I will give the film some credit. This culture refers to the rise in misogyny and hatred towards women that stems from men reacting angrily to rejection. The image of men chanting that this was ‘their world’ and drunkenly reveling in their power during the party scene celebrating ‘Victory’, and Jack’s promotion, certainly left an unsettling mark. It calls to mind the perverted idea that men are entitled to power over women and addresses the recent surge in toxic masculinity that has followed the rise and fall of online characters such as Andrew Tate. As to why this aspect of the movie was overlooked by the marketing team when selling the film as socially relevant, I am once again confused.
And yet, despite these important shortcomings, the movie did not flop at the box office.
Was it that the press surrounding the film was so messy that it caught the attention of the public? The game of guessing who hates who within the cast, whether it be the rumored exchange of spit between Pine and Styles or the suspected feud over between Pugh and Wilde over Wilde’s alleged unprofessional behavior, might honestly be more interesting than the film itself. Equally, the public’s brutal criticism of Wilde’s parenting, with, in her own words, haters claiming she ‘abandoned’ her children, is probably more loaded with commentary on misogyny than the film’s message.
Or was it that Wilde’s tactical reveal of Style’s many sex scenes brought much needed cash flow from his many screaming fans? This would contextualize the motivation behind casting the relatively unqualified Styles in such a major role.
Either way, the movie’s performance in the box office is certainly not a reflection of its quality. The combination of botched tension building, Style’s performance, and poorly executed feminist message all work to earn the film a green splat.
