Friday, 27 February 2026

Film Screening: Humans in the Loop (2024) – Directed by Aranya Sahay

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's worksheet for background reading: Click here.

Humans In The Loop | Official Trailer: 



TASK 1 — AI, BIAS, & EPISTEMIC REPRESENTATION



AI, Bias, and Epistemic Representation: A Critical Reflection on Humans in the Loop (2024)


Introduction


Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop (2024) offers a rare cinematic intervention into the invisible human infrastructures that sustain artificial intelligence (AI). Set in a remote Adivasi village in Jharkhand, the film centres on Nehma, an indigenous woman employed as a data labeler for a global technology company. Tasked with annotating images, identifying objects, and categorizing cultural signs, Nehma participates in the training of machine-learning systems that will eventually operate in contexts far removed from her lived reality. Yet, paradoxically, her presence within the technological apparatus remains socially erased. Through its subtle narrative, restrained aesthetic, and ethnographic realism, the film interrogates how AI systems reproduce cultural biases, reinforce epistemic hierarchies, and obscure the human labour underlying digital automation.

This essay critically analyzes how Humans in the Loop represents the relationship between technology and human knowledge, focusing specifically on two interrelated questions: first, how the film exposes algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical; and second, how it highlights epistemic hierarchies—namely, whose knowledge is recognized, valued, and encoded within technological systems. Drawing on theoretical concepts from film studies, including apparatus theory, representation, ideology, and power relations, the essay argues that the film frames AI not as a neutral technological tool but as an ideological apparatus that absorbs, distorts, and commodifies marginalized knowledge systems. By situating technological production within postcolonial, gendered, and classed labour relations, Sahay’s film destabilizes dominant narratives of digital progress and foregrounds the politics of knowledge embedded in machine intelligence.

AI and the Myth of Technological Neutrality

Mainstream representations of AI often construct technology as objective, rational, and neutral. Popular media narratives—from Hollywood science fiction to corporate advertising—frequently portray algorithms as self-learning, autonomous, and detached from human prejudice. Such depictions perpetuate what Safiya Noble (2018) calls the “myth of technological neutrality,” wherein algorithmic systems are assumed to transcend human bias. Humans in the Loop directly challenges this myth by foregrounding the human processes that produce machine intelligence.

In the film, Nehma and her co-workers spend long hours labeling images: distinguishing objects, identifying gestures, classifying facial expressions, and categorizing everyday scenes. These acts of classification, though seemingly mechanical, involve interpretative judgement deeply rooted in cultural contexts. When Nehma hesitates over categorizing certain images—such as tribal rituals, forest landscapes, or domestic practices—the film reveals that meaning is neither universal nor fixed. Instead, knowledge emerges from situated perspectives shaped by history, culture, and lived experience.

By emphasizing the subjective dimension of data labeling, the film exposes algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical. The algorithm learns to “see” the world through the interpretive frameworks provided by its human trainers. Yet, paradoxically, the indigenous knowledge that informs this training is subsequently erased, subsumed under the abstract authority of machine objectivity. This dynamic mirrors what Ruha Benjamin (2019) describes as the “New Jim Code,” wherein technological systems reproduce racial and social hierarchies under the guise of neutrality.

Narrative Structure and Algorithmic Bias

The narrative structure of Humans in the Loop deliberately mirrors the repetitive, cyclical nature of data labour. Scenes of Nehma’s daily routine—waking early, commuting to the AI centre, labeling images, returning home, performing domestic chores—create a rhythm of mechanical monotony. This formal repetition reflects the algorithmic logic of machine learning, which depends on massive volumes of repetitive data inputs.

Yet within this monotony, moments of narrative disruption expose the cultural limitations embedded in algorithmic classification. In one key sequence, Nehma struggles to label an image depicting a forest ritual unfamiliar to standardized datasets. The supervisors instruct her to choose from predefined categories that fail to capture the cultural specificity of the scene. This moment illustrates how algorithmic systems enforce epistemic standardization, privileging dominant cultural frameworks while marginalizing indigenous epistemologies.

Here, the film demonstrates that bias emerges not merely from flawed programming but from the epistemic assumptions underlying data classification systems. As Bowker and Star (1999) argue, classification is never neutral; it always reflects power relations, cultural priorities, and ideological assumptions. In Humans in the Loop, the algorithm’s inability to recognize indigenous practices reveals the structural violence of epistemic exclusion. Knowledge that does not conform to dominant categories becomes invisible, misrepresented, or erased.

Epistemic Hierarchies and Knowledge Extraction

One of the film’s most significant interventions lies in its critique of epistemic hierarchies—the unequal valuation of different knowledge systems. While Nehma’s labour and cultural insight are essential for training AI, her epistemic authority remains unacknowledged. She functions as a data-producing subject rather than a knowledge-producing agent. Her interpretations are absorbed into the algorithmic system, stripped of authorship, and rebranded as machine intelligence.

