Humans in the Loop
This blog task has been assigned by Dilip Sir as part of the worksheet discussion on Humans in the Loop. Following the structured steps provided in the worksheet, this blog attempts to critically engage with the film through close analysis and theoretical reflection. The task required us to carefully observe the film’s themes, form, and political concerns, and then develop a thoughtful response grounded in film theory and cultural analysis. Accordingly, this blog examines the film’s representation of AI, labour, knowledge systems, and digital culture, while aligning with the analytical framework outlined in the worksheet.
TASK 1: AI, Bias & Epistemic Representation
Prompt: Critically analyze how Humans in the Loop represents the relationship between technology (AI) and human knowledge, examining algorithmic bias as culturally situated and epistemic hierarchies within technological systems.
Introduction: Technology Meets Indigenous Knowledge
Humans in the Loop, directed by Aranya Sahay, is not merely a cinematic exploration of artificial intelligence; it is a profound philosophical inquiry into power, visibility, and the politics of knowledge. Rather than presenting AI as a purely technical innovation, the film interrogates who gets recognized as a knower within technological systems and whose knowledge is systematically disregarded. Situated in Jharkhand a state closely linked with India’s Adivasi communities the narrative centers on Nehma, an Oraon tribal woman working as a data annotator for AI platforms. Through her lived experience, the film foregrounds what scholars term epistemic injustice: the persistent exclusion and devaluation of marginalized knowledge systems within structures that define authority and expertise. The tension between indigenous epistemologies and data-driven technological rationality becomes the film’s central axis, revealing that AI is not neutral but shaped by historically situated hierarchies of knowledge.
As Alonso (2026) observes in broader discussions of AI-focused cinema, futuristic narratives about artificial intelligence often embed implicit cultural assumptions about progress, rationality, and human value. Humans in the Loop distinguishes itself by making these implicit ideologies visible. It does so through the everyday labor and struggles of a woman positioned at the intersection of multiple marginalities—gender, indigeneity, class, and geographic remoteness. By anchoring technological discourse in Nehma’s reality, the film dismantles the illusion of algorithmic neutrality and instead portrays AI systems as socially constructed entities that reproduce existing epistemic and cultural hierarchies.
.png)
Algorithmic Bias as Culturally Situated
In Humans in the Loop, the central tension intensifies as Nehma becomes increasingly aware of a fundamental gap one that cannot be bridged by expanding datasets or refining computational models between the rigid classificatory structure of the AI system and the fluid, relational knowledge traditions of her Oraon community. Tasked with tagging images of flora, fauna, and landscapes according to predefined algorithmic labels, she repeatedly encounters elements of her lived world that defy such neat categorization. A single plant, for instance, embodies medicinal value, spiritual resonance, and ecological interdependence within her community, yet the system demands it be reduced to one scientific descriptor. Likewise, a forest boundary shaped by ancestral narratives, seasonal rhythms, and embodied memory must be translated into fixed digital coordinates.
Through these moments, the film reconceptualizes algorithmic bias. Rather than presenting it as a technical glitch awaiting correction, it frames bias as culturally embedded—rooted in philosophical assumptions about classification, order, and legitimacy. The computational framework privileges standardized, abstract knowledge while sidelining situated, experiential forms of understanding. In doing so, the film reveals that algorithmic systems do not merely process information; they actively determine which epistemologies are validated and which are systematically rendered invisible.
Epistemic Hierarchies: Whose Knowledge Counts?
Aranya Sahay develops this inquiry into knowledge and authority with subtlety and nuance. Nehma is not portrayed as a passive victim overwhelmed by technological structures; instead, she appears as perceptive and critically aware of the system’s constraints. In several significant scenes, the camera dwells on her brief pauses while labeling data. These hesitations are not depicted as confusion or fragility but as deliberate acts of reflection. They signal a form of intellectual resistance an acknowledgment that the imposed categories fail to encompass the layered meanings embedded in her cultural knowledge.
