This blog is written as part of the classroom activity assigned by the Department of English, MKBU, under the guidance of Dr. Dilip Barad. It is based on the Film Screening of Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop (2024). Through this Worksheet reflective exercise, I explored key themes such as AI bias, invisible digital labour, and the cultural representation of indigenous identities. The worksheet encouraged me to engage with film theory and analyse how cinematic form and narrative reveal the human side of artificial intelligence and digital capitalism.
For Worksheet Click Here: Humens in the Loops - 2024
Humans in the Loop: Reflecting on AI, Labour, and Cultural Identity through Film Studies
POST-VIEWING REFLECTIVE ESSAY TASKS
Students should write a critical reflection (1200–1500 words) on one of the following prompts, integrating film theory and cultural critique:
TASK 1 - AI, BIAS, & EPISTEMIC REPRESENTATION
Prompt:
Critically analyze how Humans in the Loop represents the relationship between technology (AI) and human knowledge. Discuss the following in your essay:
• How does the narrative expose algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical?
• In what ways does the film highlight epistemic hierarchiesthat is, whose knowledge counts in technological systems?
Support your answer with film examples and relevant scholarly concepts such as representation, ideology, and power relations from film studies.
Introduction
- Reframing the Relationship Between AI and Human Knowledge
The question calls for a critical analysis of how Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop (2024) represents the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and human knowledge systems. It urges reflection on how the film exposes algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than technically neutral, and how it highlights epistemic hierarchies the uneven power structures that decide whose knowledge counts in technological environments.
Humans in the Loop tells the story of Nehma, an Adivasi woman from Jharkhand who becomes involved in data-labelling work for AI systems. What appears to be a simple, mechanical job soon reveals profound ethical and philosophical questions about visibility, identity, and the politics of knowledge. Through Nehma’s experiences, the film transforms AI from a scientific abstraction into a deeply human phenomenon one that mirrors society’s biases, hierarchies, and invisible labour.
By combining film theory, cultural critique, and reflective interpretation, this essay argues that Humans in the Loop portrays technology as an extension of human ideology. It shows that AI is not an independent machine learning from data alone; it is a social construct that learns from the people, cultures, and power systems that feed it.
Representing the Human Side of Artificial Intelligence
At the narrative level, the film presents AI as a deeply human process. Nehma’s work clicking, tagging, and categorizing thousands of images forms the invisible foundation of the “smart” technologies celebrated in global discourse. Her labour, though hidden, sustains the machine’s so-called intelligence.
This representation aligns with the Marxist idea of alienation, where workers are separated from the product of their labour. Nehma’s input disappears into the algorithmic system, her name never appearing in the final creation. The AI becomes “intelligent” precisely because her human knowledge is erased.
Cinematic choices reinforce this theme:
-
The camera frequently shows close-ups of Nehma’s eyes reflected in the computer screen, visually merging human subjectivity with machine vision.
-
Muted lighting and ambient sound emphasize monotony, illustrating the mechanical rhythm of digital labour.
-
Occasional shots of her forest home contrast with the sterile workspace, symbolizing the tension between organic knowledge and technological abstraction.
Through these filmic techniques, Sahay foregrounds the human cost of automation. Rather than portraying AI as futuristic or distant, the film grounds it in everyday experiences of marginalised workers—people whose cultural wisdom is appropriated but seldom recognized.
Algorithmic Bias : When Culture Becomes Code
The film’s treatment of algorithmic bias exposes how digital systems inherit cultural hierarchies. When Nehma labels data, she notices that certain categories simply do not exist for her world. Her traditional ornaments, local tools, and rituals are marked as “unidentified objects.” This erasure signals that the algorithm’s worldview is constructed through limited, Western-centric datasets that exclude indigenous realities.
This reflects the concept of culturally situated bias, where algorithms reproduce dominant ideologies because they are built upon selective data and assumptions. The film uses this tension to reveal that technology cannot be separated from human culture; the neutrality of data is a myth.
From a theoretical standpoint, this idea can be understood through Apparatus Theory , which argues that technological systems including cinema condition human perception and reinforce ideological structures. In Humans in the Loop, the AI interface becomes a digital apparatus that frames and filters reality. What the system “sees” depends on who designed itand whose worldview shaped its categories.