This dynamic reflects broader structures of data colonialism, wherein knowledge extracted from marginalized communities is appropriated by global capital. As Couldry and Mejias (2019) argue, contemporary data practices replicate colonial patterns of resource extraction, with human experience serving as raw material for technological accumulation. In Humans in the Loop, the AI centre becomes a site of epistemic extraction, transforming indigenous ways of seeing into commodified data. The film also foregrounds the gendered dimensions of epistemic marginalization. Nehma’s labour is doubly invisibilized—both as indigenous and as female. Her caregiving responsibilities, emotional labour, and domestic work remain unrecognized, paralleling the undervaluation of her cognitive contributions to AI systems. Through this portrayal, the film aligns with feminist critiques of digital labour that highlight how technological economies disproportionately rely on feminized, racialized, and precarious workforces.

Apparatus Theory and Technological Ideology

Apparatus theory, as articulated by Jean-Louis Baudry (1970) and later developed within film studies, examines how cinematic technologies produce ideological effects by positioning spectators within specific perceptual and cognitive frameworks. In Humans in the Loop, the technological apparatus extends beyond the cinematic medium to include the AI systems depicted within the narrative. The film thus becomes a meta-reflection on how technological systems shape perception, knowledge, and power.

The AI interface—depicted through sterile screens, rigid workflows, and standardized prompts—functions as an ideological apparatus that disciplines human cognition. Nehma must adapt her ways of seeing to align with algorithmic logic, suppressing cultural nuance in favour of standardized classification. This process mirrors the cinematic apparatus, which similarly structures spectatorship through framing, editing, and narrative conventions. By drawing this parallel, the film suggests that both cinema and AI participate in ideological production. Just as cinema historically reinforced dominant worldviews, AI systems now encode and circulate hegemonic epistemologies. The film’s minimalist aesthetic, long takes, and restrained camera movement resist spectacle, instead inviting critical reflection on the processes of representation themselves. This formal strategy disrupts passive consumption and encourages viewers to interrogate the ideological underpinnings of technological progress.

Representation, Power, and the Politics of Visibility

Representation, as Stuart Hall (1997) argues, is not merely a reflection of reality but a constitutive process through which meaning is produced. In Humans in the Loop, representation operates on multiple levels: the representation of indigenous life, the representation of technological labour, and the representation of AI itself. By centring Nehma’s perspective, the film subverts dominant narratives that either exoticize tribal communities or erase them altogether.

Crucially, the film avoids romanticizing indigenous culture. Instead, it situates Nehma within complex socio-economic constraints, highlighting her aspirations, vulnerabilities, and agency. Her participation in AI labour is portrayed not as empowerment but as survival, shaped by structural inequality. This nuanced representation challenges neoliberal discourses that frame digital inclusion as inherently liberatory. At the same time, the film foregrounds the politics of visibility. While AI systems are celebrated as cutting-edge innovations, the human labour behind them remains hidden. Nehma’s invisibility within the technological narrative mirrors the broader erasure of marginalized workers from digital imaginaries. By rendering this labour visible, Humans in the Loop performs a counter-hegemonic act of representation, reclaiming narrative space for subaltern subjects.

Algorithmic Bias as Cultural Translation

One of the film’s most compelling insights lies in its portrayal of algorithmic bias as a problem of cultural translation. The process of converting lived experience into machine-readable data necessitates simplification, abstraction, and standardization. This translation inevitably distorts meaning, privileging dominant cultural frameworks over localized knowledge. For instance, when Nehma is instructed to label facial expressions using predefined emotional categories, she encounters difficulty mapping complex affective states onto rigid taxonomies. Indigenous emotional expressions, shaped by collective rituals and ecological relationships, resist reduction into universalized categories. This tension exposes the epistemic violence inherent in algorithmic systems that impose Western-centric models of cognition and affect.

Such moments resonate with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s (1988) critique of epistemic violence, wherein subaltern knowledge is systematically overwritten by dominant discourses. In Humans in the Loop, AI becomes a contemporary site of such violence, translating diverse human experiences into homogenized data forms that serve corporate interests.

Power Relations and Digital Capitalism

The film situates AI development within global circuits of capital, exposing the asymmetrical power relations that structure technological production. The AI centre in Jharkhand operates as a peripheral node within a transnational network, supplying data to corporate headquarters located elsewhere. This spatial disjunction underscores the neo-colonial dynamics of digital capitalism, wherein value is extracted from the Global South to fuel technological innovation in the Global North.

Nehma’s labour exemplifies what Marxist theorists describe as alienation. She contributes to the creation of advanced technologies without access to their benefits or understanding their broader implications. The film thus critiques the rhetoric of technological democratization, revealing how digital economies reproduce class stratification and labour exploitation. Furthermore, the contractual precarity of Nehma’s employment highlights the vulnerability of platform-based labour. Lacking job security, social protection, or recognition, her work exists within a shadow economy that sustains AI innovation while remaining socially invisible. Through this depiction, the film aligns with critical studies of digital labour that emphasize the exploitative underpinnings of automation.