The representation of the data-annotation center further deepens this critique. Interpreted through frameworks of representation and ideology associated with Stuart Hall and subsequent film scholarship, the workspace appears stark and standardized: illuminated screens, uniform software interfaces, workers enclosed by headphones, and the repetitive cadence of typing. As David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson (2019) describe in discussions of mise-en-scène, such visual organization communicates meaning through spatial and aesthetic arrangement. Here, it reinforces the AI system’s claim to neutrality and universality. Yet Sahay repeatedly interrupts this sterile environment with images of forests, village life, and ritual practices settings saturated with texture, memory, and sensory depth. Viewed through Gilles Deleuze’s (1983) concept of the movement-image, this alternation constructs a visual and philosophical contrast between two epistemic orders: the algorithmic domain, characterized by simplification and standardization, and the indigenous domain, marked by relational complexity and lived interconnection.
The Film as Ideological Critique
The intellectual force of Humans in the Loop lies in its refusal to offer easy resolution or moral reassurance. Nehma neither reforms the system by convincing her superiors nor disrupts it through technological brilliance. By avoiding such narrative closure, the film resists the liberal humanist pattern common in many AI-centered stories the figure of the exceptional individual who redeems or humanizes the machine from within. As Frías (2024) observes about mainstream portrayals of artificial intelligence, these narratives often restore faith in technology through individual heroism. Sahay deliberately sidesteps this convention. Instead, the film concludes in a space of unresolved contradiction: the gulf between indigenous epistemologies and algorithmic rationality remains intact, leaving the audience to grapple with its discomfort rather than escape it.
This lack of closure operates as a form of epistemic intervention. It mirrors the lived condition of communities like Nehma’s, where engagement with the global AI industry provides economic sustenance while simultaneously demanding the suppression or simplification of culturally rooted knowledge systems. A review in The Indian Express (2026) characterizes the film as staging a clash between artificial intelligence and traditional belief structures. However, Sahay’s approach is more layered than a simple binary opposition. The film suggests that the inequality between these knowledge systems is not incidental but systemic woven into the structural logic of technological power in the contemporary world.
Conclusion
Humans in the Loop derives its critical power from its clear refusal to treat algorithmic bias as a minor technical imperfection solvable through better coding or refined datasets. By grounding the narrative in the everyday experience of an Adivasi woman whose ecological and cultural knowledge is persistently marginalized by the AI systems she helps sustain, the film argues that bias is not an accidental glitch. Rather, it emerges inevitably from the cultural assumptions and ideological hierarchies that determine which forms of knowledge are deemed authoritative.
Viewed through the framework of Apparatus Theory, the film can be read as a sustained ideological critique not only of artificial intelligence as a technological system, but of the broader epistemological order it inherits and perpetuates within modernity. As Karen Barad (2026) notes in her review, Sahay’s most significant achievement is her exposure of what digital capitalism seeks to conceal: the hidden human labor that undergirds AI infrastructures, the cultural compromises extracted from marginalized communities, and the subtle yet profound epistemic violence embedded in the foundations of the contemporary AI paradigm.
TASK 2: Labour & the Politics of Cinematic Visibility
Prompt: Examine how the film visualizes invisible labour and what it suggests about labour under digital capitalism, including how its visual language represents labelling work and the emotional experience of labour.
Introduction: Making the Invisible Visible
One of the most characteristic strategies of digital capitalism is the masking of the human effort that sustains it. Behind every AI-generated recommendation, automated translation, image-recognition system, or predictive tool lies an extensive infrastructure of manual work data tagging, content filtering, verification, and correction. This labour is frequently outsourced to the Global South and disproportionately performed by women and individuals from socially and economically marginalized communities. Yet the sleek interfaces and seamless functioning of technological platforms systematically obscure these workers from view. Humans in the Loop, directed by Aranya Sahay, intervenes directly in this concealment. One of its central political gestures is to expose the human foundations that digital capitalism depends upon but prefers to render invisible.
This discussion examines how the film’s cinematography, narrative structure, and formal composition make the hidden world of data annotation perceptible. By foregrounding the physical and emotional dimensions of labeling work, the film compels viewers to reconsider the value assigned to such labour. In doing so, it reveals how contemporary digital capitalism not only extracts productivity from marginalized bodies but also shapes how their work and their subjectivity is perceived, categorized, and often diminished.