The narrative thus demonstrates that bias is not a technical flaw to be fixed but a social symptom to be interrogated. The real question is not how to make algorithms objective but how to make them accountable to diverse forms of knowledge.
The film highlights several crucial insights about algorithmic bias:
-
Bias is embedded in design, not in malfunction.
-
Data reflects social inequality; “neutral” datasets often erase marginalized experiences.
-
AI mirrors the cultural assumptions of its creators, turning systemic bias into automated logic.
This perspective aligns with scholars like Kate Crawford (2021), who argue that artificial intelligence is a cultural system before it is a computational one. Sahay’s film visualizes this argument cinematically, using Nehma’s labour as the point where human bias becomes machine knowledge.
Epistenic Hierarchies : Whose Knowledge Counts?
A key question raised by the film is whose knowledge is considered valid in the world of AI. The concept of epistemic hierarchy refers to how certain ways of knowing are privileged while others are dismissed.
In Humans in the Loop, Nehma’s indigenous understanding of ecology and symbolism contrasts sharply with the reductionist logic of the AI system. Her lived experiences how she reads patterns in nature, interprets visual meaning, or assigns cultural value are absent from the dataset. The system recognizes global symbols like “car,” “phone,” or “building,” but not her community’s everyday artefacts.
This reveals the epistemic injustice at the heart of digital culture: the exclusion of local and indigenous knowledge from global systems of representation. The film subtly aligns this with postcolonial theory, especially Gayatri Spivak’s concept of epistemic violence the suppression of subaltern voices within dominant narratives.
When Nehma begins to label images in her own language assigning local names instead of corporate-approved tags the act becomes symbolic resistance. It asserts that knowledge is not universal but plural, and that every culture has the right to define meaning on its own terms.
This section of the film emphasizes:
-
Epistemic inequality: Only certain forms of knowledge are encoded into AI.
-
Cultural invisibility: Indigenous experiences remain unrecognized in digital archives.
-
Resistance through interpretation: Naming becomes a tool of cultural survival.
The film’s ethical vision lies in Nehma’s gradual realization that she is not simply “in the loop” but can redefine the loop itself. By reclaiming interpretive power, she disrupts the hierarchy between human and machine, between indigenous and corporate knowledge.
Representation and Ideology in Film Language
To deepen the analysis, it is important to understand how Humans in the Loop employs cinematic form to communicate its critique. The film’s style fuses realism with symbolism, using film theory as both structure and message.
Through these layers, Humans in the Loop demonstrates that form and content are inseparable. The film’s aesthetics are not decorative; they embody its philosophical message.
Culture and Ethical Dimensions Of Al
Beyond film theory, Sahay’s work engages with the broader cultural and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. It challenges the assumption that technology exists outside morality. Instead, the film argues that ethics must be integrated into every layer of technological creation from data collection to algorithmic design.
The story reminds us that the “human-in-the-loop” is not a technical role but an ethical one. It represents the moral responsibility to question, interpret, and humanize technology.
Key ethical questions raised by the film:
-
Can AI truly serve humanity if it excludes cultural diversity?
-
What does it mean to create “smart” systems that ignore the wisdom of marginalized communities?
-
How can filmmakers and educators use cinema to challenge technological determinism?
The film offers no simplistic answers but insists on dialogue. In its closing scenes, when Nehma walks away from her computer and looks out at the forest, the camera lingers on her face—a visual metaphor for reclaiming the human gaze from the machine.
This scene encapsulates the film’s moral vision: intelligence without empathy is emptiness; progress without inclusion is illusion.
Interdisciplinary Connection : Film Theory Meets Digital Culture
One of the strengths of Humans in the Loop lies in its ability to bridge disciplines. It demonstrates how film studies, cultural theory, and AI ethics can converge to critique modern digital life.
Connections to academic frameworks:
-
Apparatus Theory: Reveals how technological systems shape ideology and perception.
-
Cultural Film Theory: Connects representation with questions of identity and power.
-
Postcolonial Theory: Uncovers the global inequalities that underpin digital labour.
-
Critical AI Studies: Explores how human values and cultural bias are encoded into algorithms.
By weaving these frameworks together, the film transforms the screen into a classroom inviting viewers to think, question, and engage critically with technology.
