Focus Features
The horror hit Obsession — which was produced for $750,000 and could potentially gross over $300 million — has produced seemingly endless positive headlines. Perhaps its first negative one has come from someone who worked on the film.
Sally Choi, an art director who goes by @kiwisupreez on Instagram, posted a lengthy account of her experience working on Obsession, revealing she was paid $300 per day for her work on the production.
Art director who worked on Obsession sparks debate about Hollywood industry norms with account of her compensation for the project
After 22 days and taxes, that came out to $6,741.36 — with no mileage reimbursement. The film, made for $750,000, is now projected to gross over $250 million.
“Obssn was made for $750K and is projected to make $250M. How much I made: $300/day as Art Director. This came out to $6741.36 after taxes. No mileage,” she wrote on IG.
“I did know the rate beforehand and agreed to it, but atp I was living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality of most filmmakers especially those who work below the line. We become a line in the budget sheet to keep as low as possible,” she continued.
“There were also crew on obssn who were volunteers, getting paid in gas and mileage. This wasn’t even paid on time, so to make a $250M grossing film, some of these amazing people had to come out of pocket to work on set. I kick myself every single day for not flipping this production. I was encouraged not to and I naively listened.” — “Flipping” is when a film production transitions from non-union to union status.
Choi’s statement on Instagram has split opinion on social media, with some arguing that she signed a deal that was fair at the time and instead should be lapping up the success of having a prominent below-the-line role on one of modern Hollywood’s greatest success stories, especially when considering she had just one previous credit on a short film.
“The Obsession art director post. Man, what a choice. One year total experience. Only credit pre-Obsession is a single short film. Sign on to a low budget indie. Agree to rate. Movie explodes. You’re suddenly the Art Director fo the most talked about film of the year. If this ever happens to you, let me give one piece of advice. Embrace it. Use the credit to fight off offers, get a BTL agent, turn those difficult three weeks into an incredible career,” one actor and filmmaker wrote on social media.
How your art director looks at you when she decides that the fair rate she consented to is retroactively unfair because the film turned out to be a massive hit. https://t.co/T0X5SobDNg pic.twitter.com/vmWffNvJAD
— Capital-O Opinions (@damespjuffy) June 6, 2026
They are not ever getting another job in the industry after this post are they? Lmao https://t.co/nis38SoPvI
— Spring Blakers (@evildeadblake) June 6, 2026
Saw OBSESSION last night and my number #1 thought while watching was, “Man, the production design is really strong, I hope that modestly compensated, new crew member gets hired on an even bigger-and-better movie and isn’t blowing their moment by being weird on social media.” https://t.co/g15rTYt8lO
— Joe Russo (@joerussotweets) June 6, 2026
Not everyone is bashing the art director, though, as others are arguing these are the exact moments that workers should be pushing for better compensation.
“Art department is an especially brutal crew. They are the first to get on set, the last to leave. No set, no shoot. Then crew heads don’t really get paid for their time. Reading the script? Free. Thinking about it? Free. Talking with the director? Free. Creative discussion, creative obsessing, detail planning on weekends. Free free free. The time on the clock is not the time on the job. $300 a day on an 18 hour day, before gas or any other expenses, is $16 an hour. The off the clock work is double that. So $8 an hour. Now save that to survive the next actor/writer strike. Is it a livable wage? Sure. In Iowa if you’re a mid level stripper. Not a film crew in LA,” one tweet in her defense read.
“Insane how many people are saying ‘she could’ve leveraged that success into something better if she just kept quiet’ when thats why nothing ever gets better. theres a million stories of people whose film didn’t make money, but hers did, she now has the ability to advocate.. good!”
“It’s crazy how quickly the masses become bootlickers when one person says hey, maybe we should think about how this system doesn’t make sense.”
I spoke with Brandon Katz, Director of Insights & Content Strategy at Greenlight Analytics, to get a better sense of whether Choi’s grievances are legitimate.
“While not unheard of, it is rare for the crew to share in the financial upside of films as profit participants. That tends to be reserved for high end stars, filmmakers, and producers. However, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon’s Artist Equity is designed to enable all who work on a film to share in the momentary success,” Katz said.
“Elsewhere, labor guilds negotiate minimum rates for many of the below the line departments in Hollywood. That’s where more upfront money and higher minimum guarantees can be negotiated. Ultimately, there’s no denying that a pay gap does exist in studio filmmaking. But the question is how best to address it. Is it higher upfront wages? Is it more opportunity for profit participation in exchange for lower wages? Better benefits, stronger residuals, etc. Reform can come in many forms, and usually requires cooperation among large unions.”
As explained by Katz, the mechanics of below-the-line film pay are largely standard throughout the industry: crew members are hired on flat day rates negotiated upfront. Once you sign the deal, that’s it — there are no backend participation clauses for below-the-line crew on standard productions, as those are usually reserved for above-the-line talent like directors, producers, and actors.
The reality is that $750,000 is simply too low a budget to make a feature film in the United States without parts of the crew working for below-market rates. If Obsession had gone union, as she suggested when alluding to “flipping the production,” payroll alone would have cost roughly twice as much — and the film might never have been finished, and Choi wouldn’t have had a career-changing role in the project.
The only surprise is that Obsession has been a massive success, not the amount of money she got paid for it, and the only reason the arrangement feels unfair now is because the film made a historically unusual amount of money — which nobody, including those who made it, predicted nor anticipated.
While some studios and producers sometimes give voluntarily “success bonuses” when a low-budget film massively over-performs, that practice is not the norm and is not guaranteed in any deals.
This doesn’t mean, however, that Choi’s broader point lacks merit: the industry-wide system of keeping below-the-line crew costs as low as possible while above-the-line talent retains all the upside is an issue (although it’s been rumored that star Inde Navarrette made just $20K for the role), but that’s just the way the business is run and isn’t one that the producers of Obsession created nor is it one they’re able to remedy now that the film is a success.