Ethical Implications and Cinematic InterventionBeyond its socio-political critique, Humans in the Loop raises profound ethical questions about the future of AI. By revealing the human labour embedded within machine intelligence, the film challenges dominant narratives of autonomy and efficiency. It compels viewers to confront the moral implications of delegating cognitive authority to systems shaped by unequal power relations. Cinematically, the film adopts a slow, contemplative pace that resists the accelerationist ethos of digital culture. This aesthetic choice invites ethical reflection, encouraging viewers to dwell on the human costs of technological progress. The film thus functions not merely as representation but as ethical intervention, fostering critical consciousness about the politics of AI.

Conclusion

Humans in the Loop offers a powerful critique of artificial intelligence by situating technological development within complex networks of human labour, cultural knowledge, and power relations. Through its nuanced portrayal of algorithmic bias as culturally situated, the film dismantles the myth of technological neutrality, revealing how AI systems encode social hierarchies and epistemic exclusions. By foregrounding epistemic hierarchies, it exposes whose knowledge counts in technological systems and whose is rendered invisible.

Drawing on apparatus theory, representation studies, and critical political economy, this essay has argued that the film conceptualizes AI as an ideological apparatus that absorbs, standardizes, and commodifies marginalized epistemologies. In doing so, Humans in the Loop not only critiques digital capitalism but also reclaims narrative space for subaltern subjects whose labour sustains technological modernity.

Ultimately, the film compels us to rethink the ethics of AI development, urging a reorientation toward epistemic justice, cultural plurality, and social accountability. In an era increasingly dominated by algorithmic governance, Humans in the Loop stands as a vital cinematic intervention that reminds us that behind every intelligent machine lies a network of human lives, stories, and struggles.


TASK 2 — LABOR & THE POLITICS OF CINEMATIC VISIBILITY


Introduction

In the contemporary digital economy, labour increasingly takes forms that are simultaneously omnipresent and invisible. Artificial intelligence (AI), platform capitalism, and algorithmic infrastructures depend on massive volumes of human effort, yet the workers sustaining these systems often remain unseen, unacknowledged, and undervalued. Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop (2024) intervenes powerfully in this context by foregrounding the invisible labour behind machine intelligence. Through the story of Nehma, an Adivasi woman employed as a data labeler in a remote AI facility in Jharkhand, the film exposes the human cost of technological automation and challenges dominant narratives that celebrate AI as autonomous, efficient, and neutral.

This essay critically examines how Humans in the Loop visualizes invisible labour and what it suggests about labour under digital capitalism. Drawing on Marxist and cultural film theory, as well as representation and identity studies, it explores three central questions: How does the film’s visual language represent labelling work and the emotional experience of labour? What does this representation reveal about the cultural valuation of marginalized work? And does the film invite empathy, critique, or transformation in how labour is perceived?

The essay argues that Humans in the Loop constructs a counter-cinematic discourse that renders visible the hidden infrastructures of digital capitalism. Through its minimalist aesthetic, slow pacing, and intimate focus on bodily routines, the film transforms repetitive, mechanical labour into a site of emotional depth and political significance. By situating Nehma’s labour at the intersection of class, gender, indigeneity, and global capital, the film critiques neoliberal narratives of technological empowerment and foregrounds the structural inequalities embedded within contemporary digital economies. Ultimately, the film not only generates empathy for marginalized workers but also invites critical reflection on how labour itself is conceptualized, valued, and politicized in an age of automation.

Invisible Labour and Digital Capitalism

One of the defining characteristics of digital capitalism is the systematic invisibilization of labour. While AI technologies are often portrayed as autonomous systems driven by sophisticated algorithms, their functioning relies heavily on human workers who annotate data, verify outputs, moderate content, and correct errors. These tasks, frequently outsourced to economically marginalized populations, form the backbone of machine learning infrastructures. Yet they remain largely absent from public discourse, corporate narratives, and mainstream media representations.

In Marxist terms, this invisibility reflects the alienation of labour under capitalism, wherein workers are separated from the products of their work, the processes of production, and their own human potential. As Marx argues, capitalist production obscures the social relations embedded within commodities, rendering labour abstract and depersonalized. In the context of AI, this abstraction intensifies: human cognition itself becomes a commodity, transformed into data that fuels algorithmic growth.

Humans in the Loop disrupts this abstraction by re-materializing digital labour. Rather than depicting AI as a sleek, immaterial force, the film anchors technological production in the corporeal realities of Nehma’s daily life. Through repetitive shots of her seated at a workstation, eyes fixed on screens, fingers clicking relentlessly, the film reintroduces the body into technological discourse. Labour becomes visible not as abstract productivity but as physical endurance, emotional fatigue, and cognitive strain.

