Hey hey, I’ve got another dispatch from the trenches of Springfest for ya! We’ll call this duo of reviews AMAZING/AWFUL. You’ll see why.
Obsession (dir. Curry Barker)
On its surface, the latest from sketch comic turned filmmaker Curry Barker, is yet another “be careful what you wish for” horror parable, but what gives this nasty piece of work a more thoughtful and modern edge is that it may be the first within the subgenre to not just explore the avaricious shortsightedness of the wisher, but also the effects it has on the wishee. In doing so, Barker is able to weave in themes of consent and agency. It’s a film that immediately merits a second viewing, and having seen it twice now, I can only imagine what discoveries await me on the inevitable third round.
Bear (Michael Johnston) has a big ‘ol crush on Nikki (Inde Navarrette), but he’s way too timid to breach the contract of a well-established friendship by making a move. He comes close multiple times, and does so in that frustrating way that fuels the first act of most rom-coms. But this is far from a rom-com. Bear soon comes across a “One Wish Willow,” which he initially buys for Nikki as a sort of gag gift. It’s the type of knickknack that one could pick up at a store that sells overpriced rocks with “good vibes.” The Willow claims to grant its user one wish. In a frustrated, half-serious moment, Bear uses the novelty toy to wish that Nikki would love him “more than anyone in the whole world.”
Much to his surprise, it works. But as these things go, it doesn’t quite work in the way he planned.
(Wishmaster hive, rise up!)
Obsession is an exercise in audience intimidation, making clear the connection between comedy and horror (even if, as indicated by the producer during the post-screening Q&A, the comedy was an unintended byproduct of the aggressive discomfort heaped upon the crowd). Both art forms are based around a sort of bait-and-switch, in which an audience is led down a familiar path and then yanked on an unforseeable hard left turn. As such, both comedy and horror have a sort of “punchline,” and Obsession has a consistent structure of visual reveals where the edit is used to antagonize the audience.
The density of the script leads to lingering terror, and hopefully to thought-provoking discussion, but none of it works without the duo of pitch perfect performances at its center. Bear is likable enough to root for, and Johnston sells both his character’s timidity, and his arc of self-realization — maybe he’s not the “good guy” that he always thought himself to be.
Nikki is a character who we only know for a short while before she becomes the corrupted entity of Bear’s wish. Using minimal screen time, Navarrette quickly establishes who Nikki is. And once she is affected by the One Wish Willow, her performance enters the canon of Horror Greats. It’s a big, loud, impressively physical role that requires on-a-dime modulation. It’s a role that any actor would kill for, but few could execute with such color and awareness of how each and every move relates to the theme.
As of just yesterday, Curry Barker was put in charge of the next Texas Chainsaw movie, and while I’d love to see more of his original work e as thee than losing him to franchise bondage, I’m positive that Leatherface and fam are in very good, blood-soaked hands.
The Napa Boys (dir. Nick Corirossi)
This sorry excuse for entertainment is easily one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in my whole godforsaken life. I’m still mad at myself for not walking out. I’m still mad at myself for arranging my festival schedule in such a way as to accommodate for its sole screening slot. I’m still mad at myself for convincing my friends to stay out late for one more movie, and I am ready to accept whatever punishment they see fit for my transgression, although I can think of no punishment worse than watching this lazy, worthless attempt at anti-comedy.
And that’s perhaps the most frustrating thing about this hot dog belch of a movie: by self-categorizing as anti-comedy, fans can dismiss all legitimate criticism as “you just didn’t get it” and “it’s supposed to be bad!”
But here’s the thing: I did get it. I do get it.
…but I don’t think the filmmakers get it.
The Napa Boys is posited as the fourth film in a long running teen comedy franchise. Now the titular group of wine-drinking boys are all grown up, and their franchise has moved to the direct-to-DVD market of the early aughts (a market populated by, as I’m sure you can remember, shitty standalone comedies with an American Pie label stamped above their title). As such, this movie is poorly made, poorly scripted, poorly acted, and filled with “in-jokes” for fans of the faux-franchise. The Napa Boys embraces this concept for about 10-15 minutes before abandoning the parody and using it instead as an excuse to do random, unfunny shtick with little to no connection to the purported framing device.
John Waters once stated that he’ll only ever make fun of something he loves, and watching The Napa Boys it’s clear why this rule is valuable (although not hard and fast in my estimation). The filmmakers behind this clearly have no reverence for the thing they claim to be parodying (and really, I challenge you to find someone who has any sort of love for that specific brand straight-to-DVD teen sex comedies), so instead of poking fun at the form, they end up just making a shittier version of an already shitty thing. And if you don’t like it, you don’t get it, nerd!
This leads to a theatrical experience where people are laughing at the movie not because it’s funny, but because they would like to be seen by others as “getting the joke.” It’s a circle jerk of idiots trying to impress one another by pretending their idiocy is brilliance. I Imagine the writing process for The Napa Boys was similar.