Apparatus Theory: Technology as an Ideological Mirror
In understanding how Humans in the Loop constructs meaning, Apparatus Theory becomes particularly relevant. As defined in film studies, Apparatus Theory explains how cinema and technology within film shapes ideological meaning and reflects existing power structures. It argues that both the camera and the screen are not neutral tools of representation but part of an ideological system that positions viewers in specific ways, reinforcing dominant social narratives
In Humans in the Loop, this concept extends beyond the camera to the AI interface itself, which functions as a digital “apparatus.” The film shows how the technological system within Nehma’s workspace becomes a site where ideology operates silently. Each image she labels, each category she selects, reproduces a hierarchy of visibility deciding what counts as knowledge and what remains unseen.
The apparatus of AI, like the cinematic apparatus, frames perception and encodes ideology. For example:
-
The computer screen becomes a frame that limits what Nehma can see and name.
-
The interface enforces binary categories“identified/unidentified,” “correct/incorrect” that mirror colonial systems of classification.
-
The viewer, positioned through the film’s mise-en-scène and sound design, experiences the same restricted vision as Nehma, understanding how technology filters truth through ideology.
Thus, Sahay’s film brilliantly uses the logic of Apparatus Theory to critique digital culture. It exposes that both cinema and AI are ideological constructs that teach us how to see. The apparatus does not merely project images it produces ways of thinking about identity, labour, and power.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the Human in the Loop
Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop stands as a landmark exploration of how technology, labour, and culture intersect in the 21st century. Through the lens of Nehma’s story, it exposes algorithmic bias not as a technical anomaly but as a reflection of enduring social hierarchies. It also challenges epistemic inequality by asserting that human knowledge is diverse, contextual, and deeply cultural.
The film’s visual poetry, theoretical depth, and ethical resonance make it an exemplary text for film and media studies. It teaches that technology cannot be truly intelligent until it learns to recognize all forms of human intelligence.
Ultimately, this reflection concludes that AI is not about replacing human knowledge but about revealing how dependent it remains on human values. Every line of code carries a worldview; every dataset carries a history. By bringing those hidden human stories to light, Humans in the Loop restores the “human” to the heart of the technological loop.
In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms, Sahay’s film becomes a call for awareness: to look beyond the data, to see the people behind it, and to imagine a future where knowledge is shared—not ranked.
True intelligence, the film suggests, lies not in machines that think like humans, but in humans who remember to think ethically about machines.
TASK 2 - LABOR & THE POLITICS OF CINEMATIC VISIBILITY
Prompt:
Examine how the film visualizes invisible labour and what it suggests about labour under digital capitalism. Consider:
• How does the film’s visual language represent labelling work and the emotional experience of labour?
• What does this suggest about cultural valuation of marginalised work?
• Does the film invite empathy, critique, or transformation in how labour is perceived?
Introduction:
- Understanding Labour in the Age of Digital Capitalism
The question asks us to examine how Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop visualizes invisible labour and what it reveals about labour under digital capitalism. It also encourages reflection on how the film’s visual language represents data-labelling work and the emotional dimensions of such labour. Finally, it asks whether the film invites empathy, critique, or transformation in how audiences perceive the human effort behind artificial intelligence.
At its surface, the film narrates the story of Nehma, an Adivasi woman from Jharkhand employed as an AI data-labeller. Yet, beneath this simple plot lies a profound critique of modern labour relations, showing how technology depends upon unseen human effort. Through striking imagery, restrained emotion, and rhythmic editing, Sahay turns data work into a cinematic metaphor for the alienation and exploitation that persist in the digital economy.
Invisible Labour in Visible Systems
In contemporary society, digital capitalism thrives on the illusion of automation. The sleek interfaces and “intelligent” algorithms we encounter every day voice assistants, facial recognition, recommendation systems seem self-sufficient. What remains hidden is the human labour that trains, corrects, and sustains these systems.
Humans in the Loop exposes this hidden dimension through Nehma’s work as a data-labeller. Her task is repetitive: tagging images, verifying outputs, and feeding information into an AI model. Yet her contribution, like that of countless digital workers worldwide, remains invisible in corporate narratives about innovation.
Cinematically, Sahay makes this invisibility tangible.
-
Framing: The camera often isolates Nehma within the dim glow of her computer screen, her face half-lit, half-obscured—symbolizing partial recognition.
-
Sound: The monotonous clicking of keys and machine hum replaces dialogue, evoking a world where human expression has been mechanized.
