Science Fiction Film & Television

Playing human

Anthropomorphism and visions of the Anthropocene in 2.0

Science Fiction Film & Television (2021), 14, (3), 333–353.


While Indian cinema has a rich tradition of ‘creature features‘, these films have traditionally drawn from Indigenous myth and folklore, rather than engaging with the environmentalist themes that are a staple in Western creature features. S. Shankar’s 2.0 (2018) marked an important moment in Indian cinema as the first true example of a mainstream Indian film that is unequivocally categorisable as ecohorror. However, the emergence of such a film text is not devoid of a historical context, nor is the near-absence of environmentalism in previous Indian ‘creature features’ devoid of reason. This essay is an attempt to trace how a film like 2.0 emerges within the Indian cultural context, how it assimilates prefigured Indigenous ideas as well as culturally translocated and subsequently Indianised ideas, and what new meaning is created in the process. My discussion primarily revolves around the theme of anthromorphism, which is commonly used in the visual and narrative portrayal of monsters in ‘creature features’. My arguments, while inter-linked, are divisible into four broad parts. Firstly, I locate the differences in Indian and Western ‘creature features’ in the differing cultural perceptions of anthropomorphism and anthropomorphised beings. For this, I draw on Paul Ricoeur’s theory of threefold mimesis, which links narratives to particular cultural repositories, and James Clifford’s notion of ‘traveling cultures’, which describes the modification of those repositories through cultural exchange. I locate the Indian economic liberalisation in the 1990s as an important historical juncture for the modification of the cultural repository. To make my case, I refer to existing criticism of Indian sf, marking the shifts from the post-colonial era through the post-1990s era. Secondly, I engage with the visual form of 2.0’s monster, focusing on the incorporation of both nature and technology in its design, and how it is significant. I draw from Western posthumanist theory, especially Donna Haraway’s concept of the ‘humanimal‘, and compare it with the Indigenous ecocentric imagination of the world where humans and nonhumans are kindred figures. Thirdly, I argue that the film, both at the narrative and visual level, constructs a vision of the Anthropocene that is not anthropocentric. It accomplishes this by consciously de-centring human characters, shifting the focus to everything that is of humans. Fourthly, I consolidate the previous argument by analysing how the film makes use of humour, especially dark humour, in order to accentuate its decentring of humans by the anthropomorphised, or human-like. Looking ahead, I propose the likelihood of 2.0 being the first of many Indian ‘creature features’ that mark a cultural shift from the mythological paradigm to the environmentalist paradigm. As such, a close analysis of the film as text and its corresponding context, focused on how it draws from and modifies its cultural repository, is significant in terms of laying the groundwork for future discussion.

Access Token
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2005. Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M.M. Rabelais and His World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968. Google Scholar

Banerjee, Suparno. Other Tomorrows: Postcoloniality, Science Fiction and India. 2010. Louisiana State U, PhD dissertation. Accessed 10 Apr 2021. Google Scholar

Clifford, James. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. Google Scholar

‘Devotional Ringtones Score over Filmy Tunes’. The New Indian Express (11 Dec 2019). Accessed 7 May 2020. Google Scholar

Fuller, Steve. ‘Posthumanism.’ The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Ed. B.S. Turner, 4 Dec 2017. Wiley Online Library, Accessed 15 Mar 2020. Google Scholar

Goswami, Subhojit. ‘How Can We Bring Disappearing Sparrows Back to Our Cities?’ DownToEarth (20 Mar 2017). Accessed 1 Jul 2020. Google Scholar

Haraway, Donna J. ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century’. Manifestly Haraway. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2016. 3-90. Google Scholar

Haraway, Donna J.. ‘Donna Haraway: From Cyborgs to Companion Species’. YouTube, uploaded by UC Berkeley Events (25 Oct 2011). Accessed 11 Jun 2020. Google Scholar

Haraway, Donna J.. ‘Donna Haraway on the humanimal’. YouTube, uploaded by Human (8 Mar 2013). Accessed 12 Jun 2020. Google Scholar

Heaphy, Linda. ‘Kali: A Most Misunderstood Goddess’. Kashgar (7 Jun 2017): Accessed 30 Apr 2020. Google Scholar

‘Irrfan Khan is Protesting; But Why?’ News Nation (15 Mar 2016). Accessed 19 Oct 2020. Google Scholar

Kamat, Vikas. ‘Worship of Vehicles - Car Puja’. Kamat’s Potpourri (1 Apr 2005). Accessed 30 Jul 2020. Google Scholar

Khan, Sami Ahmad. ‘Gods of War Toke While Riding a Vimana: Hindu Gods in Three Indian Science Fiction Novels’. MOSF Journal of Science Fiction 1.1 (2016). Accessed 11 Apr 2021. Google Scholar

Leeming, David Adams. The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Google Scholar

Mantri, Rajeev and Harsh Gupta. ‘The Story of India’s Telecom Revolution’. Mint (8 Jan 2013). Accessed 25 Aug 2020. Google Scholar

McGraw, A.P. and C. Warren. ‘Benign Violations: Making Immoral Behaviour Funny’. Psychological Science 21 (2010): 1141-9. Google Scholar

Moore, Jason W. ‘Jason W. Moore: Anthropocene or Capitalocene?’ YouTube, uploaded by Entitle blog (5 Jan 2016). Accessed 20 Jul 2020. Google Scholar

Natarajan, Vasant. ‘The Myth of Cell Phone Radiation’. Resonance: Journal of Science Education 17.11 (2012): 1048-53. Google Scholar

Parthasarathy, K.S. ‘A Classic Example of Biased and Unscientific Study’. The Hindu (23 Aug 2012). Accessed 30 May 2020. Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1969. 142-84. Google Scholar

Ramachandran, T.V. ‘Companies Cash in on Public’s Baseless Fear of Cellphone Radiation’. The Economic Times (28 May 2016). Accessed 20 Jun 2020. Google Scholar

Reilly, Patrick. ‘Mother Ganges: Can Human Rights Save India’s Sacred River?’ The Christian Science Monitor (22 Mar 2017). Accessed 11 Jun 2020. Google Scholar

Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative, Volume 1. Trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984. Google Scholar

Root-Bernstein, M., L. Douglas, A. Smith and D. Veríssimo. ‘Anthropomophized Species as Tools for Conservation: Utility beyond Prosocial, Intelligent and Suffering Species’. Biodiversity and Conservation 22 (2013): 1577-89. Google Scholar

Singh, Hemant. ‘New Economic Policy of 1991: Objectives, Features and Impacts’. Jagran Josh (14 Oct 2019). Accessed 16 Sep 2021. Google Scholar

Singh, Paras. ‘Locals Protest Cell Tower near Lodhi Garden’. Times of India (19 May 2019). Accessed 30 May 2020. Google Scholar

Verma, Rahul. ‘The TV Show That Transformed Hinduism’. BBC Culture (22 Oct 2019). Accessed 2 Jul 2020. Google Scholar

Welsch, Wolfgang. ‘Postmodernism - Posthumanism - Evolutionary Anthropology’. Journal of Posthuman Studies 1.1 (2017): 75-86. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here


Author details

Lahiri, Dibyajyoti