By doing so, the film challenges the dominant ideology of digital capitalism, which celebrates automation while erasing the human costs sustaining it. The AI centre becomes a microcosm of global labour exploitation, linking rural Jharkhand to transnational circuits of technological accumulation. Nehma’s work thus exemplifies what scholars describe as “ghost work”—labour that remains hidden behind digital interfaces, sustaining the illusion of seamless automation.

Visual Language and the Aesthetics of Labour

The film’s visual language plays a crucial role in representing both the monotony and emotional weight of labelling work. Sahay adopts a minimalist aesthetic characterized by long takes, static frames, subdued lighting, and restrained camera movement. This visual restraint mirrors the repetitive rhythm of Nehma’s labour, creating a cinematic experience that immerses the viewer in the temporal drag of digital work.

Unlike conventional cinematic depictions of labour that rely on dramatic conflict or narrative acceleration, Humans in the Loop foregrounds duration, repetition, and stillness. Extended shots of Nehma labeling images evoke a sense of temporal suspension, emphasizing the slow passage of time. This aesthetic strategy forces viewers to confront the lived reality of monotonous labour, resisting the spectacle-driven tendencies of mainstream cinema.

The framing frequently isolates Nehma within confined spaces—cubicles, dimly lit rooms, narrow corridors—reinforcing her spatial and social marginalization. The glowing computer screen becomes both a source of livelihood and a site of alienation, mediating her relationship with the world. The film repeatedly contrasts the sterile interior of the AI centre with the organic textures of the surrounding forest, visually juxtaposing technological abstraction with ecological and cultural rootedness.

This contrast underscores the tension between Nehma’s indigenous identity and the homogenizing demands of digital labour. While her environment embodies relational, communal ways of living, her work requires cognitive isolation, mechanical precision, and emotional detachment. The visual grammar thus encodes a critique of how digital capitalism disciplines bodies and restructures subjectivities.

Emotional Labour and Affective Exhaustion

Beyond physical repetition, Humans in the Loop foregrounds the emotional dimensions of labelling work. Nehma’s task is not merely mechanical; it requires constant attentiveness, interpretive judgment, and emotional regulation. The film subtly conveys the cognitive and affective strain involved in sustaining prolonged concentration, particularly under conditions of surveillance and performance monitoring. Close-up shots of Nehma’s face reveal micro-expressions of fatigue, frustration, and quiet resignation. Her silences speak volumes, communicating emotional exhaustion without resorting to overt dramatization. The film thus aligns with feminist theories of emotional labour, which emphasize how affective effort is systematically exploited and undervalued within capitalist economies.

Nehma’s emotional labour extends beyond the workplace. At home, she navigates domestic responsibilities, caregiving duties, and community obligations, performing multiple forms of unpaid labour. This dual burden highlights the gendered dimensions of digital work, wherein women disproportionately shoulder both productive and reproductive labour. The film’s refusal to separate professional and domestic spheres underscores the totalizing reach of labour under capitalism, infiltrating every aspect of Nehma’s life. By rendering emotional exhaustion visible, the film challenges narratives that frame digital labour as clean, flexible, and empowering. Instead, it exposes the psychological toll of precarious work, inviting viewers to empathize with workers whose affective energies are systematically drained by exploitative systems.

Cultural Valuation and Marginalized Work

One of the film’s central concerns is the cultural valuation of labour—specifically, whose work is considered valuable, visible, and worthy of recognition. Nehma’s labour, though essential to AI development, remains culturally devalued due to her social identity as an Adivasi woman and her position within a peripheral economy. This devaluation reflects broader hierarchies of labour within capitalist societies, where intellectual and managerial work is privileged over manual, affective, and cognitive labour performed by marginalized groups. In the context of AI, programmers, engineers, and corporate executives receive recognition and financial reward, while data labelers remain invisible, despite their foundational role in training algorithms.

Humans in the Loop visualizes this hierarchy through spatial and narrative separation. The corporate entities benefiting from Nehma’s labour remain absent, represented only through abstract instructions and distant authority. This absence reinforces the asymmetry of power, as those who extract value remain unseen while workers remain hyper-visible within their constrained environments. The film’s focus on indigenous labour further complicates this dynamic. Nehma’s cultural knowledge—her familiarity with forest ecologies, communal rituals, and affective nuances—becomes instrumentalized for algorithmic training. Yet this knowledge is stripped of its cultural specificity, transformed into standardized data points. This process exemplifies what postcolonial theorists describe as epistemic extraction, wherein indigenous knowledge is appropriated without recognition or reciprocity.

Thus, the film critiques not only economic exploitation but also epistemic injustice. Nehma’s contributions are simultaneously indispensable and devalued, highlighting the contradictions at the heart of digital capitalism.

