What Nikki Freeman says about horror and commodity

At Midsummer Scream this past weekend, Universal announced that Nikki Freeman, the tragic character from Curry Barker’s Obsession, has been added to the roster for their 35th year of operations. This comes after their merch release which includes a mojo bag in the name of Sinners. Who didn’t do their research on that one?

It’s no secret that I didn’t like this movie. What heightened my intolerance for it was the public response: from men who sided with Bear, women who related to the “toxic latina”, and the sensationalism that followed. I skipped over every theory video: especially the one about the cat. It was great that the general masses were excited about horror for once. But damn, didn’t it come at a cost?

What Obsession has achieved will go down in horror and film history. And I don’t wish to discredit that in talking about how the industry is exploiting it. Sally Choi, art director for the film, released a thorough statement after the film made box office records to provide transparency of the independent project she worked on. While everyone above the line gets their extra pay cut for the its success, Choi and the other hands responsible for making this film great reside below that line. She’s fighting for her next job while Universal/Blumhouse continue to make money off of the intellectual property.

Do I think the character of Nikki Freeman works for Halloween Horror Nights? Not even remotely. Those who are against it are citing the fact that she is a victim within the film. Therefore, her inclusion is in bad taste. Though I don’t align with that entirely, it’s all in how the creative operations intends to incorporate her. Scare actors are assaulted EVERY YEAR by guests who simply cannot conduct themselves. For Nikki Freeman, the newest wet nightmare for slimy men, this is the reality.

My background in marketing comes with sensitivity training by default. If you care about the audience you’re marketing to, you’re going to be mindful about the things that might stir up backlash from them. When the LA fires swept across the West Coast, I had to be mindful of even using the word “fire” in the work I was putting out. It just makes me wonder who was in the room when they decided to extract real cultural relevance from Sinners. And who didn’t speak up when Universal decided to create a caricature out of Nikki?

I find it interesting how horror cannot exist without iconography to latch onto. Slashers succeeded in the 80s and 90s because of the response to those caricatures. They’ve been trying to replicate that ever since. It’s this treatment of horror that garners unserious engagements with the genre. Even those who say they love the genre the most will dispel any claims that it’s political. Because how could someone take a knife-wielding masked killer serious? Those same people watched Nikki Freeman get split into two halves on Bear’s own accord and laughed to the tune of her “crazy girlfriend” act.

Capitalism commodifies art and extracts it of its meaning if you let it. There’s a lot that can be said about media literacy, but it’s already been said in discussion with this movie. That’s why movie discussions are so important for the old and the new. When the meaning of a film is deduced by way corporations entreat upon it, it’s in the audience to maintain its roots.

Universal couldn’t WAIT to find a way to tack Obsession onto their 35th year of operations. The way in which they announced just felt like a last minute opportunity to garner attention and money. And that’s all it is for me. I don’t believe Nikki makes a good addition for the fact that she isn’t monstrous to me. She’s a girl in a Princess Polly outfit. Let her rest and bring out the werewolves instead.