There\u2019s a lot to unpack with the massive success of \u201cBackrooms\u201d and \u201cObsession\u201d: how these two low-budget movies both soared past $100 million at the box office; the YouTube-to-cinema pipeline; and what these films say about the anxieties of a younger generation. Alissa Wilkinson, a Times movie critic, and Jason Zinoman, a Times critic at large and author of \u201cShock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood and Invented Modern Horror,\u201d tackled these topics and more.<\/p>\n
ALISSA WILKINSON <\/strong>For a long time, certain statements have been repeated so often by people in suits \u2014 movie executives, various prognosticators on the Future of Movies \u2014 that I almost started to believe them myself. They said that movie theaters are an \u201coutdated concept<\/a>,\u201d that young people raised on phone-sized entertainment had busted their attention spans so thoroughly that they\u2019d never be interested in watching big-screen cinema, let alone making it.<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t ever really believed it. Here\u2019s the thing: People like movies! They like going to the movies! And while audiences, chiefly older ones, complain about the cost, the crowds, the trailers, whatever \u2014 when you get right down to it, going to the movie theater is still just about the cheapest, most fun thing you can do outside the house with your friends on a random Tuesday night.<\/p>\n That brings us to the latest moviegoing phenomenon, the double whammy of two horror films, Kane Parsons\u2019s \u201cBackrooms\u201d and Curry Barker\u2019s \u201cObsession.\u201d Both directors are Gen Z; both got their start on YouTube; both worked with exceptionally low budgets and made a ton; and both have been wildly successful in ways that studio filmmakers can only dream of.<\/p>\n The very creepy \u201cBackrooms\u201d is based on a 4chan meme that turned into a series of viral YouTube videos. It\u2019s now A24\u2019s biggest opening ever, tripling the studio\u2019s previous best. It made over $80 million in North America on its opening weekend on a budget of just under $10 million. And, to boggle the mind even more, Parsons is turning 21 this month.<\/p>\n Barker, known for his sketch comedy, shot his film for under $1 million, and when it opened in May, it did better than expected, but then it did something crazy: It kept snowballing. Usually we measure the success of a movie by how much it drops in its second weekend \u2014 a small drop means it\u2019s doing well \u2014 but the word of mouth on this film is so good that it\u2019s been growing each weekend. It\u2019s already made well over $100 million in North America, the white whale number for any movie, and who knows how much it will make by the time this is all over.<\/p>\n And the audiences for these films have been very young. I\u2019m 42, and when I went to see both of these movies (on a Monday and Tuesday night, in sold-out crowds), I was definitely the elder in the room.<\/p>\n I have some hunches about what this all means, and what lessons the success of these two movies should teach Hollywood. I also suspect I know what lessons Hollywood will take from this. But first, Jason, you\u2019re the expert on this genre. What do you think of these two films as horror films?<\/p>\n JASON ZINOMAN <\/strong>Horror\u2019s primary obligation is, of course, to terrify \u2014 and \u201cObsession\u201d did the job for me with savvy, slick misdirection and a willingness to go for the jugular. It has five or six truly unsettling scares, most thanks to a remarkable herky-jerky performance by Inde Navarrette. It\u2019s an Oscar-worthy turn that has pieces of Mia Goth from \u201cPearl\u201d and Betty Gabriel in \u201cGet Out\u201d while remaining all her own.<\/p>\n Her character is often bathed in shadow, lit ominously as if she\u2019s the monster, but this is one of several of the tricks being played on the viewer. The reason this movie has become catnip for the discourse is not just the shocks, but the deft way Barker sets up and exploits commonplace anxieties about dating, consent, a nerdy male strain of narcissistic insecurity, clingy partners and, most effectively, that vulnerable moment when you are alone with someone you have a crush on and are nervously considering telling them how you feel.