Marxist Film Theory and the Representation of Labour

From a Marxist film-theoretical perspective, Humans in the Loop can be read as a cinematic critique of commodification and alienation. The film refuses the spectacle-driven logic of mainstream cinema, instead adopting a realist aesthetic that foregrounds material conditions of existence. This aligns with Marxist traditions in cinema that emphasize class consciousness, labour visibility, and socio-economic critique.

The repetitive depiction of labelling work echoes the Marxist concept of abstract labour, wherein diverse forms of human effort are reduced to interchangeable units of productivity. Nehma’s task—classifying images according to standardized categories—symbolizes the abstraction of lived experience into quantifiable data. Her subjective interpretations are subsumed under algorithmic logic, reflecting the subsumption of human creativity under capital. Yet the film also resists total abstraction by foregrounding Nehma’s embodied presence. Her physical fatigue, emotional vulnerability, and social interactions reinsert human specificity into technological processes. In doing so, the film disrupts the ideological erasure of labour, reclaiming visibility for workers marginalized by capitalist systems.

The film’s refusal of narrative closure further reinforces its Marxist critique. There is no triumphant resolution, no individual escape from systemic exploitation. Instead, Nehma’s story remains open-ended, emphasizing the structural nature of labour oppression. This narrative strategy prevents sentimental catharsis, encouraging viewers to confront the persistence of inequality rather than seeking individual redemption.

Representation, Identity, and Intersectionality

Representation and identity studies offer crucial insights into how Humans in the Loop constructs labour as an intersectional experience shaped by gender, class, and indigeneity. Nehma’s identity as an Adivasi woman positions her at the margins of both economic and cultural hierarchies. Her labour is devalued not only because it is invisible but also because of who she is. The film resists stereotypical portrayals of tribal communities as either romanticized primitives or passive victims. Instead, Nehma emerges as a complex subject navigating conflicting demands. Her agency, aspirations, and resilience coexist with structural constraints, creating a nuanced portrait of marginalized identity.

By centring an indigenous woman within a technologically advanced setting, the film disrupts dominant imaginaries that associate technological competence with urban, male, and upper-class subjects. Nehma’s presence within the AI centre challenges assumptions about who contributes to technological systems, revealing the hidden diversity underpinning digital innovation. Moreover, the film interrogates the politics of recognition. Despite her central role, Nehma remains unacknowledged within corporate narratives of AI success. This absence reflects broader patterns of symbolic annihilation, wherein marginalized groups are systematically excluded from representational visibility. By making Nehma visible, the film performs a corrective act of representation, reclaiming narrative space for subaltern labour.

Empathy, Critique, and Transformative Potential

A key question raised by the prompt concerns whether the film invites empathy, critique, or transformation in how labour is perceived. Humans in the Loop achieves all three, though its primary mode is critical empathy—an affective engagement grounded in socio-political analysis rather than sentimental identification.

The film’s slow pacing and intimate focus foster empathetic connection with Nehma’s lived experience. Viewers are invited to inhabit her temporal rhythms, emotional states, and physical environments. This embodied spectatorship generates affective resonance, encouraging ethical reflection on the human costs of digital progress. Yet the film resists emotional manipulation. It avoids melodrama, refusing to exploit suffering for spectacle. Instead, its understated realism cultivates reflective empathy, prompting viewers to think critically about structural injustice rather than merely sympathizing with individual hardship.

Simultaneously, the film functions as a critique of digital capitalism. By exposing the hidden labour sustaining AI systems, it challenges dominant narratives of technological utopianism. The film reveals how automation depends on intensified human exploitation, unsettling assumptions about efficiency, progress, and innovation. Finally, the film possesses transformative potential by reshaping how labour itself is perceived. By rendering invisible work visible, it invites viewers to reconsider the ethical foundations of technological consumption. It encourages recognition of the human lives embedded within digital systems, fostering a politics of accountability and solidarity.

Cinematic Ethics and Political Responsibility

Beyond representation, Humans in the Loop engages with broader questions of cinematic ethics and political responsibility. The film positions itself not merely as an observer but as an ethical agent intervening in dominant discourses. Through its formal strategies, narrative choices, and representational politics, it challenges audiences to rethink their relationship with technology and labour. The film’s ethical stance aligns with traditions of political cinema that seek to provoke critical consciousness rather than passive consumption. Its refusal of spectacle, its emphasis on duration, and its commitment to realism create a space for contemplation. In an era characterized by accelerated media consumption, such aesthetic restraint becomes a political act, resisting the commodification of attention. By centring marginalized labour, the film also contributes to broader struggles for epistemic justice. It affirms the value of indigenous knowledge, emotional labour, and cognitive effort, challenging hierarchies that privilege elite forms of expertise. In doing so, it advocates for a more inclusive understanding of technological contribution, one that recognizes diverse forms of human intelligence.

