At 26, former YouTube prankster Curry Barker made a horror film for $750,000, sold it at TIFF for $14 million (a festival record), and watched it become Focus Features' highest-grossing film ever. A studio is now offering $10 million for his next project. In California, about half of that goes to taxes.
$14M Acquisition · $224M Box Office · $10M Next Deal · CA TaxCurry Barker was a YouTube content creator before he was a filmmaker. At 26, he wrote, directed, and edited a horror film called Obsession with a budget of approximately $750,000, shooting in just 20 days with a mostly unknown cast. He took it to the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2025, and Focus Features acquired it for approximately $14 million — the highest price ever paid for a film at TIFF, surpassing Get Out.
It then went on to gross over $224 million worldwide, becoming Focus Features' highest-grossing film of all time, approaching Blair Witch Project territory for budget-to-gross ratio. The story of how the money flows from there — and how much the government takes at each step — is a masterclass in how film industry income actually works.
This is the most concrete figure we know about Curry Barker's personal income from his Obsession
Directing/producing deal gross $10,000,000 Standard deduction −$16,100 Federal taxable income $9,983,900 Federal income tax (~36.5% effective) −$3,649,000 California state income tax (13.3% top) −$1,330,000 Medicare (1.45% + 0.9% Additional) −$233,200 Social Security (capped) −$11,439 After-tax take-home ~$4,776,000
Art director Sally Choi went public this week revealing she was paid $6,741 for her work on Obsession — a film that has now grossed over $224 million. The disclosure sparked a wave of conversations about how money flows (or doesn't) from indie productions to the people who make them. Here's what her $6,741 and Barker's millions look like through the tax lens — with a surprising twist.
These scenarios are illustrative — they show how structural decisions about state residency and deal terms affect what a filmmaker actually keeps. Actual tax outcomes depend on legal domicile, income sourcing rules, deal structure, and professional advice. Not financial or legal advice.
California's 13.3% income tax applies to income earned while working in California, regardless of where a filmmaker lives. If Curry Barker structured his next production in Texas (or another no-income-tax state) AND established legal residency there, the income from that production would not be subject to California state income tax. Many directors and producers have made exactly this move as their careers have scaled.
After 37% federal, 13.3% CA, and Medicare. California takes $1.33M of the $10M.
Same federal and Medicare taxes. Texas takes $0. An extra $1.33M stays in Barker's pocket.
Over a career: If Curry Barker earns $50M+ in directing fees over the next decade, the California vs. Texas difference compounds to $6.65 million in saved state income taxes. That's roughly nine Obsession-budget films he could self-finance with the money saved from state taxes alone. Note: California has aggressive rules for determining residency — simply filming elsewhere is not enough to escape CA tax if you live there.
→ See California vs. Texas take-home on any salaryThe $14M Focus Features acquisition was taxed as ordinary income to the production company (and, in turn, to Barker on his equity share). But film rights, like other intellectual property, can sometimes qualify for long-term capital gains treatment if held as a capital asset for more than one year before sale — potentially cutting the federal rate from 37% to 20%. Obsession was produced and sold within roughly the same fiscal year, so short-term treatment likely applied. But this illustrates why some producers deliberately hold film rights for 12+ months before selling.
37% federal + 13.3% CA = ~52% combined rate. On a $4M personal equity share: $1.9M after taxes.
20% federal LTCG + 13.3% CA (CA taxes all capital gains as ordinary) = ~33.3% combined. Same $4M: $2.7M kept.
California's catch: California is one of the few states that does NOT offer a lower rate for capital gains — all investment income is taxed at the same 13.3% top rate as wages. So the savings here come entirely from the federal rate (37% → 20%), not the state rate. A filmmaker in Texas would capture the full benefit of the lower federal capital gains rate, while a California resident still pays 13.3% on the gain regardless of how long it was held.
→ How the State Move strategy works for high earnersCurry Barker's exact personal earnings from Obsession are not publicly disclosed. The $14 million TIFF acquisition went to the production company. His personal take depends on his equity stake — estimated at $2–4 million before taxes if he held a 20–30% interest. After California's 52% combined rate, his personal after-tax take from the acquisition might be approximately $1–2 million. The clearest public figure is the $10 million offer for his next film, which would yield approximately $4.78 million after taxes.
A California-based director earning $10 million faces a federal top rate of 37%, California's 13.3% (the highest state rate in the US), plus Medicare (1.45% + 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax above $200,000). Combined effective rate at $10 million: approximately 52%. On $10 million, about $5.22 million goes to taxes and $4.78 million is kept.
Art director Sally Choi's $6,741 reflects the flat-rate reality of non-union or low-budget independent production: crew members are paid a set fee for their work, with no equity or backend participation. The upside belongs to whoever owns equity in the production — in this case, the production company and its investors. Ironically, at $6,741, Choi owes zero federal income tax (below the $16,100 standard deduction) and keeps approximately 91% of what she earned. The issue isn't her tax rate — it's her lack of ownership in what she helped create.
A film acquisition is generally taxed as ordinary business income to the production company in the year received. If structured as a sale of a capital asset held for more than one year, it might qualify for long-term capital gains rates at the federal level (20% vs. 37%). However, California taxes all capital gains as ordinary income at its top rate (13.3%), regardless of holding period. Production companies and their investors typically structure these deals with tax counsel to optimize treatment.
Curry Barker's net worth is not publicly disclosed. Before Obsession, he was a YouTube content creator. After the film's success, he has significant new income potential through directing fees, equity participation, and future deals. If his equity share of the acquisition netted him $1–2 million after taxes, and the $10 million next-film deal nets ~$4.78 million, his estimated net worth following Obsession would be in the range of $5–10 million, with substantial future earning potential as a newly in-demand director.
Obsession was produced for approximately $750,000. Focus Features acquired it for $14 million — an 18.7× return on production cost at the acquisition alone. The film went on to gross over $224 million worldwide, a return of approximately 299× the production budget. This places it among the most profitable films relative to budget in recent film history, comparable to Get Out (57× budget) and approaching Blair Witch Project territory (4,133× budget).
A $10 million single-deal payment in California, after federal (37%), state (13.3%), and Medicare taxes, yields approximately $4.78 million — about 47.8 cents kept per dollar. By comparison, a $100,000 salary in California yields about $67,000 after taxes (~67 cents per dollar). The higher income faces a significantly higher combined rate because more dollars fall into the 37% federal bracket and 13.3% California bracket. The first dollar earned above $640,600 goes to the 37% federal bracket; the first dollar above $1 million in California goes to 13.3% state — nearly every dollar of a $10M deal hits both.
Income earned from California-based productions is generally subject to California income tax regardless of where the filmmaker lives. However, if Barker establishes legal residency in a no-income-tax state (Texas, Florida, Nevada, Washington) AND structures his next production there, he could avoid California income tax on that production's income. On a $10M deal, that's $1.33 million in savings. California aggressively audits residents claiming to have moved — genuine domicile change (primary home, driver's license, voter registration, business location) is required, not just spending a few months elsewhere.
Whether you're earning $75,000 or $10 million, California's 13.3% top rate reshapes every dollar. See the numbers for your income.
California Take-Home Calculator →All figures sourced from public reporting by The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Variety, The Tab, LADBible, and Yahoo Finance as of June 2026. Curry Barker's personal earnings from the Obsession acquisition are not publicly disclosed; estimates are based on typical indie film equity structures and are illustrative only. Tax calculations use 2026 IRS federal brackets and California 2025 rates. Not financial or legal advice.