The first is the way the film blurs the distinction between non-representation and representation. It begins with a shot of abstract, fuzzy lights that were presumably created directly on the film; it then cuts to a shot of a flower-filled field. The use of a match-cut rather than a dissolve maintains a sufficient difference between the two shots to distinguish the ontological roles of the images, but there is such a striking similarity between them that those roles are made ambiguous. Later, there’s a shot of a metallic object standing on a rotating disk, such that the object appears periodically in the frame. When the object isn’t present, the frame contains only an abstract play of light and shadow, but when the object appears, it is obvious that we are viewing a physical scene. The shot hence periodically morphs between non-representation and representation, such that each is contained in the other.