Conclusion

Humans in the Loop stands as a powerful cinematic exploration of labour and visibility under digital capitalism. Through its nuanced visual language, affective realism, and critical engagement with socio-economic structures, the film exposes the invisible labour sustaining AI technologies and interrogates the cultural valuation of marginalized work. By situating Nehma’s labelling work at the intersection of class, gender, and indigeneity, the film reveals the complex power relations embedded within technological production. Drawing on Marxist and cultural film theory, as well as representation and identity studies, this essay has argued that the film functions as both empathetic narrative and political critique. It not only humanizes digital labour but also challenges the ideological frameworks that render such labour invisible. Ultimately, Humans in the Loop invites a transformative rethinking of labour in the age of automation. It urges viewers to recognize the human lives embedded within technological systems and to question the ethical implications of digital consumption. In doing so, the film contributes to a broader cultural reckoning with the costs of technological progress, reminding us that behind every intelligent machine lies a network of invisible workers whose labour, dignity, and humanity demand recognition.

TASK 3 — FILM FORM, STRUCTURE & DIGITAL CULTURE  

Introduction

In contemporary cinema, digital technology has become both a thematic concern and a formal challenge. Films addressing artificial intelligence (AI), automation, and digital labour must grapple not only with narrative representation but also with the cinematic techniques through which technological realities are conveyed. Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop (2024) offers a compelling example of how film form, structure, and cinematic devices can articulate complex philosophical questions about digital culture and human–AI interaction. Rather than relying on spectacle or futuristic imagery, the film adopts a minimalist, realist aesthetic that foregrounds everyday labour, bodily presence, and environmental context. Through restrained camera techniques, deliberate editing patterns, spatial contrasts, and a subtle sound design, the film constructs a sensory experience that invites reflection on the entanglements of technology, identity, and power.

This essay analyzes how film form and cinematic devices in Humans in the Loop convey philosophical concerns about digital culture and human–AI interaction. It focuses particularly on two interrelated dimensions: first, the interplay between natural imagery and digital spaces, and how this contrast communicates broader thematic concerns; and second, how aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s experience of labour, identity, and technology. Drawing on structuralist and film semiotic approaches, alongside formalist and narrative theory, the essay argues that the film constructs a system of visual and auditory codes that articulate a critique of digital capitalism and epistemic hierarchies. Through its careful orchestration of cinematic form, Humans in the Loop transforms abstract technological processes into embodied experiences, enabling viewers to perceive the ideological structures embedded within human–AI interaction.

Theoretical Framework: Film Semiotics and Formalist Analysis

Structuralist film theory and semiotics emphasize that cinema operates as a system of signs governed by codes, conventions, and symbolic structures. Drawing on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure and later theorists such as Christian Metz, film semiotics understands cinematic images as signifiers that generate meaning through relational difference rather than inherent representation. Meaning emerges not simply from what is shown but from how images are organized, juxtaposed, and repeated across the film’s structure.

Formalist and narrative theory, particularly associated with Russian Formalism and later cinematic formalism, focuses on the technical construction of films: camera movement, framing, editing, sound, and narrative organization. From this perspective, cinematic meaning arises through aesthetic manipulation rather than narrative content alone. The form of a film shapes perception, cognition, and emotional response, guiding the viewer’s interpretation of thematic concerns.

In Humans in the Loop, these two theoretical lenses converge. The film constructs a visual language in which spatial contrasts, temporal rhythms, and sensory textures function as semiotic codes that signify deeper philosophical questions. Natural landscapes, mechanical interiors, ambient sounds, and repetitive editing patterns operate as symbolic systems through which the film articulates its critique of digital culture. By examining these formal strategies, we can understand how the film communicates complex ideas about labour, identity, and technological mediation beyond explicit dialogue or narrative exposition.

Narrative Structure and Temporal Organization

The narrative structure of Humans in the Loop is deliberately minimalist, privileging everyday routines over dramatic events. The film unfolds through a series of loosely connected sequences that trace Nehma’s daily life: waking, commuting, working at the AI centre, returning home, and performing domestic labour. This cyclical structure mirrors the repetitive logic of data labour, where tasks are endlessly repeated to train machine-learning algorithms.

From a formalist perspective, this repetition disrupts conventional narrative progression. Rather than building toward a climax or resolution, the film sustains a state of temporal suspension. This narrative stasis reflects the experience of digital labour under capitalism, characterized by monotony, endurance, and psychological stagnation. The absence of dramatic development emphasizes structural constraint over individual agency, reinforcing the film’s critique of labour exploitation.

Semiotically, this cyclical narrative operates as a signifier of entrapment. The repeated sequences function as visual refrains, encoding the persistence of socio-economic inequality. The viewer becomes acutely aware of time’s slow passage, mirroring Nehma’s own experience of labour. This temporal strategy transforms abstract economic structures into felt duration, allowing the audience to embody the rhythm of digital work.