-
Editing: Slow, looping cuts mirror the endless cycle of data work, creating a sense of entrapment.
These filmic choices convert routine labour into a visual language of repetition and erasure. Viewers begin to sense what it means to exist within a system that demands precision but denies visibility.
Marxist and Cultural Film Theory: Labour, Class, and Commodification
Marxist Film Theory offers a critical lens for understanding how Humans in the Loop represents work and class under digital capitalism. According to Marx, labour in capitalist society becomes alienated workers are detached from the products they create, the process of creation, and ultimately, from their own humanity.
In Nehma’s case, this alienation manifests through her disconnection from the outcome of her work. The AI systems she helps build will never bear her name or recognize her contribution. She becomes a “ghost worker,” producing intelligence for a machine that will never know her existence.
Cultural Film Theory expands this analysis by examining how cinema itself depicts the relationship between social structures and visual representation. Sahay’s film aligns with this tradition by making labour visible through absence. The more Nehma works, the more invisible she becomes echoing what Marx called the “fetishism of commodities,” where the finished product (AI) hides the human effort embedded within it.
Filmic illustrations of Marxist ideas:
-
Commodification: The film presents data-labelling as industrialized production, reducing knowledge and emotion to quantifiable units.
-
Alienation: The recurring motif of Nehma’s reflection in the screen symbolizes the fragmentation of the self.
-
Exploitation: The power dynamics between the global tech corporations (unseen but implied) and local labourers (visible but powerless) reveal modern forms of digital colonialism.
Through this Marxist lens, Humans in the Loop becomes a contemporary factory drama one where code replaces machinery but the system of inequality remains intact.
Visualizing Labour: The Language of Repetition and Emotion
Sahay’s film stands out for how it translates emotional and physical labour into cinematic form. The monotonous rhythm of Nehma’s work is mirrored in the film’s pacing, while subtle changes in lighting and framing communicate her emotional fatigue.
Lighting and Colour: The workspace glows in cold blues and greys, representing the detachment of digital life. In contrast, outdoor scenes in Nehma’s village use warm earth tones, symbolizing community and vitality. This visual opposition reflects the emotional gap between technological and human environments.
-
Cinematography: Close-ups of Nehma’s hands, eyes, and breathing humanize her repetitive actions. The micro focus on gestures turns mechanical work into a form of embodied resistance.
-
Editing Rhythm: Long takes create the sensation of time slowing down a deliberate strategy that forces the audience to confront boredom, monotony, and fatigue as political experiences.
Through these techniques, Sahay transforms labour into poetry. The film’s visual language insists that even in mechanical work, there exists emotion, thought, and agency. The repetitive motion of tagging and clicking becomes a metaphor for endurance and survival.
The Emotional Experience of Digital Labour
Unlike traditional depictions of factory work, the emotional landscape of digital labour is often internal and silent. Humans in the Loop captures this emotional invisibility by centering on Nehma’s expressions quiet frustration, fleeting pride, and moments of introspection.
Her solitude before the screen becomes a psychological space where personal identity collides with technological anonymity. The film suggests that emotional labour the mental and affective effort of sustaining focus and precision is as valuable as physical labour, yet rarely acknowledged.
Moments that evoke this emotional dimension:
-
Nehma smiles faintly when the system accepts her inputs—a brief validation from a machine rather than a human supervisor.
-
She hesitates before labelling an image of her own cultural object, realizing that her world does not exist within the system’s categories.
-
In a symbolic scene, she stares at her reflection on the monitor until her face fades into the pixels representing how identity dissolves under technological surveillance.
Through these moments, the film redefines empathy not as pity for the worker, but as recognition of shared humanity within exploitative systems.
Representation and Identity Studies: Labour as Cultural Expression
To fully appreciate the film’s message, we must also consider Representation and Identity Studies, which explore how media portrays marginalized groups and whose stories are told.
Nehma’s identity as an Adivasi woman challenges conventional images of technological labour. Mainstream media often presents the AI industry as urban, male, and elite. By placing an indigenous woman at the centre of a story about artificial intelligence, Sahay disrupts these assumptions and reclaims representation for those at the margins of digital modernity.
The film’s portrayal of Nehma shows how identity and labour intersect:
-
Her work is undervalued not only because it is repetitive but because it is performed by a woman from a tribal background.
