Itâs often observed that horror films are a good barometer of pressing cultural anxieties. If so, the weather doesnât look very good for social interaction right now. Backrooms  has just been released, exploiting the spooky Covidian aesthetics of deserted buildings, and taking $118 million in its first weekend. Meanwhile, another low-budget shocker has been crushing  the box office for three weeks straight: Obsession , by 26-year-old wunderkind director Curry Barker. To watch this film is to experience unaccountable dread and terror, as you enter the mind of a Gen Z man trying and failing to get a date.
The young man in question is called Bear. Never was a name so ironically bestowed, for this Bear is anxious, tentative, and terrified of overstepping. Heâs in love with a co-worker at the local music store, a girl called Nikki, but cannot steel himself to declare his affections to her. In a hippy shop selling crystals and dreamcatchers, he buys a âOne Wish Willowâ â marketed as a âcollectible toy from the Eightiesâ. He breaks it in half as instructed, and wishes âthat Nikki Freeman loved me more than anyone else in the worldâ. He immediately gets his heartâs desire, and all hell breaks loose.
To boomers, this may sound like a familiar tale of the terrifyingly unhinged power of the female libido, with shades of Fatal Attraction  or Single White Female . But this film is no nostalgic reprise of that late-Eighties theme. The obsession of the title belongs as much to the male as to the female; and if anything, the latter is to be thoroughly pitied. Thanks to the fulfilment of Bearâs wish, Nikki is subject to an all-consuming romantic possession that drives her towards abject self-debasement and social humiliation against her better nature. During a rare moment of lucidity, she begs for death as a release, and who would blame her? Weâve all been there, Nikki love.
Actress Inde Navarrette pulls off an astonishing feat as the obsessed young woman, alternating insane aggression with comic pathos. Her devotion is child-like in its intensity, completely untrammelled by attempts to play it cool. Most of the time she is all id, no ego, openly begging Bear for more affection, ferociously guarding him against imagined rivals, and covering the front door with tape to stop him leaving for work. When that fails, she becomes literally rooted to the spot until he returns, with devastating consequences for the carpet.
But for all of Nikkiâs spellbound antics, the more interesting character is Bear â sensitively played by another relative unknown, Michael Johnstone. His story makes a compelling contrast to the original âmonkey pawâ trope, created by author W.W. Jacobs in 1902. Jacobsâ short story depicted a cosy working-class domestic scene, interrupted by the arrival of an acquaintance fresh from the colonies, carrying with him a mysterious shrivelled object that will grant three wishes. Ignoring the visitorâs dire warnings and his own misgivings â âit seems to me that Iâve got all that I wantâ â the family patriarch, Mr White, wishes for two hundred pounds. Next morning White receives this exact sum as compensation for his sonâs death, âcaught in the machineryâ at work. The old manâs second wish is to bring his horribly mangled son back. His third wish is to cancel out the second, finding himself too afraid to answer the ominous knock at the door.
As befits a child of his time, director Barker says he first came across The Monkeyâs Paw via an episode of The Simpsons , but one hopes he has read Jacobsâ story too. Along with all the timely social anxieties it expressed about the costs to the working classes of industrial progress, and the threat from the exotic foreigner (Mr White, anyone?), there was a simpler message there too. The Indian fakir who originally put the spell on the monkeyâs paw, Jacobs wrote, âwanted to show that fate ruled peopleâs lives, and that those who interfered with it did so to their sorrowâ. Whiteâs mistake was to fail to accept his lot in life, trying in Promethean fashion to alter destiny instead. As such, he firmly belongs in the pantheon of classic Gothic overreachers, along with Victor Frankenstein and Dorian Gray.
But Bearâs tragic flaw is precisely the opposite. He is a chronic underreacher who uses his modernised monkeyâs paw as a lazy proxy for a deliberate, intentional choice. Romantically he is paralysed, terrified of being seen to âtake advantageâ of a girl â even though thatâs precisely what he eventually does. And even after it seems clear Nikki has fallen under his spell, still he canât bring himself to publicly own his feelings. When she asks him if he likes her, his guarded response is: âWhy, do you like me?â.
Crazy as she is, Nikki can tell what Bearâs real problem is. At one point she gives him a âTigerâs Eyeâ stone as a love gift, to bring him âconfidence and will-powerâ. But it doesnât work, reappearing during the filmâs finale to no avail. Itâs not hard to conclude thatâŠ
Read the full article at UnHerd â