Obsession and Eros
Obsession (2026) is filmmaker Curry Barker’s breakout psychological horror film. It’s a rather disturbing movie and was uncomfortable to sit through and I say this as a compliment. In a particularly unsettling moment, Nikki stands in a corner of his bedroom in the dark, creepily cries and says to Bear, “I feel like you don’t love me as much as I do.” The combination of the way she sobs, her distorted face, and the fact that the room is dark, makes for a very frightening scene. Arguably, it’s the scariest scene in the film, visually.
This film has generated a fair amount of discourse online. If you were to read various Reddit posts or YouTube comments, typically commentators frame the central horror theme of this movie as a transgression of consent on Bear’s part. Bear is the villain and Nikki is the victim. While true that Bear violating consent is part of the horror in this movie, I think that the true horror exists beyond the microcosm of what the film portrays. What I want to do here is give an analysis of the film that isn’t necessarily what Barker consciously intended, but what the structure of the film reveals. The elements that made this film and what transpires in it are present within our own reality. It’s not the magic of the One Wish Willow, but it’s something more insidious, more ubiquitous. What we see as social norms is a part of it. We participate in it unconsciously. The most malevolent force in this movie is not the One Wish Willow, it’s not Bear, and it’s not wish-Nikki. It’s the very system that ultimately created the conditions for the destruction of Bear and his friends.
The verdict that “Bear is the villain and Nikki is the victim” is a comfortable conclusion that allows the viewer to sit outside the film. But that’s like the matrix producing The Matrix (1999); the binary conclusion is precisely a product of the very framework that, whether intentionally or not, the film exposes. It’s akin to a conclusion drawn from reading the story of Abraham and Isaac: “you shouldn’t kill your kid.” While absolutely true, it’s a conclusion that allows the reader to comfortably sit outside the story, looking in from without. In his work Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard, writing from the perspective of a pseudonym by the name of Johannes de Silentio, critiques the Hegelian systematizing in saying that there exists a category that is above all systematizing which allows for faith to be possible. It cannot be understood through rational means and such an idea is represented by the figure of Abraham. De silentio does not understand Abraham nor does he think Abraham is someone to identify with; rather, Abraham must be viewed as an impossible ideal.
In Obsession, we see a similar structure but inverse. The discourse surrounding consent views the film through the lens of the contemporary moral framework of a consent-based morality which domesticates the film allowing the viewer to be comfortable in a sort of voyeuristic manner in that they are viewing the horror from afar rather than realizing they could see themselves in any of the characters. While true, you shouldn’t violate the consent of the Other, the larger point here is, that while these stories are different in their content, the structure is what is similar; that one must grapple with the uncomfortable truth that just as Abraham represents an impossibly high ideal, the inverse is true. These characters represent a subterranean reflection of our inner capacity for destruction.
No Innocent Victim
Nikki is seen as the pure victim in this movie and Bear as the ultimate villain. There is truth to this. However, Nikki is not as innocent as may first seem. This is not to say Nikki is at all responsible for what Bear does, but that she’s not outside the framework of Eros the film reveals. The implication in the film is that the entire friend group knows Bear is infatuated with Nikki and presumably she knows as well. Given that Bear practices confessing his feelings to her and attempts to do so at least twice in the film, implies that Nikki never set boundaries with Bear. Here exists the tension of no resolution, which is what Bear was trying to build up the courage to resolve. Ultimately, his cowardly nature wins and he fails.
Now, there are at least a couple of interpretations of the final interaction between Bear and Nikki when he dropped her off: the first is that Nikki did have feelings for Bear and was waiting for him to confess, or, at least there was a possibility of them entering into a relationship. Or two, Nikki was waiting for what would strain or eventually destroy the friendship through Bear’s confession. Regardless, even if Nikki did have feelings for Bear, as implied in Bear and Nikki’s interaction before the wish, the problem, as she herself admitted at the trivia bar, is that no one would know if she liked someone. At this point, Bear doesn’t know that Nikki thought of him as a little brother or that she was going to friendzone him. Sarah reveals that later. So, the tension still exists regardless of either interpretation. Nikki is not being malicious, but she is letting the tension sit and, at worst, it could be construed as passive manipulation.
