133: OBSESSION (2026)

DIRECTOR: CURRY BARKER

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

(MASSIVE TRIGGER WARNING: This essay discusses current events involving SA, Manipulation, Minors, and the Patriarchal system that oversees all of it.)

(BEFORE YOU READ. Scroll Down to the Donation Station!)

(DISCLAIMER: I started writing this essay two weeks before all of the horrible shit that was revealed involving Cornell University with them protecting 57 frat student rapists. This essay will talk about another lesser-known situation that was circulating before the Cornell stuff came out. However, the Donation Station directly relates to the Cornell Rapists case, and I did add a few blurbs about the University because, needless to say, both situations focus on a predatory mindset that toxic masculinity puts inside of men and how it affects your surroundings. So, if the discussions about the Cornell 57 in this essay sound like addenda that feel out of place, it is because they are. I’m sorry if this essay makes the Cornell case read like an afterthought, but this essay had to be delayed for multiple reasons outside of my control. Thank you for understanding.)

O is for…Obsession. Before we start actually talking about this film, let’s discuss a recent topic that should not be overlooked in conversations surrounding Obsession.

I’m bringing up this conversation not because I want to capitalize on it, but it’s because there are so many stories out there that are meant to be viewed as a cautionary tale. Obsession, obviously, is one of those, right? Bear doesn’t see Nicki as a person; he makes his wish purely out of what he wants her to do, there’s nothing mutual that comes from his love for her. We’ll get deeper into that specific conversation, but the allegory is being made because this is such a frequent fucking problem. This problem has been a thing ever since the patriarchy existed, and it’s only been supercharged by men like Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes, who present this hypermasculine view of the world where women lack value because of several arbitrary standards.

But, that’s become expected of people who hold conservative values; people who align themselves with Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk. They are/were outspoken in their misogyny; they revel in it. That makes it all the more important that the men who view themselves as opposite to that ideology be proactive in their day-to-day efforts to provide comfort to women and to show that they fight against their own patriarchal benefits and the systems that give them leniency. And yet, there are still men that are incapable of learning that shit. They use all of the shit they learn about capitalism, racism, Zionism, etc. just so they can be viewed as appealing to women and nothing else; aarchor is one of those cases.

Archer (I am using the spelling of his supposed real name for the rest of this) was a huge leftist content creator. In my opinion, I didn’t really like his content because he would always use that slow/speed-up effect on his voice and the shtick got annoying over time. But if it got people to start thinking about socialist and communist perspectives then more power to them. However, no one’s going to his account anymore because he was caught texting a minor. There was some weird bullshit going on where he said that he thought she was 18 and was about to graduate high school, but firstly, you always have to ask the person’s age if you want to flirt with another person especially online, and second ARCHER IS DAMN NEAR 30 YEARS OLD; and when he got caught, he victim-blamed. No accountability for the “mistake” in the scenario he propped up. He just victim-blamed a fucking child. Even if his using leftist politics to get laid wasn’t the reason, the confrontation is being had. Do these supposed male communists actually stand for what they believe in, or will they continue to do what they’ve always done? Saying all of these nice things but only as a way of attention-seeking to try to manipulate and intentionally target somebody. In other words, turn into Nikki.

Obsession is the second film of this loose indie horror trilogy. The first being Iron Lung (2026), which we’ve already covered on the blog, and Backrooms (2026). All three of these movies have been the most popular topic of conversation concerning the film industry. The directors of all three of these horror movies got their start on YouTube and they’re all made through independent means, with one of these films being objectively the most independent out of all of them. I’m not gonna grasp at straws but seriously I’m still shocked at how successful Markiplier and his fans were at distributing Iron Lung. However, if I was going to pick which of these movies was the breakout star it’s, without a doubt, Obsession. I’m currently taking a Short Film Production class, and the first group project we had to do was to recreate a scene. The class split into two groups and not only did both groups want to do Obsession, but both groups wanted to do the fucking restaurant scene. This led to my group doing the first half where I licked the bread an uncomfortable number of times, and the second group did the other half with the “NO, NO, NO DON’T DO THAT” segment.