-
Her traditional knowledge, language, and sensitivity to the environment remain unrecognized by the corporate system that employs her.
-
Yet, through her presence on screen, Sahay restores cinematic visibility to those rendered invisible in real-world data economies.
From this perspective, Humans in the Loop becomes a radical act of representation-as-resistance. It visualizes the unseen, not to romanticize it, but to assert its centrality in sustaining the digital world.
Cinematic Visibility: Making the Invisible Seen
The title Humans in the Loop itself is a metaphor for visibility. In AI terminology, the “human in the loop” refers to human oversight in machine learning. But in the film, it acquires a double meaninghumans trapped within the loop of endless digital labour, and humans struggling to be seen within technological systems.
Sahay’s direction uses visual contrasts to dramatize this theme:
-
The looped structure of shots repetitive clicks, endless taskscreates the feeling of being caught in a cycle.
-
The use of silence emphasizes how workers’ voices are muted in the discourse on AI innovation.
-
Occasional breaking of the fourth wall, when Nehma looks directly at the camera, confronts the viewer with complicity: we benefit from invisible labour every time we use AI.
By employing such techniques, the film turns cinema into a political space of visibility. It reminds us that seeing is an ethical act. To watch Nehma’s story is to acknowledge the people behind the digital curtain the hidden builders of our technological world.
Empathy, Critique, and Transformation
A major strength of Humans in the Loop lies in its balance between empathy and critique. Rather than depicting Nehma as a victim, Sahay portrays her as thoughtful, resilient, and self-aware. The film invites empathy not through sentimentality but through recognition of shared vulnerability within digital capitalism.
At the same time, it offers a sharp critique of the systems that exploit her labour. The absence of visible corporate figures no bosses, no clients symbolizes the facelessness of global capitalism, where responsibility is diffused and accountability vanishes.
Yet, the film also leaves room for transformation. In the final sequences, Nehma begins to question the categories she is forced to use, inserting local names and meanings into the database. This quiet rebellion reclaims creativity within constraint. It suggests that resistance can exist even in repetition, and that agency can emerge within systems of control.
Through this ending, Sahay’s film moves from critique to hope from visibility as exposure to visibility as empowerment.
Cultural and Ethical Implications
The film’s engagement with labour extends to ethical questions about technology and humanity. It challenges viewers to rethink what counts as valuable work. In a society obsessed with innovation and automation, Humans in the Loop insists that the foundation of every “smart” system is human thought, patience, and care.
Key ethical insights from the film:
-
Labour is not obsolete in the digital age it is simply hidden.
-
Cultural recognition is part of economic justice; invisibility is a form of exploitation.
-
Cinema can make the unseen visible, transforming perception into empathy and awareness.
Sahay’s storytelling thus bridges art and activism. It turns film into a reflective surface where audiences can see their own dependence on unseen labour. Every time Nehma clicks her mouse, the audience feels the weight of countless anonymous workers whose efforts animate our digital lives.
Conclusion
Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop is more than a film about artificial intelligence it is a cinematic meditation on the politics of work, class, and recognition in the 21st century. By visualizing invisible labour, the film redefines what it means to “see” in a digital world saturated with screens yet blind to the people behind them.
Drawing from Marxist and Cultural Film Theory, the narrative exposes the alienation and commodification inherent in digital capitalism. Through Representation and Identity Studies, it restores dignity to marginalized labour, showing that technological progress depends upon human presence and diversity.
Ultimately, the film invites not only empathy but transformation. It compels us to rethink the moral economy of attention—urging viewers, educators, and technologists to acknowledge the invisible hands shaping the digital present.
Humans in the Loop teaches that true intelligence is not artificial but collective. It emerges when we recognize, value, and respect the human effort woven into every technological creation. In making the invisible visible, Sahay’s film becomes an ethical loop in itself connecting screen to soul, labour to vision, and machine to humanity.
TASK 3 - FILM FORM, STRUCTURE & DIGITAL CULTURE
Prompt:
Analyze how film form and cinematic devices (camera techniques, editing, sequencing, sound) convey the philosophical concerns about digital culture and human-AI interaction.
Questions to address:
• How does the interplay of natural imagery versus digital spaces communicate broader thematic concerns?
• How do aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s experience of labour, identity, and technology?
