The independent horror film “Obsession” has become a striking example of Gen Z’s influence on the box office, grossing $300 million worldwide on a modest budget of $750,000. Directed and written by 26-year-old Curry Barker, the film marks a significant milestone as the most successful release for Focus Features and a lucrative venture for executive producer Jason Blum. Its success has also provided a boost to theaters, which typically receive approximately half of ticket revenues. However, questions have surfaced about how the film’s financial gains are shared, particularly among below-the-line crew members.
Sally Choi, the film’s art director, revealed on social media that her net earnings for roughly three weeks of work amounted to $6,714.36. She noted that she took on multiple responsibilities typical of low-budget productions and endured a physical toll during the process. Despite accepting the compensation, Choi described living paycheck to paycheck and expressed regret over not pushing for the production to be unionized, which could have offered more protections and benefits for the crew.
Choi’s disclosure has reignited longstanding debates over profit sharing in the film industry. While key creative roles often negotiate for a share of profits, crew members frequently receive fixed wages without additional participation in a project’s financial upside. Representatives for Blumhouse Productions, Barker, and Focus Features declined to comment on the matter.
Similar dynamics have played out historically in the horror genre. Eduardo Sánchez, co-creator of the 1999 film “The Blair Witch Project,” which made nearly $250 million on a $60,000 budget, recounted efforts by his team to distribute profits among contributors and rehire crew for reshoots. Sánchez acknowledged the challenge of securing his own earnings from the distributor and noted the tendency of studios to complicate profit accounting. He emphasized that while crew members can move on to subsequent jobs, filmmakers may face personal financial risk if a project fails.
Choi’s candid post received mixed reactions online. Some expressed support for her stance, while others argued that crew members do not automatically merit additional compensation when a film becomes a hit and cautioned that such public complaints could harm future job prospects. Unlike some leading cast members who negotiate profit participation—as seen with the Broadway production of “Hamilton” or actress-producer Zendaya’s 2021 film “Malcolm & Marie”—below-the-line workers rarely have access to similar arrangements.
Zack Larez, a storyboard artist and co-chair of the Young Artists Committee of the Art Directors Guild, criticized the notion that crew members do not bear financial risk in filmmaking. Speaking individually, he described how low wages in independent productions effectively amount to crew members subsidizing investor risk by forgoing fair pay. He also highlighted that the competitive nature of the industry often means workers who seek better terms can be replaced by others willing to accept less.
Film producer and Columbia University professor Mymette Louie pointed to the pressure to minimize production costs as a key driver for projects relocating outside Los Angeles and the U.S. to avoid union regulations. She encouraged cooperation between studios and unions to develop frameworks allowing for both the creation of low-budget projects and greater equity for production teams. Louie praised Choi’s acknowledgement of the unfairness in earning a low daily wage on a film that generated hundreds of millions globally, framing it as an issue deserving attention.
As “Obsession” raises these questions anew, the industry continues to grapple with balancing financial risk, fair compensation, and profit distribution among the many individuals who contribute to filmmaking beyond the spotlight.