Ian’s character can be seen as actively malicious. He continuously sabotages Bear. But it’s not necessarily the case that Ian directly caused or pushed Bear down the path that led to his and Nikki’s destruction. Ian doesn’t exactly help the situation, whether that be before the wish or after. In the opening scene, when Bear practices his confession to a random waitress at a diner, Bear asks for advice from the waitress who gives him suggestions, Ian dismisses her advice as stupid. He instead advises Bear to be mean to Nikki; to call her “freaky Nikki”, a nickname she loathes. We find out later in the film from Sarah that Ian and Nikki have been hooking up casually for a number of years. We can surmise that Ian did not want to lose that casual relationship and thus has been sabotaging Bear. Ian’s sabotage brings out Bear’s worst qualities. Bear is timid and cowardly and struggles with the unresolved tension between possibility and resolution. We see that throughout the film.
Sarah is not necessarily actively malicious as Ian or Bear are, but is not innocent either. She’s generally self-interested. In the scene where she and Bear are talking and she is about to open her final acceptance letter, she tells Bear several revealing things. It’s in this scene that she reveals that Ian and Nikki have been hooking up. She thinks Nikki is taking advantage of Bear and that Bear “deserves someone more chill.” This scene takes place after the party where wish-Nikki acted unhinged, delivered an incestuous Hansel and Gretel poem, and finally smashed a bottle on her face. Sarah doesn’t seem to wonder what is wrong with wish-Nikki or if she’s ok, but instead is portraying herself as the better option. Sarah’s revelations of what Nikki supposedly thinks about Bear, in this context, come across as self-interested as she, again, is presenting herself as the better, or even only, option at this point.
We know Bear is the villain of this story, but he wasn’t always the villain; he becomes the villain. He is, initially, a victim of an unqualified wish. He doesn’t know that the One Wish Willow works and, in a moment of frustration and self-loathing, he wishes Nikki would love him more than anything in the world, and snaps the willow. However, paradoxically, he is a victim of his own self and the villain; occupying both states at the same time. He creates and maintains his own hell through his failure to ameliorate the consequences of the wish and unwillingness to free the real Nikki. In a call to the One Wish Willow customer support, the representative gives Bear two choices: get someone to contradict his wish or off himself. But, the representative notes it seems Bear has a moral obligation to be there for her. It’s not an easy choice as the object of your desire would be destroyed or it would destroy you.
The tragedy is that, while all these characters aren’t innocent they are all victims (yes, even Bear) of modernity. For modernity is the foundation that makes this story possible. Ian and Nikki become objects of self-gratification for one another. Bear desires the experience of being with Nikki. Sarah presents herself to Bear as a prospective employee would present his/herself to an employer. Nikki’s ambiguity with Bear keeps her options open which is a form of an erotic marketplace. Wish-Nikki is treated by Bear as a programmable object. Some of their actions do lead to malicious acts, such as Ian sabotaging Bear or Bear’s whole arc with Nikki. But the uncomfortable part is, that many of their actions are products of their environment, and they are not wholly to blame because they themselves are also products of that environment. It’s not as clean as some may like to make it out to be. This is not to say that all the characters are equal in their innocence or blame. Nikki is the real victim in all of this, though she may not be blameless within the larger framework. Bear is the villain in the story, but he occupies both camps.
The Commodification of Eros
In the modern world, Eros has been reduced to a commodity. It’s no longer the irrational, intense existential dependency of not being able to be without the Other due to their radical alterity. The Other has a will, desires, emotions, etc. and because of that there exists a tension that’s a part of Eros. Will the Other reject you, or, to put it in cultural theorist Byung Chul Han’s words, if I dissolve my self into the Other, will I receive it back? Ultimately, despite the Other’s imperfections, strange habits, tics they are absolute for you.
Get Esoterror’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Eros is now transactional; it’s seen as a product that fits your needs. Why you want a product is a rational decision. “This will help me do [x] faster or make [y] easier or allow me to experience [z].” It’s seen as a means to fulfill your desire, just like the latest new gadget. The problem is, desire is unknown which drives consumerism. The unconscious drive for purchasing, for instance, the latest iPhone is the belief that it will fill this void. However, it doesn’t, so you buy another iPhone and another and another. But you’re still no closer to fulfilling your desire than you were when you bought the first iPhone. That is essentially what Eros has become. If we take dating apps, for instance, it turns the individual into a product. You think, “What am I looking for in a partner? What do they offer me?” And the dating apps allow you to enter various facts about yourself, answer questions that give a glimpse into who you are, the pictures you post are curated to present the best possible image of yourself, much like how commercials or packaging portray the product in an ideal light. It’s a virtual meat market where you choose the best cuts or those that are right for you. “I like this guy/girl’s style, but I don’t like his/her political beliefs. He/she smokes, that’s a deal breaker.” It’s no different than walking into a store and being presented with 12 different variations of the same item from 12 different brands. It’s a sort of post-scarcity erotic market without any of the transcendent aspects of Eros.
