there’s something to be said about the fact that both mizi and ivan come from an inherently poor or unsafe environment, which makes them see love as survival, and survival is transactional to them. therefore, they play into personas of performative versions of themselves, mizi being the pretty and approachable girl, while ivan is the self reliant and smooth talking boy. even if they are unhappy with where they are stuck, they still maintain it, for fear of the possibility of what does happen if they step out of line.

ironically, the basis of their friendship is built around trust, and yet even when it’s misguided. people play off their relationship as a mutual understanding, but is it really like that, or is it something that wasn’t close to what it could have been. ivan, misinterpreting mizi as a cheerful and bubbly person, feels awkward at what he perceives as innocent (she isn’t), but still enjoys her company nonetheless, as he is almost never antagonistic to her. meanwhile, mizi sees ivan as a perfect prince (he’s not) that is effortlessly cool in every situation.

and yet, even in this warped perception of a bond, there’s still a mutual trust that they know they can rely on each other. mizi seems to trust ivan deeply (leaning on him when she sleeps and doing piggy back rides with him) while ivan shows no bother at her, even engaging in her antics sometimes. they see the peaceful friendship as something that doesn’t require transaction, and something they don’t need to control. it’s tragic because they are so similar, and a deep conversation would bring them much closer as friends, but mizi doesn’t see ivan as a trauma, so she doesn’t think of her as someone like her, and ivan’s self hatred makes him seek out relation to sua, because he falls for the mask that mizi plays into, as does she with him.

one of the most important parts of karma is when till shows the kids a drawing of the anakt flower, but it's the real anemone instead of a plastic recreation. narratively, showing this version of the flower to the freed children is a smart move to gain their trust and curiosity. it's a familiar flower shown in a different way — a promise of freedom. but what's more interesting is how it's used symbolically.

throughout the mv, the anakt flower is used to represent mizi, and how she views human relationships. she thinks human love is an instinct designed for the purpose of benefiting from each other, as visualised by the veins. the flower then blooms from the portraits of the losers of each round, symbolising how her continued survival is rooted in the death of others, how her beauty is a guise concealing her true, villainous love that does nothing but take.

this is why mizi makes her judgement that humanity is innately sinful, because of her overwhelming survivors guilt, all because of how anakt has taught her to relate to other people. at anakt, this is the only flower they know, and the only way of loving too.

however, the turning point comes when she realises till is alive, and decides to save him at no cost to herself. this is at odds with her perception of humanity, so it makes sense that till then redefines the meaning of the flower in the epilogue.

till often represents freedom (of expression), and it's no different here. in a garden made of simple, artificial shapes, he draws the complexities of the real world. it's the same with the anemone. instead of the one dimensional way mizi learns to view love through her grief, till draws the real flower, something alive, imperfect, and beautiful.