Camera Techniques and the Politics of Perception

Static Framing and the Aesthetics of Containment

One of the film’s most striking formal features is its reliance on static camera setups. Long, unmoving shots dominate the film’s visual grammar, particularly in scenes set within the AI centre. Nehma is frequently framed in medium or long shots that emphasize spatial confinement: narrow cubicles, rigid desks, and low ceilings. This compositional strategy constructs a visual field of containment, symbolizing the disciplinary logic of digital labour.

From a formalist standpoint, static framing resists the dynamic mobility typically associated with cinematic freedom. The camera’s immobility mirrors the physical immobility imposed on workers, transforming spatial stasis into a visual metaphor for economic constraint. Semiologically, the fixed frame functions as a signifier of surveillance and control, evoking Michel Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power. Nehma’s body becomes an object within a regulated spatial system, reinforcing her subjection to algorithmic authority.

Close-Ups and Affective Intimacy

In contrast to the distant framing of workplace scenes, the film occasionally employs close-ups to capture Nehma’s facial expressions, particularly during moments of fatigue, confusion, or emotional strain. These close-ups create affective intimacy, drawing viewers into her psychological experience. The sudden shift from spatial distance to emotional proximity disrupts the film’s otherwise restrained visual style, generating moments of empathetic engagement.

Semiotically, the close-up functions as a signifier of subjectivity. It reclaims Nehma’s interiority from the impersonal logic of digital systems, reminding viewers of the human consciousness underlying machine intelligence. Through these intimate shots, the film counters the abstraction of labour, re-inscribing emotional depth into technological processes.

Editing, Rhythm, and Temporal Experience

Slow Editing and Durational Aesthetics

The film’s editing style is characterized by long takes and minimal cuts. This durational aesthetic aligns with the slow cinema tradition, which emphasizes contemplation, realism, and temporal immersion. By prolonging shots of mundane activities—typing, clicking, staring at screens—the film foregrounds the monotony of digital labour.

From a formalist perspective, slow editing disrupts habitual viewing patterns shaped by fast-paced commercial cinema. It forces viewers to confront the experiential reality of repetitive work, cultivating a sense of temporal fatigue. This temporal strategy functions semiotically as a critique of capitalist time, which reduces human existence to measurable productivity units.

Repetition as Narrative Code

Repetitive editing patterns serve as narrative codes that signify mechanization. Scenes of labelling recur with minimal variation, reinforcing the cyclical nature of Nehma’s labour. This repetition generates a visual motif that encodes the dehumanizing effects of automation. The viewer’s growing impatience mirrors Nehma’s exhaustion, producing affective alignment through formal means.

Sound Design and the Sonic Texture of Digital Labour

Sound plays a crucial role in shaping the film’s experiential dimension. The auditory landscape is dominated by low-level mechanical noises: keyboard clicks, mouse movements, humming machines, and faint electronic beeps. These sounds create a constant sonic backdrop that saturates the workplace environment, reinforcing the omnipresence of technology.

Silence and Sonic Minimalism

Equally significant is the film’s use of silence. Extended sequences unfold with minimal dialogue or musical accompaniment, allowing ambient sounds to dominate. This sonic minimalism intensifies the viewer’s sensory awareness, drawing attention to subtle auditory details. Silence becomes a semiotic code for isolation, reflecting Nehma’s emotional and social alienation.

From a formalist perspective, the restraint in sound design resists emotional manipulation. Instead of guiding viewers’ responses through music, the film relies on ambient realism, fostering contemplative engagement. This aesthetic choice reinforces the film’s ethical stance, privileging authenticity over affective spectacle.

Natural Soundscapes

In contrast to the mechanical soundscape of the AI centre, scenes set in natural environments feature rich auditory textures: rustling leaves, flowing water, bird calls, and distant human voices. This sonic contrast constructs aural binaries that parallel the film’s visual dichotomies. Nature emerges as a space of relational harmony, while digital environments signify abstraction and alienation.

Interplay of Natural Imagery and Digital Spaces

One of the film’s most powerful formal strategies lies in its juxtaposition of natural landscapes with technological interiors. This spatial contrast operates as a central semiotic code, articulating the film’s broader thematic concerns about digital culture and ecological displacement.

Natural Imagery as Symbolic Ground

The film frequently returns to images of forests, rivers, and open skies. These natural landscapes are shot in wide frames, emphasizing spatial openness and organic complexity. The camera lingers on textured surfaces—tree bark, flowing water, shifting light—creating a sensorial richness absent from the digital workspace.

Semiotically, nature functions as a signifier of relational knowledge and embodied experience. It represents epistemic systems grounded in ecological interdependence and communal life. Nehma’s connection to her environment symbolizes alternative ways of knowing that resist algorithmic abstraction.