Visual Language of Labour: The Data-Labelling Centre
In Humans in the Loop, the data-annotation centre in Jharkhand is crafted as a deliberate mise-en-scène rather than a neutral backdrop. Aranya Sahay, in collaboration with her cinematographer, constructs a workspace that appears mundane at first glance but carries layered political meaning. The setting is structured, sparse, and repetitive: aligned rows of computer screens, standardized chairs, workers isolated by headphones, and the continuous rhythm of typing and clicking.
This aesthetic of uniformity is not incidental. It mirrors the global technology industry’s cultivated image of efficiency, objectivity, and universal applicability. At the same time, it subtly reflects the ideological foundations of digital labour where individuality is minimized, workers become interchangeable, and human presence dissolves into a system that prizes consistency over context. Through visual repetition and spatial order, the film communicates how labour under digital capitalism is disciplined, standardized, and quietly depersonalized.
Emotional Labour and the Affective Economy
Beyond depicting the mechanical routines of tagging data, the film also foregrounds the psychological and emotional dimensions embedded in this labour. Nehma’s role is neither automatic nor purely technical; it demands discernment, categorization, and constant mediation between her lived understanding of the world and the classifications imposed by the AI interface. Drawing on Arlie Hochschild’s concept of emotional labour, this work involves the ongoing management of internal feelings to meet professional expectations.
This affective strain is conveyed primarily through a series of intimate close-ups centered on the performance of Sonal Madhushankar. Subtle shifts in Nehma’s facial expressions capture moments of hesitation, quiet disagreement, and gradual emotional fatigue as she navigates incompatible categories. At certain points, her reactions suggest a muted grief an awareness of the accumulating cost of small, repeated compromises. The restraint in her performance, avoiding overt dramatics, becomes politically meaningful. It insists that data annotation is not a neutral or emotionless task but one that carries significant psychological weight. By highlighting this dimension, the film challenges dominant narratives of AI innovation that erase both the economic exploitation and the deeply human toll embedded within digital labour.
Labour, Class, and Digital Capitalism
In Humans in the Loop, Nehma’s occupation is situated within a broader critique of class structures shaped by digital capitalism. The data-annotation centre occupies a significant spatial and symbolic role: it operates as a peripheral outpost of global capital embedded within a region marked by economic and social marginalization. The foreign clients who assign and profit from the labeling work never physically appear on screen. Instead, they are represented indirectly through algorithmic instructions, dashboards, and productivity metrics communicated via digital platforms. This strategic absence reflects the actual configuration of the global data economy.
In reality, workers in places such as Jharkhand or parts of sub-Saharan Africa are connected to major technology corporations in hubs like Silicon Valley or Shenzhen through multilayered subcontracting systems. These networks diffuse accountability and obscure the direct relationship between labour and profit. Those who generate value remain separated financially, geographically, and symbolically from those who accumulate it. By structuring the narrative around this absence, the film reveals how digital capitalism sustains class inequality not only through wage gaps but also through intentional invisibility embedded within global production chains.
Does the Film Invite Empathy, Critique, or Transformation?
The question of whether the film cultivates empathy, encourages critical thought, or gestures toward change can be answered by recognizing that Aranya Sahay engages all three dimensions simultaneously and with considerable subtlety.
Empathy arises through the film’s intimate portrayal of Nehma’s personal life. Her relationship with her daughter Dhaanu, who struggles to adjust to village life, her care for her infant son Guntu, and the quiet endurance that shapes her daily routine deepen her characterization. These elements humanize the abstract category of the “data annotator,” allowing audiences to see her not merely as labour power but as a complex individual embedded within familial and cultural ties.
Simultaneously, the film fosters critique by laying bare the political economy of data work. The unseen clients, the insistence on rigid classification systems, and the recurring friction between Nehma’s contextual knowledge and algorithmic demands all signal entrenched structural inequities. Importantly, this critique is not delivered through overt exposition or didactic commentary. Instead, it is embedded within the film’s formal construction its editing patterns, spatial contrasts, and restrained performances aligning it with traditions of politically conscious cinema that rely on form as much as content.