So, how does the film fit into this? As Barker stated in his interview with Chelsea and James of Dead Meat, the film plays with the idea of intensely desiring something, like a phone, getting it, and finding out after a month that it is the same as your old phone. Commodification requires objectification. Bear’s desire for Nikki was not for Nikki as she is, but for the experience of being with Nikki. Bear treats Nikki as if she were a phone. When wish-Nikki becomes manic, Bear attempts to return her to the idyllic wish-Nikki, akin to attempting to return to the moment when you first open and use a new phone. The Nikki Bear wanted was Nikki without risk, without the tension inherent to Eros. When you unbox a new product, there is a honeymoon phase where it seems to fill some void. But there remains a tension over whether that product will actually fill the void or provide lasting pleasure. If it does provide pleasure, that pleasure is temporary; if it does not, it becomes painful and is eventually replaced. The parallel is Bear’s feeble attempt to confront the tension of Eros, his failure to do so, and his brief possession of wish-Nikki as a moment of jouissance — the moment when pleasure is its most intense and most fleeting. He desperately wants to return to that joyful first experience, the consumer’s brief illusion that the object has finally filled the void, but he can’t, just as one can‘t return to unboxing and using a new phone for the first time.
But desiring the experience of Nikki is not necessarily a conscious decision on his part. For if it was conscious, the film would have been about a manipulator rather than, in some sense, a tragic villain. Nikki, for Bear, even wish-Nikki, was the key to the fulfilment of his desire; she was the object that would fill the void. After he makes the wish, we see an idyllic romcom style life of Bear and wish-Nikki. That’s the point. It’s an experience of Eros, a simulacrum of Eros. It’s what you’re sold in movies, TV, and cheap romance novels. The tension of Eros is present in the beginning of the film. Bear’s practice confession to the waitress points to the radical uncertainty at the heart of Eros. Will the Other (Nikki) accept him or reject him? Of course, Bear’s cowardice prevents him from confessing. But once Bear makes that wish, that erases all tension, all risk and Nikki becomes an alternate version of her who, in some sense, acts like an alien who’s trying to figure out what love is. Wish-Nikki has no will, no desire save for a pathological, obsessive love. What the Greeks called mania.
Before her death, Sarah, who has a crush on Bear, invites him to her van so they may open her final acceptance letter together. Sarah shows concern for Bear but not for Nikki. Sarah is presenting a résumé of her Self: “Here’s why I’m better than my competition.” She unconsciously presents herself as a product, thinking that she could fulfill Bear’s desires, not her competition, Nikki. That, of course, is delusional in the sense that desire is fundamentally unknowable. If Bear doesn’t know his own desire, how could Sarah? Sarah mentions to Bear that Ian and Nikki have been casually hooking up. Ian and Nikki’s relationship is purely transactional and actually mirrors Bear’s relationship with wish-Nikki, at least in the idyllic stage. There is no risk, no tension, no threat of disruption. Both “consume” each other for self-gratification and if it ends, it ends. If the product no longer serves its purpose, it’s discarded and a replacement is found. Through the framework of a consent-based morality, there is nothing wrong with Ian and Nikki’s casual relationship. That betrays a fundamental problem within such a framework that as long as two parties consent, we won’t find any moral quandaries with the relationship itself. But the fundamental issue here is that it reduces the Other to a commodity object that you use for your own pleasure seeking. It’s actually dehumanizing. Ian, throughout the film, sabotages Bear because, we can surmise, that if Nikki did have feelings for Bear (this is ambiguous, but the possibility exists), and had Bear not been a coward, Ian would lose his object of gratification.
Bear and the Death Drive
Everything Bear does from the moment he makes the wish leads him down the path of self-destruction. The death drive is not simply a desire to die, but the compulsion to repeat a destructive circuit even after it has ceased to produce pleasure. He repeats the same circuit even after wish-Nikki stops being the idyllic romcom version of Nikki and becomes manic and erratic. Bear attempts to fix this by calling customer support and asks to alter his wish. When the representative says they can’t, he tries to cancel the wish. When that fails, Bear continues the repetition. Even when Bear confronts wish-Nikki about her bizarre behavior, at that point, he’s asking her to go back to the ideal Nikki, or, the simulacrum of Nikki — the fantasy Nikki instead of the real Nikki who, horrifyingly, experiences all of this. It’s predicated on that fleeting moment of pleasure where Bear and wish-Nikki had the ideal relationship, or the experience of the ideal relationship because it never actually involved Eros. That becomes nostalgia and a time he desperately wants to return to. However, he can’t alter the wish or cancel it. His efforts to try and get wish-Nikki to go back to the state where everything was idyllic, fails. In fact, because wish-Nikki is something that’s not quite human, it just gets worse. Wish-Nikki continues to become more erratic, more unhinged, and more obsessive. Bear’s final attempt to fix the situation without suicide is to try and get Ian to contradict his wish. Ian, of course, doesn’t believe that the One Wish Willow works and wishes for a billion dollars, which comes true. It eventually leads to his demise when he goes over to Bear’s house joyously stating he has a billion dollars, but, after opening the door, he’s shot and killed by wish-Nikki.