Introduction
- Reading Technology through Film Form
The question invites a critical analysis of how Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop (2024) employs film form and cinematic devices including camera techniques, editing, sequencing, and sound to express its philosophical concerns about digital culture and human-AI interaction. It further asks how the interplay of natural imagery and digital spaces communicates deeper themes of identity, labour, and technology, and how aesthetic choices shape our perception of these issues.
Sahay’s Humans in the Loop offers more than a narrative about artificial intelligence; it is an aesthetic meditation on the visual grammar of the digital age. Through the story of Nehma, an Adivasi data-labeller in Jharkhand, the film uses light, sound, and structure to question the boundaries between the organic and the artificial, the seen and the coded, the human and the machine.
Film Form as Language: A Structuralist Perspective
Structuralist and Semiotic Film Theory, grounded in the works of Ferdinand de Saussure and Christian Metz, argues that films communicate through sign systems visual and auditory codes that carry meaning much like words in a sentence. In Humans in the Loop, every frame functions as a signifier that conveys philosophical concerns about technology and knowledge.
Rather than telling us about AI, the film shows it through structure. The repetitive sequencing, muted soundscape, and rhythmic editing imitate the algorithmic processes of data training. The viewer is drawn into an experience that mirrors the looped operations of machine learning, making the form itself a metaphor for the digital condition.
Key structural elements that signify digital culture:
-
Repetition and circularity – Scenes of Nehma labelling images loop back visually, mirroring the recursive nature of AI learning cycles.
-
Minimal dialogue – Meaning is created through sound textures and framing rather than speech, reflecting the non-human communication of digital systems.
-
Binary imagery – The contrast between light/dark, forest/computer, silence/noise signifies the binary logic at the core of technological thinking.
Through this structural lens, Sahay transforms cinematic rhythm into philosophical reflection. The audience does not merely watch the film they decode it, participating in a semiotic exercise that parallels the data interpretation performed by the protagonist.
Interplay of Natural Imagery and Digital Spaces
One of the film’s most striking aesthetic contrasts lies in its juxtaposition of natural and digital environments. The forest scenes, filled with earthy textures, birdsong, and organic movement, stand in sharp opposition to the sterile glow of Nehma’s computer workspace. This tension communicates the broader philosophical question: Can technology coexist with the organic rhythms of human life?
-
Natural Imagery represents memory, emotion, and ancestral knowledge.
-
Digital Spaces symbolize abstraction, fragmentation, and the mechanization of experience.
Sahay uses visual transitions to bridge these worlds. When Nehma’s screen reflects the forest outside, the image blurs, suggesting that digital and natural realms are no longer separate but intertwined. The blending of visuals becomes a cinematic metaphor for the posthuman condition a state in which human perception is mediated through digital interfaces.
The film’s colour palette reinforces this contrast:
-
Warm browns and greens in the forest sequences evoke life and continuity.
-
Cool blues and greys in the workspace evoke detachment and alienation.
These tonal shifts create emotional and philosophical movement, guiding the viewer between empathy for Nehma’s lived world and awareness of the abstract systems consuming it.
Camera Techniques: Framing Human and Machine
Formalist Theory, which focuses on how technique shapes meaning, helps decode the film’s camera work. The camera in Humans in the Loop behaves like both an observer and a machine at times intimate, at times distant.
Through these camera techniques, Sahay builds a dialogue between the gaze of the human and the gaze of the algorithm. The film’s visual style thus becomes both narrative and philosophy.
Editing and Sequencing: The Rhythm of Digital Life
Editing in Humans in the Loop functions as more than a storytelling device it constructs the temporal philosophy of the digital world.
The sequencing of scenes mirrors the nonlinear, cyclical logic of machine operations. Nehma’s repetitive tasks clicking, tagging, uploading are cut in rhythmic succession, producing a hypnotic tempo that immerses the viewer in the monotony of data labour.
At the same time, the occasional use of jump cuts disrupts continuity, symbolizing how technology fragments time and experience. These disruptions prevent the audience from settling into a passive rhythm, forcing conscious awareness of cinematic form just as digital life constantly interrupts human attention.
Editing motifs that convey meaning:
-
Looped sequences reflect algorithmic cycles of input and feedback.
-
Abrupt cuts represent disconnection and emotional fragmentation.