The possibility of transformation is suggested not through explicit solutions but through the film’s refusal to provide narrative closure. By leaving its central tensions unresolved, it unsettles the viewer and resists the comforting narratives often associated with technological progress. As noted in a review in The Quint by D'Souza (2025), the film’s dedication to the women of Jharkhand extends beyond sentiment. It operates as a political claim, asserting the material and epistemic significance of their labour and insisting on their visibility within a system designed to marginalize them.
Conclusion
Humans in the Loop stands as a compelling contribution to the cinematic exploration of labour. By foregrounding the often-unseen practice of data annotation, by attentively representing the embodied and emotional dimensions of this work, and by embedding it within a coherent structural critique of digital capitalism, the film fulfills one of political cinema’s enduring aims: to expose what is normalized, to illuminate what is hidden, and to question what is taken for granted.
Viewed through the intersecting perspectives of Marxist Film Theory and Representation and Identity Studies, the film articulates a powerful argument: the digital revolution is neither immaterial nor ethically neutral. It is sustained by specific bodies, situated knowledges, and unequal global arrangements. In bringing the women of Jharkhand’s data centres into focus, the film positions them not as peripheral figures in technological modernity, but as central if insufficiently acknowledged contributors to its very existence.
TASK 3: Film Form, Structure & Digital Culture
Prompt: Analyze how film form and cinematic devices (camera techniques, editing, sequencing, sound) convey philosophical concerns about digital culture and human-AI interaction.
Introduction: Form as Argument
In film theory, form is not simply decorative; it is constitutive of meaning itself. As David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson (2019) argue in their foundational work on film art, choices related to framing, camera movement, editing rhythm, sound design, and visual composition are not neutral techniques. They actively guide interpretation and structure the viewer’s understanding of a film’s themes. Formal decisions, in this sense, are intellectual interventions.
Humans in the Loop, directed by Aranya Sahay, demonstrates a particularly deliberate engagement with this principle. Its cinematic form does more than support the narrative; it advances a sustained philosophical reflection on digital culture, the nature of human AI interaction, and the epistemological implications of living alongside intelligent systems. The film’s visual and auditory design becomes inseparable from its critical stance.
This analysis undertakes a close reading of the film’s formal elements, examining how mise-en-scène, cinematography, editing structures, narrative sequencing, and soundscapes collectively communicate its central concerns. Through these interconnected devices, the film interrogates how knowledge is constructed in the era of artificial intelligence, explores the friction between algorithmic logic and embodied life, and highlights the broader cultural and political consequences embedded within encounters between humans and machines.
Mise-en-Scène: The Visual Grammar of Two Worlds
A central formal strategy in Humans in the Loop is its careful division of cinematic space into two interconnected yet contrasting domains: the organic sphere of forest and village life, and the technological sphere of screens, servers, and algorithmic systems. This duality is expressed consistently through mise-en-scène.
In the forest sequences, Aranya Sahay constructs a warm and tactile visual palette dominated by greens, browns, and other earthy tones. Light filters naturally through leaves and branches, creating layered shadows and visual density. The forest is presented as dynamic and interconnected, a living environment marked by variation and complexity that resists reduction. The framing in these scenes privileges depth: human figures are embedded within wide, textured landscapes rather than separated from them. Elements such as foliage, soil, and branches frequently occupy the foreground, visually reinforcing the idea that human presence and ecological space are intertwined and mutually shaping.
In contrast, the data-annotation centre is depicted through an opposing visual logic. Artificial lighting often fluorescent and evenly distributed produces a cold, flattened aesthetic. The bluish glow of computer monitors dominates the frame, washing out facial nuances and diminishing individual distinctiveness. Spatial composition here often relies on shallow depth, with workers tightly framed against desks and screens while the broader environment remains stripped of detail. This setting appears abstract and standardized, characterized by smooth surfaces and an absence of sensory richness.
Through this persistent visual contrast, Humans in the Loop transforms mise-en-scène into a philosophical device. The opposition between textured natural environments and sterile digital interiors stages a deeper confrontation between two epistemologies: one rooted in relational, embodied experience, and another structured around simplification, uniformity, and control.