Post-wish Bear is trapped in a loop. His cowardice prevents him from killing himself. He can’t free Nikki without killing himself. He needs someone to contradict his wish. But wish-Nikki keeps getting worse, effectively destroying his life, reminding Bear that he wished for this. The irony when he decides to off himself is that he experiences, twice, the desire for self-preservation. First when he can’t pull the trigger and the second when he tries to throw up the pills. But those moments, were a result of the very cowardice that led him down this path. In the final scene, the mechanism he used to inadvertently destroy Nikki, destroys him. That’s the logical conclusion of the death drive.
Nikki, Commodification, and the Death Drive
Bear’s wish transforms Nikki from the unknowable Other into a consumable object; the fantasy experience of Nikki. Just as the commodified Eros promises intimacy without risk and love without rejection, essentially the complete absence of tension, Bear’s desire is fulfilled in his wish by transforming Nikki into wish-Nikki. This renders her an object that provides a frictionless satisfaction. But because Eros depends on alterity, the fantasy immediately decays into mania. By transforming Nikki into wish-Nikki, she loses her complexities and the aspects of her that are unknowable and becomes a projection of Bear and turns into a fantastical entity that’s devoid of otherness. Bear’s pursuit of tension-less romantic fulfillment thus becomes a death-driven loop. The more he employs his weak efforts to return to that idyllic state, the further wish-Nikki gets from that point. Essentially, he’s continuously destroying the real Nikki. But he’s also destroying himself and everything around him. The climax of the film results in the deaths of Sarah, Ian, and himself. Nikki survives, but the Nikki that existed “before the flood”, so to speak, is dead.
Obsession’s True Horror
The true horror in Obsession is not Bear’s transgression of a consent-based moral framework, regardless of how bad it is. It’s the fact that the drive that led to Bear’s destruction is within the viewer. Every viewer has the potential to do what Bear did. Not necessarily in the exact same form, but we all possess the drive that can turn even the most innocent of feelings or desires into destruction. It’s comfortable to think, “Bear is a monster, I could never be Bear.” But Bear is not necessarily actively malicious. His actions are driven by the terror of radical uncertainty. Does Nikki reciprocate his feelings for her? That is the terror he experiences. However, instead of confronting it, in a moment of frustration with himself, he accidentally curses Nikki by suppressing the real Nikki for a fantasy Nikki that is devoid of what makes Nikki, Nikki.
These characters’ actions, whether malicious or not, are second order effects of, arguably, the ultimate villain; the very system they inhabit. The conditions that lead to the actions undertaken by the group are made possible by the modern paradigm. This makes Bear, to an extent, a tragic villain. The conditions which led him down this path are not solely his. This is not to diminish what Bear did, as he is responsible for conscious, malicious actions that led to his destruction.
Viewing the film from an external perspective and concluding that Bear is the villain, Nikki the victim, is the comfortable exit. You go home and think about poor Nikki and evil Bear. That’s nice and grants closure to the relation between viewer and film; it leaves the horror at the theatre. The horrifying realization is that you could be Bear, Ian, Nikki, or Sarah, and you are not innocent. At different points, we are all of these characters: Bear when we long and project our fantasies onto real people; Nikki when we preserve ambiguities because resolution can be terrifying; Ian when we manage the desires of others for our own benefit; Sarah when we sell ourselves rather than offer ourselves. Obsession is horrifying because Bear’s arc is not impossible. He begins with an apparently innocent desire: he wants the Other to accept him. But through cowardice, he refuses to confront the uncertainty of Eros. Through fantasy and selfishness, he does not want the real Nikki to return because her return would also mean the return of risk, refusal, and tension. When he calls customer support, his first desire is not to restore Nikki as the Other, but to alter the wish so that wish-Nikki returns to the idyllic fantasy-state. He wants the experience repaired, not abolished. The One Wish Willow is supernatural, but the conditions that make Bear possible are not. They already exist in the real world. The film’s true horror is that the path from innocent desire to destruction does not require magic; it requires only the right object, the right technology, and the character flaws we would rather believe are alien to us. That brings the horror home.