-
Cross-cutting between the forest and workspace shows simultaneous realities human nature and digital artifice—coexisting yet conflicting.
In this way, editing becomes a structural metaphor for the feedback loop between humans and AI, reinforcing the film’s central idea that technology both depends on and shapes human behaviour.
Sound Design: The Aural Texture of Digital Existence
Sound is one of the film’s most subtle yet powerful devices for philosophical expression. Sahay uses a minimalist soundscape to contrast human emotion with technological rhythm.
-
The sound of typing and clicking replaces dialogue, turning labour into a musical motif.
-
The ambient hum of machines serves as an omnipresent drone, symbolizing digital surveillance and control.
-
Natural sounds rain, wind, insects punctuate moments of reflection, breaking the monotony of mechanical noise.
In one key scene, the sudden silence after the machine powers down feels louder than sound itself a moment of acoustic liberation. This juxtaposition of sound and silence mirrors the tension between mechanical repetition and human consciousness.
From a Semiotic perspective, these sound elements operate as non-verbal signs. Each click or hum signifies the dominance of technological rhythm over organic life, while each natural sound signifies the persistence of the human spirit within digital confinement.
Narrative Structure and Temporal Design
Formally, the film rejects linear storytelling in favour of circular narrative design. The beginning and ending mirror each other: Nehma sits before her screen, yet her perception has changed. The repetition of scenes same space, different awareness represents the philosophical idea of the loop not as imprisonment but as reflection.
This circularity resonates with narrative theory, where structure mirrors theme. The looped narrative symbolizes the human-machine feedback system:
-
Humans train AI through data.
-
AI reshapes human perception.
-
Both remain bound in mutual dependence.
The cyclical form also recalls Eastern philosophical concepts of time as recurrence rather than progression, subtly rooting the film in an Indian epistemological context. Sahay’s structural choices thus transcend Western linear logic, aligning with postcolonial approaches that value repetition as introspection rather than stagnation.
Aesthetic Choices and Viewer Experience
The film’s aesthetic strategy deeply influences how viewers experience labour, identity, and technology. Instead of explaining digital culture, it makes the audience feel it. The pacing is intentionally slow, forcing viewers to inhabit the temporal reality of monotonous data work.
Emotional effects of aesthetic choices:
-
Monotony evokes empathy – The viewer’s fatigue parallels Nehma’s exhaustion, generating emotional connection through shared duration.
-
Contrast evokes awareness – Shifts between natural and digital spaces create cognitive dissonance, prompting reflection on what is lost in technological mediation.
-
Silence evokes contemplation – Minimal soundscape encourages mindfulness, making absence itself a form of meaning.
This approach aligns with Formalist Theory, which emphasizes that the viewer’s emotional and intellectual experience arises from the form of the artwork, not merely its content. By manipulating cinematic time, space, and sound, Sahay turns perception into a philosophical act.
Philosophical Concerns: Digital Culture and the Human Condition
At its core, Humans in the Loop raises fundamental questions about digital culture:
-
What happens to human identity when labour becomes invisible and mediated by machines?
-
How does the aesthetic of technology reshape our emotional world?
-
Can human creativity survive in systems built on repetition and automation?
Through its form, the film answers these questions visually rather than verbally. The cold precision of the workspace reflects the rationality of AI, while the warmth of the natural world embodies emotion and intuition. The film’s oscillation between the two suggests that modern humanity lives between screens and soil, perpetually translating one language into the other.
Philosophically, Sahay’s aesthetic recalls Walter Benjamin’s idea of the loss of “aura” in mechanical reproduction, updated for the digital age. In Nehma’s world, images are endlessly reproduced and labelled, yet meaning becomes thinner with every iteration. The film thus critiques digital capitalism’s tendency to flatten depth into data.
Semiotics of Light and Shadow
Light and shadow operate as recurring visual signs throughout the film.
-
Backlighting from the screen casts Nehma’s silhouette, turning her into both subject and object she is illuminated yet consumed by the light of technology.
-
Natural sunlight filters through leaves in the forest scenes, symbolizing enlightenment and self-awareness.
-
Shadowed interiors convey invisibility, hinting that knowledge and labour exist in the dark corners of modern systems.
These semiotic contrasts embody the film’s larger concern with visibility and power. To be visible in digital culture often means to be surveilled, while to remain unseen may preserve humanity. The film refuses a simple binary; instead, it offers light and darkness as interdependent states within the digital ecosystem.
