The TV show the Weakest Link involves a kind of paradox. To increase the probability of winning, contestants should eliminate the strongest player. However, if it is anticipated, then no one answers and there is nothing to gain. In life, players do answer: does it reveal lack of rationality? We solve a simple game that illustrates the tradeoffs to show that two kinds of equilibria may coexist: equilibria in which players stay mute and entertaining equilibria in which they give good answers whenever they can. Empirically, we study the first wave of the show broadcasted in France. Contestants vote against the weakest link and answer truthfully to the questions. However, they exhibit myopic behavior as they do not use all the available information. A coordination problem arises in the voting game. The mise en scene of the show prevents the contestants from voting against the strongest and thus the show can go on.