Curry Barker’s “Obsession” was undoubtedly this summer’s biggest hit. Although perhaps later overshadowed by film behemoths such as “The Odyssey” and “Spider-Man: Brand New Day”, the numbers speak for themselves. Created with a measly budget of $750,000, “Obsession” made $17.2 million in its first weekend at the box office, only to double the next weekend, generating $32 million during the four-day Memorial Day timeframe, and $24 million over the next weekend. After only about a month and a half, it overtook “Sinners” as the highest-grossing original English-language film of the 2020s, and rose to become among the most profitable movies of all time, a near-unprecedented feat, especially for the horror genre. Perhaps just as striking as the box office numbers is the critical acclaim it’s received, garnering an aggregate score of 93% on the Rotten Tomatoes, 7.8 on IMDB, and 4.1 stars on Letterboxd, as well as notably entering the one million watched club within weeks of its release. So what’s the obsession behind “Obsession”? Was it a love only the branch of a willow tree could conjure, or just another trend? Spoilers and trigger warning ahead for those who haven’t yet seen it.
“Obsession” follows Baron “Bear” Bailey and coworkers Ian, Sarah, and Nikki. Bear is hopelessly and unrequitedly in love with Nikki, trying in vain to get her attention. Distraught after the death of his cat and growing increasingly desperate for Nikki’s affection, Bear enters a seemingly normal crystal shop in order to replace a necklace she had broken, but instead buys the mysterious One wish Willow, a novelty knick-knack that promises to grant exactly one wish after being broken. After his attempts to romance Nikki fail embarrassingly, Bear breaks his One Wish Willow, wishing for Nikki to love him more than anyone in the world. However, in typical monkey´s paw fashion, the wording of this request proves disastrous. After a brief initial period of innocent romance, things quickly devolve into horror and chaos, as Nikki’s behavior grows increasingly erratic and disturbing.
Her lying about her father dying and relapsing into MDMA to guilt Bear into spending time with her, building a shrine using Bear’s dead cat (and later feeding him the cat’s body), watching him sleep, and brutally harming herself at a party all cause Sarah and Ian to grow worried about the uncanny nature of their relationship. It is revealed that Nikki’s consciousness has been forcefully hijacked by Bear’s wish, with the real Nikki forced to view and experience everything from behind her own eyes. In a brief moment of lucidity, she requests that Bear mercy-kill her, to which he refuses, whining that being with him can’t be that bad.
Sarah asks Bear to meet with her, and he sneaks out to talk with her about the situation. Sarah says that she is worried about Bear, concerned that Nikki is somehow taking advantage of him, and hints at her own personal feelings for him. However, before the conversation comes to an end, Nikki finds them and brutalizes Sarah in what is perhaps the most memorable and shocking scene in the film. At the end of his rope, Bear confesses the full truth to Ian, who doesn’t believe him. While Bear pleads with Ian to make a wish of his own to reverse his previous wish, Ian breaks his One Wish Willow, flippantly asking for a billion dollars. Much to Bear’s despair and horror, cash rains from the ceiling. Desperate to end their collective suffering, Bear commits suicide as a horrified Nikki returns to her senses.
As Curry Barker’s second feature-length film after “Milk and Serial”, and first to receive a theatrical release, “Obsession” had its success driven by an immense word-of-mouth campaign and a majority Gen Z audience. Seen alongside the overperformance of A24’s “Backrooms”, “Obsession” demonstrates a renewed interest in original horror. Given the relatively simple premise and mostly predictable storyline, “Obsession” still manages to feel fresh and original, walking an incredibly fine line between comedy and psychological horror. The film is satisfyingly paced, not too much of a slow burn as to be boring, but certainly not rushed. The gore is used sparingly, yet disgusting enough to garner a reaction from even seasoned horror veterans. “Obsession”’s show-don’t-tell ethos provides a refreshing moviegoing experience, where new details can always be discerned on rewatch. Rather than devolving into a preachy, moralizing affair, the film allows the characters to develop naturally, as their traits emerge in an organic fashion, and the consequences of their actions feel wholly grounded in their characterization. Thematically, “Obsession” may rely too heavily on well-worn genre clichés; however, the film makes up for it with its overall originality and uniqueness.
Beyond its writing, the film was driven by the standout performances given by breakout stars Inde Navarette and Michael Johnston. Navarette delivers the best horror performance since Florence Pugh in Midsommar, perhaps even more daring. Of particular note is Barker’s use of reverse photography, making for some intensely creepy scenes when combined with Navarette’s natural talent for body horror and commitment to the role. Overall, while “Obsession” may not be a transcendent horror masterpiece alongside the likes of “The Shining,” “Onibaba” or “Silence of the Lambs,” its bone-chilling and deeply disturbing execution makes its success well earned.
Leave a Reply