Cinematic Form as Digital Philosophy
What distinguishes Humans in the Loop from typical AI narratives is that its philosophy is embedded in its form. The movie does not preach about technology; it performs it. Every edit, sound, and frame operates like an algorithmic function, processing human emotion through cinematic code.
By merging Formalist aesthetics with Structuralist meaning, Sahay turns cinema into a thinking machine. The film invites viewers to decode its visual and auditory patterns, thus transforming spectators into interpreters active participants in the human-machine dialogue.
In doing so, Humans in the Loop becomes both subject and object of its critique: a technological artwork reflecting on technology itself.
Conclusion
Through its intricate use of form and structure, Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop transforms the story of a single data-labeller into a philosophical reflection on digital culture and human existence. The film’s aesthetic language its loops, silences, contrasts, and repetitions mirrors the rhythms of the digital world while preserving the pulse of humanity within it.
Drawing upon Structuralism, Film Semiotics, and Formalist Theory, this analysis reveals that meaning in Sahay’s film is not contained in dialogue or plot but in cinematic form itself. The interplay between natural imagery and digital space symbolizes the ongoing negotiation between human intuition and technological logic.
Ultimately, the film teaches us that cinema, like AI, is a system of signs but unlike the machine, cinema has emotion, memory, and conscience. Through its formal experimentation, Humans in the Loop asks viewers to reimagine technology not as an external tool but as a mirror reflecting our deepest philosophical dilemmas.
In the end, Sahay’s vision suggests that form is thought made visible and that in understanding how films look, sound, and move, we also learn how digital culture feels. Humans in the Loop thus becomes not just a story about artificial intelligence, but a cinematic meditation on what it means to remain human in a world increasingly shaped by code.
References:
Barad, Dilip. Film Screening Worksheet: Humans in the Loop. Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU), 2026. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
Alonso, D. V. “Imagining AI Futures in Mainstream Cinema: Socio-Technical Narratives and Social Imaginaries.” AI & Society, 2026, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02880-7. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
Anjum, N. “Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop and the Politics of AI Data Labelling.” The Federal, 2026, https://thefederal.com/films/aranya-sahay-humans-in-the-loop-oscar-adivasidata-labelling-jharkhand-ai-tribal-216946. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
Barad, Dilip. “Humans in the Loop – Film Review: Exploring AI Bias through Indigenous Perspectives.” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 10 Jan. 2026, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/search?q=humans+in+loop. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026
Bazin, André. What Is Cinema? Vol. 1, University of California Press, 1967.
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. 12th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.
Cave, Stephen, Kanta Dihal, Eleanor Drage, and Kerry McInerney. “Shuri in the Sea of Dudes: The Cultural Construction of the AI Engineer in Popular Film, 1920–2020.” Feminist AI: Critical Perspectives on Algorithms, Data, and Intelligent Machines, Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 65–82, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0005. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
Gray, Mary L., Siddharth Suri, et al. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Eamon Dolan / Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019.
Hall, Stuart. “The Work of Representation.” Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, edited by Stuart Hall, SAGE Publications, 1997, pp. 13–74.
Haris, M. J., A. Upreti, M. Kurtaran, F. Ginter, and S. Azimi. “Identifying Gender Bias in Blockbuster Movies through the Lens of Machine Learning.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, 2023, Article 94, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01576-3. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
“Humans in the Loop (film).” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Feb. 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_in_the_Loop_(film). Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
McDonald, Kevin. Film Theory: The Basics. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2023.
Sahay, Aranya, director. Humans in the Loop. India, 2024.
Shepherdson, Charles, Jonathan Simpson, and Andrew Utterson, editors. Film Theory: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. Vols. 1–4, Routledge, 2004.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271–313.
Sui, Zheng, and Shun Wang. “Dogme 25: Media Primitivism and New Auteurism in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” Frontiers in Communication, vol. 10, 2025, Article 1659731, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1659731. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
Vighi, Fabio. Critical Theory and Film: Rethinking Ideology through Film Noir. Bloomsbury Academic India, 2019.
Yu, Yifan. “The Reel Deal? An Experimental Analysis of Perception Bias and AI Film Pitches.” Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 49, 2025, pp. 281–300, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-025-09534-4. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment