A Film That Refused to Behave‍

‍

There’s been no shortage of reaction to Joker: Folie à Deux—and most of it, predictable. The musical framing confused audiences. The tonal shifts made them uncomfortable. It didn’t behave the way a sequel is supposed to behave. But what looked jarring on the surface revealed something else entirely underneath.

It wasn’t a musical for the character himself. Rhythm as a coping mechanism. Performance as structure. Inside the chaos, he wasn’t just unraveling—he was building a logic of his own. While the outside world saw disorder, inside his mind it was coherent. It made sense. It had shape.

What we’re witnessing isn’t just psychosis—it’s construction. A private logic taking shape inside collapse. And while his is a delusional framework, it’s still a form of authorship—one that mirrors, in a darker way, how many artists build from tension. Not to explain their pain, but to hold it. To survive it. To give it shape.

He wasn’t drowning in self-pity. He wasn’t begging to be understood. He channeled the chaos into rhythm, expression, delusion—yes—but movement.

That discomfort reminded me of something familiar—not from watching a film, but from working inside an industry that often misreads emotional intention. The response to Joker: Folie à Deux mirrored what I’ve experienced for years—not in cinematic form, but in how people have responded to my personal work. Especially within the commercial space, where expectations are shaped by trends, moodboards, and visual shorthand, there’s often little room for ambiguity.

When people approach my photography through that lens, they tend to look for a style—something replicable, legible, familiar. But my personal work was never about style. It was built to hold feeling. Tension. Narrative. That doesn’t mean the work can’t adapt across formats. But too often, the reading stops at the surface—dark tones, cinematic framing, isolated figures—without asking what those choices are actually doing.

I’ve made images that hold story. That suggest trauma without performing it. That place beauty next to collapse. And more than once, I’ve seen people pull the wrong thread. Some saw exploitation where there was only empathy. Others dismissed the work as stylized discomfort. They were looking for format—not feeling.

But the photograph, when used with intention, can do what cinema often can’t—it can stop everything. It can freeze a moment in a character’s spiral. It can hold contradiction, without needing to resolve it. And in that stillness, there’s space. To feel. To imagine. To project. Or to avoid.

The work I’ve created was never just aesthetic. It carried structure. Tension. And authorship. But for a long time, those deeper layers tended to land only with the few who were willing to sit still with an image. The wider context—especially in commercial culture—often favored immediacy over interpretation. That’s starting to shift. Slowly. But the hunger for depth is growing again.

That discomfort reminded me of something familiar—not from watching a film, but from working inside an industry that often misreads emotional intention. The response to Joker: Folie à Deux mirrored what I’ve experienced for years—not in cinematic form, but in how people have responded to my personal work. Especially within the commercial space, where expectations are shaped by trends, moodboards, and visual shorthand, there’s often little room for ambiguity.

When people approach my photography through that lens, they tend to look for a style—something replicable, legible, familiar. But my personal work was never about style. It was built to hold feeling. Tension. Narrative. That doesn’t mean the work can’t adapt across formats. But too often, the reading stops at the surface—dark tones, cinematic framing, isolated figures—without asking what those choices are actually doing.

I’ve made images that hold story. That suggest trauma without performing it. That place beauty next to collapse. And more than once, I’ve seen people pull the wrong thread. Some saw exploitation where there was only empathy. Others dismissed the work as stylized discomfort. They were looking for format—not feeling.

But the photograph, when used with intention, can do what cinema often can’t—it can stop everything. It can freeze a moment in a character’s spiral. It can hold contradiction, without needing to resolve it. And in that stillness, there’s space. To feel. To imagine. To project. Or to avoid.

The work I’ve created was never just aesthetic. It carried structure. Tension. And authorship. But for a long time, those deeper layers tended to land only with the few who were willing to sit still with an image. The wider context—especially in commercial culture—often favored immediacy over interpretation. That’s starting to shift. Slowly. But the hunger for depth is growing again.

Over the years, the visuals have evolved—but the foundation hasn’t. What I’ve always been building is emotional structure, not aesthetic decoration. Yet that’s rarely how it was received. Tension was mistaken for mood. Silence was read as emptiness. The image may have held a scene—but few were looking for a story inside it.

Part of this comes from the culture around photography itself. The medium is too often approached as shorthand—either for beauty, or branding, or a particular kind of taste. But I’ve never been interested in visual statements that resolve easily. The work I’m drawn to—the work I make—asks more than that. It withholds just enough to make you stop. And in that space, it gives you back to yourself.

Stillness, when built with intention, can create narrative. A single image can destabilize. It can hold conflict without explaining it. But only if the viewer is willing to engage beyond the surface.

I don’t aim to provoke. I aim to create tension that feels lived. That’s the difference. Not style, but authorship. Not story as concept, but story as residue—left behind in the frame, waiting to be picked up.

That reflex to read only what feels familiar doesn’t end with films or photographs—it’s built into how we consume almost everything. Complexity gets flattened into something we can name, package, and move past. Joker: Folie à Deux was quickly labeled a musical and set aside; my own work has sometimes been approached as a collection of visual tropes rather than an authored emotional structure. In the commercial space, the reverse is common—projects are built on surfaces from the start, designed for instant consumption rather than to be lived with. As more of what surrounds us is engineered for speed and scale, the hunger for work with depth will only grow—and so will the value of building true emotional architecture.

‍

Why We Struggle With the Depth We Crave

‍

People want to feel something real—yet we’ve been trained to expect that feeling in tidy, instantly legible forms. The gap lies between our craving for depth and our willingness to meet it when it resists our language. True psychological resonance often comes wrapped in dissonance, in silences, in forms that reject our shortcuts. I’ve seen it in the way my photographs—built on tension and emotional architecture—are reduced to “aesthetic,” much as Joker: Folie à Deux was dismissed as a messy musical. In both cases, the depth is there from the start but misread.

In brand storytelling, the issue is inverted: the surface is all there is—made for quick consumption, not for the slow work of connection. And as AI floods the world with frictionless, shallow content, the ability to create and sustain emotional architecture will become the rarest and most valuable thing we can offer.

Joker: Folie à Deux is built on that kind of frame. Many saw it as theatre, when in truth the songs are the internal logic of a mind in psychosis—the rhythm Arthur builds to survive. The works that stay with us—the ones we return to in different seasons of our lives—never hand us a neat translation. They give us a space to inhabit, a rhythm to breathe with—whether or not we understand it at first. And if we’re willing to stay in that space long enough, we might remember what it feels like to be alive.