Cinematography: The Camera as Epistemological Instrument
The film’s cinematography strengthens and refines this visual argument. In the forest sequences, the camera frequently adopts a handheld or gently mobile style. This subtle movement creates a sense of openness and responsiveness, echoing the rhythms of human perception. Rather than dictating a rigid visual order, the camera appears to follow Nehma attentively moving alongside her, pausing when she pauses, and aligning with her gaze. This approach produces a form of cinematic empathy that carries epistemological weight. It implies that knowledge like the forest is best approached through attentiveness, flexibility, and situational awareness rather than through fixed classificatory schemes.
By comparison, the sequences set in the data-annotation centre emphasize compositional stability and visual control. The camera often remains static, observing Nehma from fixed positions that underscore the standardized design of the workspace. Repetition dominates these frames: rows of identical desks, glowing monitors, synchronized gestures of typing and clicking. This controlled immobility serves a critical purpose. The camera’s rigidity mirrors the algorithm’s inflexibility, and the visual emphasis on repetition highlights the system’s indifference to individuality and nuance. Through these contrasting modes of cinematography, Humans in the Loop presents the camera itself as a mode of knowing—capable either of accommodating complexity and relational depth or of reinforcing abstraction and uniform control.
Editing and Sequencing: The Dialectics of Nature and Technology
In Humans in the Loop, editing functions as the film’s most explicitly dialectical device. Aranya Sahay and her editor construct a recurring rhythm of cross-cutting that alternates between two contrasting spaces: the forest and village life, and the data-annotation centre. These shifts are not arbitrary. They are organized around conceptual parallels and tensions, allowing the transitions themselves to carry philosophical weight.
A recurring structural pattern links Nehma’s encounters with elements of her ecological and cultural environment a bird in flight, a medicinal plant, a communal ritual to subsequent moments at her workstation, where she must assign rigid algorithmic labels that fail to capture those realities. This juxtaposition produces meaning through contrast. The viewer first experiences the richness and particularity of lived knowledge and is then confronted with its compression into standardized digital categories. This approach recalls Sergei Eisenstein’s idea of intellectual montage, in which the collision between images generates conceptual insight rather than relying solely on linear storytelling.
The film’s sequencing also emphasizes divergent experiences of time. Forest scenes unfold slowly, privileging duration, attention, and sensory immersion. They allow gestures, movements, and environmental textures to develop organically. In contrast, sequences set in the data-labelling centre are edited more tightly, reflecting the accelerated rhythm of digital production continuous image streams, performance quotas, and pressure for efficiency. The contrast between the forest’s expansive temporality and the compressed pace of algorithmic labour becomes a formal statement. It stages two incompatible relationships to time and, by implication, two distinct ways of relating to knowledge and lived reality within Humans in the Loop.
Sound Design: Acoustic Epistemology
The film’s sound design operates with equal precision and complements its visual structure. In the forest scenes, the sonic field is dense and layered. Birdsong, wind through leaves, flowing water, distant voices, and ritual sounds coexist within a carefully balanced mix. Spatial depth is emphasized sounds originate from different directions and distances creating an immersive auditory landscape that mirrors the visual richness of the setting. The soundscape reinforces themes of interconnection, multiplicity, and the embodied texture of experience.
By contrast, the acoustic environment of the data-annotation centre is pared down and mechanical. Dominant sounds include the steady tapping of keyboards, the clicking of a mouse, the muted hum of electronic equipment, and intermittent digital notifications. Dialogue is minimal and largely functional, confined to brief exchanges about tasks or performance. Like the centre’s visual aesthetic, its soundscape reflects reduction and standardization. The layered resonance of the forest is replaced by a narrow, efficiency-driven acoustic field governed by technological interfaces.
Silence is also used strategically. During moments when Nehma pauses at her workstation, ambient noise subtly fades, producing an almost hollow sonic space. This quietness carries interpretive weight. It suggests both the system’s inability to acknowledge meanings that exceed its categories and the silence imposed on forms of knowledge that cannot be encoded. Through this restrained and deliberate deployment of sound and its absence Humans in the Loop turns the auditory dimension into a philosophical commentary on the limits of algorithmic understanding.