<\/p>\n \u201cBackrooms\u201d is more abstract, cerebral and cruder: A haunted house movie leaning hard on eerie vibes. Whereas \u201cObsessed\u201d roots its Monkey\u2019s Paw premise in persuasive realism, the padded-out script of \u201cBackrooms,\u201d whose dialogue lacks the mystery and subtext of its images, fritters away some of the power of the creepy maze referred to in the title. I thought the original nine-minute video<\/a> the movie is adapted from was scarier. What do you think and do these movies share qualities outside of young directors, shoestring budgets and booming box offices?<\/p>\n WILKINSON <\/strong>\u201cObsession\u201d gripped me much more, and not just because it\u2019s funnier (though they\u2019re both funny, in their own way). It uses some classic horror imagery while also tapping into the often horrifying feelings that come with trying to date someone! But I also just kept laughing.<\/p>\n In that way, it reminded me of the films of another young(ish) breakout horror director, Zach Cregger, whose movies \u201cBarbarian\u201d and \u201cWeapons\u201d have been hits and also bear the marks of his background as a sketch comedy guy. Cregger, who is older than Barker or Parsons, came up by performing with his troupe and then getting picked up for a TV series. Thinking about them in the same vein got me ruminating. Barker and Parsons are hardly unique. Earlier this year, for instance, the action film \u201cIron Lung\u201d did well; it\u2019s based on a video game, but was directed by Mark Edward Fischbach, better known as \u201cMarkiplier<\/a>\u201d on YouTube, where he had previously played the game for his viewers and directed several shorts.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s \u201cTalk to Me,\u201d a 2022 A24 hit directed by the brothers Danny and Michael Philippou, who were known first for their YouTube horror shorts. And have we forgotten Bo Burnham, one of the earliest YouTube stars, who went on to direct the terrific 2018 feature \u201cEighth Grade\u201d and made one of the best, weirdest works of pandemic art in 2021, \u201cInside\u201d? (Technically neither of these are horror, though you might make the argument!)<\/p>\n What do all of these have in common? Yes, they were made by young directors \u2014 young, mostly white men, in fact. But I think the real story is in how they became successes. In each case, they brought an audience, built from the grass roots, along with them to the big screen. That audience didn\u2019t really come because they saw a trailer and thought, I want to see a movie about that. They came because they\u2019d already bought into these creators\u2019 work.<\/p>\n This is true of big directors too: \u201cThe Odyssey\u201d is going to be one of the biggest films of the summer not because the people are crying out for Homer, but because Christopher Nolan directed it. So there\u2019s a lesson here about building audience, and importantly, building a younger audience. Hollywood has always survived by appealing to the youth segment. It\u2019s just that executives often are hopelessly out of touch with what young people actually want, how they experience media, what they\u2019re looking for.<\/p>\n What do you think?<\/p>\n ZINOMAN <\/strong>When it comes to your point on audience building, I was thinking about YouTube comedians. As the power of gatekeepers wane, comics who already have followers have gotten the opportunities, and this shift can be a double-edged sword. It incentivizes artists to be good on social media before the stage or the big screen. And we must say that \u201cBackrooms\u201d is incredibly well-known intellectual property for young people. It means more to my kids than \u201cFriday the 13th\u201d or \u201cDracula.\u201d So, its success in some ways comes from the same place as that of a Marvel movie, but for a crowd raised on YouTube.<\/p>\n That said, what\u2019s interesting to me about these movies is not what\u2019s new about them \u2014 horror is always popular \u2014 but how they rediscover some essentials from the past. There\u2019s been much talk of liminal horror in the \u201cBackrooms\u201d conversation, but the in between has always been a focus of scary movies. You could say Michael Myers is a liminal space. Not human, but not exactly supernatural either. And his costume and mask give him the same blankness as these underdecorated, yellowing rooms. And their lack of definition gives us space to read into him. This is a movie that is fun to mull over because it grasps (for the most part) the most important insight in the history of horror: The scariest thing is the unknown. There is a refreshing lack of lore in both of these movies.<\/p>\n