Get C.E.L Media Journal’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

This movie is fantastic; the spectacle of the film largely comes from the acting performances, and its warm color palette makes the entire movie deceptively off-putting. But, I think when it comes to people talking about the movie, it’s mainly people saying “this movie is so good” and the conversation stops. I’ve been calling this passive media consumption and I think all of us are guilty of it. We don’t want to spoil the movie, but where do the conversations go after you watch it? Whenever I watch movies with friends I always try to make it the point of conversation, and if that doesn’t happen then I have the blog to write out my feelings. But with a movie that’s incredibly deep and forward-thinking like Obsession, I feel like there are a lot of men who don’t want to open up the discussion of manipulation and toxic masculinity. It’s easy to deflect when you don’t do those things but I love Obsession so much because it forces you to, at the very least, think about the broader scope. Not just about how you (meaning men in this scenario) interact with people on a day-to-day basis, but how you feel about the advice other people have given you.

Nikki gets possessed and turns into the thing that Bear wants, and it absolutely mirrors this manipulative mindset that a lot of men tend to use on women. It’s because, as I stated earlier, Bear doesn’t view Nikki as a person; he just views her through what he wants her to be. A person to make him feel better. One of the saddest parts of this entire movie is the realization that we don’t know a lot about Nikki before she got possessed because the entire movie is from Bear’s perspective; the things he talks about in the beginning are his responses to things that Nikki has done for him. Bear might be insecure as hell, but it’s usually the insecurities that go unchecked that sprout the most toxic manipulators.

Bear has a possessive mindset; he wants Nikki all to himself and this movie is all about directing that attitude right back at him. There’s been a lot of discussion regarding whether or not Bear is a “victim” in this story and in my opinion, I don’t think he’s a victim in the traditional sense. Again, Bear’s relationship is indicative of his mindset; this isn’t a monkey’s paw scenario where he innocently wishes for something but a genie secretly twists it to screw the guy over. No, Bear’s exact words are “I wish Nikki Freeman loved me more than anyone in the fucking world.” That’s why she digs up the cat and cooks it for Bear. She is making sure that no one else loves Bear more than she does; that’s what he wished for after all.

The thing that I think Bear is partly a “victim” of is the manosphere, which has been the catch-all term to describe this wave of blatant and aggressive toxic masculinity. I say he’s a victim in this sense because I think the actions that lead to his relationship with Nikki are rooted in persuasion from Ian. Ian is the prime example of the normalization of toxic masculinity. The objectification of Nikki starts with Ian. He’s the first one who calls her Freaky Nikki because it immediately tells us what she means to him; she’s something that he can fuck. The movie basically confirms that when it’s revealed that Nikki and Ian were hooking up before Bear snapped the Wish Willow. Bear should be blamed for the autonomy that he stripped away from Nikki but that mindset doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Ian is there to be the thing that Bear leeches off of.

If we are to learn anything from Archer and the Cornell Rapists, it’s that the problem is society’s structural preference for men. Our attitudes, no matter how demoralizing they are towards women, non-binary people, or even ourselves, within the patriarchal system only benefits through Social Darwinism and dictatorial superiority. Of course it’s on us to stop this mentality and go after people who cause the most harm. Bear is not a good person; he was influenced by shitty people, and he was scared to tell Nikki how she feels because of patriarchal bullshit, but Bear’s story is a stunning reminder of how we need to be a lot more strong-willed in our empathy. Bear knew his selfishness and possessiveness towards Nikki was bad because he hid it from her. That’s a nice start, but having actionable kindness towards Nikki and all the other women in his life would have given him the ability to be more open towards Nikki. He would’ve taken her inevitable rejection better because he wouldn’t have some kind of ownership over Nikki.

Obsession is fantastic because it’s a frightening look through a twisted mirror. Inde Navarette gives an Oscar-worthy performance, the world feels so grounded which makes all the crazy shit even more off-putting and, at least for me, it’s the greatest reminder of the role that I, and several other men, have in society. If we men talk the talk about feminism, then we need to express it through action while also realizing that no woman or any other gender will think we’re safe because of the patriarchal society that we benefit from. People like Archer, and apparently Jacob Berger, cannot be the ones who spearhead leftist beliefs online; it shouldn’t be men at all, let alone any white man. If you’re a person with immense privilege trying to change centuries-old systems and beliefs for the better, then you should be one of the last people to receive the rewards that change brings people.

9.6/10

-Charlie :)

DONATION STATION:

This Donation Station is a tad different. Instead of focusing on one person or a non-profit organization, I’m asking you to donate to The Cornell Sun. Without this newspaper and news website, the Jane Doe court case wouldn’t have gotten national attention. The Cornell Sun is a student-run news outlet that is independent of the University and has been since 1880. There hasn’t been any sign of the current Cornell administration taking action against the press (as of yet) but the truth of the matter is that The Cornell Sun needs to be applauded and properly funded for their work.

The Cornell Sun’s Donation Page:

Support the Sun! - The Cornell Daily Sun