Structural Theory and Narrative Form
The film’s refusal to provide narrative closure operates as both a philosophical and political gesture. On a structural level, its openness reinforces its thematic claim: the tension between indigenous epistemologies and algorithmic classification cannot be resolved through technical refinement or improved data protocols. The divide is not a temporary flaw awaiting correction but a foundational condition of the relationship between digital systems and the complex forms of life they attempt to categorize and regulate.
By leaving this conflict unresolved, Humans in the Loop transforms narrative structure into argument. Its lack of resolution does not signal incompleteness but intentional design. The film’s structural indeterminacy becomes its most forthright statement an acknowledgment that certain contradictions within digital modernity cannot be harmonized without erasing what makes them significant.
Conclusion: The Aesthetics of Digital Critique
Humans in the Loop demonstrates a high degree of formal precision, mobilizing mise-en-scène, cinematography, editing, sound, and narrative organization to advance a sustained critique of digital culture and human AI interaction. Its defining formal device the consistent visual and acoustic division between the forest and the data-annotation centre functions not simply as stylistic contrast but as philosophical intervention. The film argues, through aesthetic means, that digital systems do not neutrally mirror reality; they construct it according to historically and culturally specific logics that privilege certain epistemologies while marginalizing others.
As Alonso (2026) suggests, cinematic narratives about artificial intelligence inevitably reflect broader social imaginaries surrounding technology and progress. Through the rigor of its formal strategies, Sahay’s film exposes these imaginaries, rendering visible the ideological assumptions embedded within contemporary digital life. In doing so, it invites viewers not only to observe but to question the cultural narratives that frame technological development as inevitable, neutral, or universally beneficial.
References
Alonso, David 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.
Anjum, Nootan. “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-adivasi-data-labelling-jharkhand-ai-tribal-216946.
“Apparatus: Film, Media and Digital Cultures of Central and Eastern Europe.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, retrieved 15 Feb. 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatus_(journal).
Barad, Dilip. “Humans in the Loop: Exploring AI, Labour and Digital Culture.” Blog post, Jan. 2026. https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2026/01/humans-in-loop-film-review-exploringai.html.
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, et al. “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.
D'Souza, Sahir Avik. “‘Humans in the Loop’: A Thoughtful Film About the Human Intelligence Behind AI.” The Quint, 5 Sept. 2025. https://thequint.com/entertainment/bollywood/humans-in-the-loop-review-ai-theatrical-release.
Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
“Film Theory.” The Year’s Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/ywcct/mbaf004.
Frías, Carlos L. “The Paradox of Artificial Intelligence in Cinema.” Cultura Digital, vol. 2, no. 1, 2024, pp. 5–25. https://doi.org/10.23882/cdig.240999.
Göker, Deniz. “Human-Like Artificial Intelligence in Indian Cinema: Cultural Narratives, Ethical Dimensions, and Posthuman Perspectives.” International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2025, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.46442/intjcss.1799907.
Haris, M. J., et al. “Identifying Gender Bias in Blockbuster Movies through the Lens of Machine Learning.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, 2023, p. 94. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01576-3.
Humans in the Loop. Directed by Aranya Sahay, Storiculture, 2024.
“Humans in the Loop (Film).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, retrieved 15 Feb. 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_in_the_Loop_(film).
Indian Express Editorial. “Humans in the Loop Explores How AI Clashes with Traditional Belief Systems.” The Indian Express, 3 May 2025. https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/humans-in-the-loop-explores-how-ai-clashes-with-traditional-belief-systems-9980634/.
McDonald, Kevin. Film Theory: The Basics. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2023.
Mehrotra, Karishma. “Human Touch.” Fifty Two, 2022. https://fiftytwo.in/story/human-touch/.
Sahay, Aranya, director. Humans in the Loop. Storiculture, 2024.
Vighi, Fabio. Critical Theory and Film: Rethinking Ideology through Film Noir. Bloomsbury Academic India, 2019.