Brain Drippings (Blog)

June 15, 2026

I recently saw a new horror movie, "Obsession". I went with my friends Emma and Archie to Cinema 21, our local movie theater. While they can be fun, I'm typically not the biggest fan of the horror genre. My favorite movies are those that explore psychological or philosophical themes through a framework of plot and characters; so that these serve as an instantiation of some universal human quandary, cultural phenomenon etc. I like a movie that has me reflecting on my life as I exit the theater (or sit up bleary-eyed from my couch).

At the risk of sounding like a performative film-bro, cinema is an art form... and like any art form, it can be used for pure entertainment — pleasurable but not ultimately enriching. Plenty of that gets churned out because it makes money. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with making or consuming things that are just fun. Let entertainment just be entertainment — not everything has to or should have a deep meaning. (I could say lots more about how entertainment turns into addictive consumption and conversely about how over-intellectualization is a reactionary coping mechanism rather than an effective response — but I'll save that for a different post.) So I can enjoy a horror movie, but if it's just about a magical monster or something that bears no relevance to reality, I'll string up my disbelief, let my brain release some stimulating chemicals into my bloodstream for two hours, and not take much more from the experience.

Since the defining purpose of a horror movie is to be... well, horrifying, it's more difficult and rarer for one to both live up to its genre classification and at the same time be a good (moving, thoughtful, meaningful, etc.) work of art. Especially since horror movies usually rely on some kind of supernatural element, and while I'm fully on board with using this for metaphorical or symbolic purposes, it's a difficult thing to pull off without verging into silliness and undermining the point.

It's like the trolley problem: Are these thought experiments useful examples that ground theoretical questions, or are they just pointless distractions? Having to decide whether you'd save your loved one over the lives of five strangers might provoke ideas about the value of personal connection weighed against universal moral obligation, but specifying more detailed situations quickly sends the whole exercise spiraling into absurdity.

"Obsession" successfully blended a thought-provoking plot while also being entertaining, funny in a lot of parts, and genuinely creepy, with some well-timed jumpscares, tense moments, and gross-but-not-gratuitous levels of gore. I'm going to describe the plot of the movie from here on out, so if you haven't watched it, I recommend doing so before reading on.

The kind of sad-sack main character Bear is enamored by his coworker Nikki, but due to crippling awkwardness, can't get himself to confess his feelings to her. In a moment of despair he uses a piece of crystal-shop kitch to wish that Nikki would love him "more than anyone in the fucking world." Due to the laws of horror-movies, the wish magic ends up being real and backfires horribly.

Throughout the film, Nikki's obsession with Bear is the horror. (It's also played for laughs quite a lot.) It's a classic perversion of something we all want (love, connection) by turning it up to an unnatural and disturbing degree.

The horror comes from both Nikki and Bear's perspectives. While Nikki's love and attention was what Bear wanted, and he initially tries to enjoy Nikki's newfound affection and make things work, he becomes increasingly unable to stomach the ways in which her unmitigated love for him causes her to act.

And the horror also comes from the glimpses we keep getting of how Nikki has been robbed of her autonomy by her obsession with Bear. There are these moments where she seems to snap out of something, like she's waking up from a trance into the "real" Nikki. She looks panicked, and starts screaming that this isn't her, she doesn't know why she's acting like this. Eventually, during one of these moments of lucidity she grabs a glass and smashes it into her own face, presumably trying either to kill herself or maybe hoping that she can snap out of it permanently.

So from both parties, the subject and the object of obsession, we have this dissection of a fundamental human craving — the desire for total love; the kind of dedication to another that triumphs and transcends all else. There's a lot of talk these days about "healthy relationships" and maintaining boundaries, etc. and sure, those are practical tools to manage a relationship in the modern world with all its other demands and to maintain a power balance between two individuals. But I know that I at least can't help that I still crave this kind of ideal, total connection. I think that deep down most people do.

"Obsession" asks whether achieving that ideal is really possible, or if it were achieved, what its consequences would be. Is love "healthy" or "sane"? If unmitigated love results in a total abandonment of the self, abandonment of other priorities and values, then it seems two desires are at odds: the desire for autonomy and the desire for love.

It's a common adage that love is a sacrifice, and that's frequently manifested in smaller, mundane ways. Spending time with the person you love or doing tasks to help them requires sacrificing time you might spend furthering your own interests. But since it's assumed that one of the primary purposes of life is just to love and be loved, this kind of sacrifice is (hopefully) not seen as a bad thing. If your partner acts like they are grudgingly giving up better things to be with you, I'd say that love is probably not very strong.

But what about when you turn the sacrifice up to 100%? When Bear subsumes all of Nikki's other interests and priorities, she will do literally anything for him. She sees nothing wrong with telling him any lies that get him to stay with her, with duct taping the front door shut so that he can't leave, and ultimately, with murdering someone in cold blood because she was "going to come between [them]." This is... bad. While I want ultimate love, if that love caused me to abandon all my other values, moral or whatever (Nikki also abandons what she wanted to do in life: move to another place and start a different job) then it would be self-defeating, because it would destroy all of the other things about me that make me a person with a life that I perceive as fulfilling and worth living.

So does that mean we always need to maintain an emotional distance between ourselves and others, even the objects of our love, to retain our existence as selves capable of love and being loved? Desire is an essential part of love, yes, and if desire is fulfilled then it ceases to exist. But it seems pretty bleak to think that true connection is a limit that can only ever be aimed toward, but never reached.

The most chilling moment of "Obsession," for me, comes when Nikki and Bear are at a party with a bunch of friends, and Nikki declares to the group that "No one on this earth will ever comprehend what it feels like to love someone as much as I love you. And everyone in this room will die... never feeling the strength of connection I have felt with my Bear." And the thing is... that's true. That's what fucks with me. Despite how messed up their relationship seems from outside, despite how much "True Nikki" hates and opposes "Wish Nikki"'s feelings and actions, isn't Nikki, except for those moments of lucidity, ecstatic in some way, experiencing a kind of connection that goes beyond what the mortal human ego usually allows us?

And then, at the end of the movie, when for a brief moment Bear falls under the same spell and the two blissfully unite in their love for each other before Bear succumbs to the poison he ingested — it's terrible but must also be wonderful. It's actual true love, complete mutual relinquishment of the self. Who's to say that's worse?

P.S. Here's the screenplay of "Obsession" in case you want to check it out.