delulu garden

** please note that this analysis will center mizi as an object of idolization; i am not discussing ivantill in this particular analysis, as this piece primarily has to do with misogyny. let's go in with the knowledge that mizi = till's conscious mind, and ivan = till's unconscious mind.

as our introduction to till, "unknown till the end" lays the groundwork for his character, establishing the following: the commodification of till's rebellion, his use of violence as a means to exert control, and his crush on mizi as an escapist fantasy.

till's love songs, utte and mi vida loca, use mizi as a vehicle to externalize his desire for intimacy, affection, and closeness, without endangering himself by cultivating these things through intentional action. mizi's static image as an unattainable paragon of love makes her an eternal fount of inspiration, and an ostensibly unchanging foundation on which to ground himself. her disappearance at the conclusion of round 5 violently destablizies him, as the cornerstone of his mental stability and the conduit for his creative expression is seemingly destroyed. a dreamy, conjured mizi, the comfort of his conscious mind, reaches out to him in his delirium, while ivan, the steady presence in his subconscious, physically comforts him through it. he fails to truly see them because of his fears.

till laments the paralyzing effect of his self-hatred and fear of abandonment when he highlights the distance he places between himself and the object of his affections ("i feel so pathetic / whenever i stand in front of you. i can't say a word, i turn back around everyday"). still, till understands, albeit subconsciously, that this distance permits his fantasies to exist and these fantasies fuel his music, which in turn secures his continued survival ("my light is born from you").

till maintains distance from mizi and sua while modeling his idea of love after theirs. this distance is illustrated through outdoors/indoors imagery, with mizisua freely expressing themselves to one another in the sunlit garden while till conceals himself in a dim corridor. mizi's success is shared with her partner. till's success is solitary, and shared with noone.

till's idolization of mizi fundamentally denies her interiority: her personality, desires, insecurities—even her aspirations to reciprocate his friendship. his idolization is a solitary act with a single beneficiary: till. his confession to her secures his victory in round 2, as till humiliates both his competitor (acorn) and his segyein subjugater (urak) by betraying the agreement to duet.

till's treatment of acorn mirrors his attitude toward mizi in that he disregards them as individuals to ensure his own survival, not with malicious intent, but with an egocentric need for control (after being victimized by urak for so long) that produces violence by virtue of living in a power hierarchy. he denies acorn the victory by taking away his chance to perform, to speak. he takes away mizi's ability to really talk and connect with him by maintaining distance (he is always quiet and red-faced when they're together, and struggles to ask her even one question). in utte, he makes her "audience" to his on-stage confession rather than disclose his feelings in a personal and honest way. importantly, she cannot respond. upon literal threat of death, till professes his feelings to a bereaved mizi whose internal world has been upended with the fulfillment of sua's wish. his survival in the power hierarchy is reliant on abstracting mizi into a fantasy that cannot leave or hurt him, a static image that does not act autonomously, which he can always draw upon.

the "zombie" in zombie stage is easy to comprehend when you cast off preconceptions about what zombies are typically like in other media. it is said explicitly in the trailer: they are essentially a new group of people for the upper class to exploit, placed even lower than the lowest existing class in society. undead and inhuman, they are the ideal worker.

there is also specific emphasis put on the upper class being physically "upstairs", and the underworld that is literally "underground" with the lower class, as seen by one of the shots in zomst r1. we also see the zombie being sold from the top down, juxtaposed with a rat mizi kills - just like in alien stage, the aliens (humans), and now zombies, form the lowest rung, and are treated as animals.

another aspect is how infection works and does. infection consists of the body turning into gemstone. these parts are subsequently cut off, framed or sold as regular practice within the idol industry. the idols are literally objectified - they turn into the physical product that is sold, which in turn chips away at their humanity.

infection seems to spread via a single bite, as literally written in the screenshot above. additionally, the infection pattern shares a similar shape to the 'roots/veins' mizi conceptualises relationships as in karma. it is then no surprise that zombification is shown as a result of sexual violence, that which strips away autonomy and leaves you unmoored from yourself. infection is inherently the crossing of boundaries, the undermining of interiority, and the corruption of intimacy. the trauma inflicted and then exploited by the industry is the centrepiece of zombie stage. in this universe, there are no zombies without the discussion of sexual abuse, and of class.

alnst uses imagery, symbolism, and metaphor for efficient communication of ideas. in karma, the anakt flower is introduced with its roots feeding off other children - love as exploitation. mizi narrates this exact idea, and if you are also paying attention to what is happening in the video you are watching, you can connect these two things together and understand them as one. then, it's extremely clear that the open question Isaac leaves for the audience at the end is answered, at least partially, by till showing rescued children his drawing of the real version of the fake anakt flower. it is all in front of your eyes. you just have to connect the dots laid out for you.

the second pitfall is the inability to engage with the text on a level that doesn't require falling back to searching for a diegetic answer to an often metaphorical question. people can often pick themes apart using a character as base, but cannot extrapolate it out to a broader theme that encompasses more than just an in-universe understanding of how a character feels. why does till show a drawing of a flower to the children? is he stupid? the mistake lays in trying to engage with this as an in-universe action of till's. the fact that he drew a flower in his notebook is mostly unremarkable. I'm so glad he has access to coloured pencils now. however, as mentioned earlier, if you are able to engage with this on a symbolic and thematic level, it becomes immediately clear what it means. the flowers the children knew were all fake, and till can now emulate the real. the children are free, and their worldview opens up as their world does - they can start loving without exploitation as the sole basis of all relationships.

tu fui; ego eris. what you are, I once was; what I am, you will be.