Digital Spaces and Technological Abstraction

In stark contrast, the AI centre is depicted as sterile, enclosed, and monotonous. Uniform lighting, repetitive architectural patterns, and standardized workstations construct a visual field of homogeneity. The absence of natural elements reinforces the disconnection between digital labour and ecological reality.

This spatial dichotomy articulates a critique of technological modernity. Digital spaces symbolize abstraction, standardization, and alienation, while natural imagery represents plurality, relationality, and sensory depth. The film thus employs spatial semiotics to interrogate the philosophical implications of AI development.

Aesthetic Construction of Labour

Through its formal strategies, Humans in the Loop constructs labour not merely as economic activity but as embodied experience. The film’s aesthetic choices transform repetitive tasks into perceptual events, enabling viewers to feel the weight of digital work.

Embodied Spectatorship

By aligning cinematic duration with labour duration, the film produces embodied spectatorship. Viewers experience time as Nehma does—slowly, laboriously, without narrative relief. This alignment fosters affective empathy, encouraging viewers to internalize the physical and psychological demands of digital labour.

Labour as Performance

The film’s focus on bodily gestures—eye movement, finger clicks, posture—frames labour as performance. These micro-actions become cinematic events, elevating mundane gestures into sites of meaning. From a semiotic perspective, these bodily codes signify endurance, discipline, and vulnerability, constructing a visual language of labour.

Identity, Technology, and Cinematic Form

The film’s formal strategies also shape the viewer’s understanding of identity within technological systems. Nehma’s identity emerges through spatial positioning, visual framing, and narrative rhythm rather than explicit exposition.

Spatial Marginalization

Nehma is frequently positioned at the edges of frames, visually marginalized within institutional spaces. This compositional strategy encodes her social marginality, reinforcing the intersection of class, gender, and indigeneity. The camera’s spatial politics thus mirror socio-economic hierarchies, transforming formal composition into ideological commentary.

Temporal Dispossession

The film’s slow pacing highlights Nehma’s dispossession of time. Her life becomes structured by work schedules, deadlines, and productivity metrics, reflecting the temporal domination of capital. Through durational aesthetics, the film critiques how digital capitalism colonizes human temporality.

Human–AI Interaction as Cinematic Metaphor

Rather than dramatizing direct encounters with AI, the film represents human–AI interaction indirectly, through interfaces, workflows, and labour routines. This mediated representation underscores the abstraction inherent in algorithmic systems.

Interface as Semiotic Screen

The computer screen operates as a semiotic threshold between human cognition and machine logic. Nehma’s gaze directed toward the screen symbolizes epistemic translation, where lived experience becomes data. The film’s repeated focus on interfaces foregrounds this translation process, revealing the epistemological violence of standardization.

Absence of the Machine

Notably, the film avoids visualizing AI as a tangible entity. Instead, its presence is implied through processes and protocols. This absence functions semiotically, emphasizing AI’s ideological rather than material power. The machine becomes an invisible authority, shaping human behaviour without physical embodiment.

Formalist Ethics and Political Engagement

The film’s formal restraint embodies an ethical commitment to representation. By avoiding sensationalism, it respects the dignity of its subjects, fostering reflective engagement rather than emotional exploitation.

Anti-Spectacular Aesthetics

In an era dominated by rapid editing and visual excess, the film’s minimalism constitutes a political stance. It resists commodified attention economies, demanding patience and contemplation. This aesthetic choice aligns with traditions of political cinema that prioritize critical consciousness over entertainment.

Cinema as Epistemic Intervention

Through its formal strategies, Humans in the Loop intervenes in dominant discourses about AI. It reframes technological development as a human-centred process, challenging narratives of automation and efficiency. The film thus demonstrates how cinematic form can function as epistemic critique, reshaping cultural understandings of digital culture.

Conclusion

Humans in the Loop exemplifies how film form, structure, and cinematic devices can articulate profound philosophical concerns about digital culture and human–AI interaction. Through its deliberate camera techniques, slow editing, restrained sound design, and spatial contrasts, the film constructs a semiotic system that critiques technological abstraction, labour invisibility, and epistemic hierarchy.

The interplay between natural imagery and digital spaces functions as a central symbolic code, contrasting relational knowledge systems with algorithmic standardization. Aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s embodied experience of labour, fostering empathy while simultaneously provoking critical reflection. By foregrounding temporal duration, spatial containment, and sensory realism, the film transforms abstract technological processes into tangible human experiences.

Ultimately, Humans in the Loop demonstrates the political power of cinematic form. It reveals how visual and auditory strategies can expose hidden structures of domination, challenge ideological narratives, and foster ethical engagement. In doing so, the film affirms cinema’s capacity not merely to represent reality but to reshape our understanding of technology, labour, and human identity in the digital age.

REFERENCES:

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Film Screening: Humans in the Loop (2024) – Directed by Aranya Sahay

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof.  Dilip Barad Sir . Here is the link to the pr...

Popular Posts