
What a Flash!
1972

1971
Director
Frederick Wiseman, Karpo Aćimović Godina, Paul Morrissey, Mladomir 'Puriša' Đorđević, Dušan Makavejev, Buck Henry, Miloš Forman, Tinto Brass
Runtime
16 minutes
Average Rating
No ratings yetSynopsis
One camera in one setting, one attic and eight young directors – the result is a unique Dadaistic collage of seven short sketches. The original task for each filmmaker was to keep each short under three minutes, to set it in one hotel room, and to include the sentence “I miss Sonja Henie." This experimental film was shot over a single night at the international film festival FEST in Beograd in 1971.
Overall Score
Good
Category Breakdown
LGBTQ+ Representation
The film lacks sustained queer narratives due to its fragmented sketch format. However, the involvement of directors like Paul Morrissey suggests a transgressive approach to sexuality.
Gender Representation
The avant-garde sketches disrupt traditional patriarchal hierarchies and the hero's journey. The creative team tends to deconstruct gender roles through provocative, non-traditional lenses.
Racial & Ethnic Diversity
Diversity is found in the cross-cultural collaboration between Western and Eastern European filmmakers. The project functions as a meta-commentary on internationalism rather than through specific casting.
Religious & Cultural Diversity
The Dadaist collage rejects traditional Western narrative structures and capitalist storytelling tropes. It prioritizes subjective experience and intellectual rebellion over cohesive, institutionalized media.
Disability Representation
There is no discernible evidence regarding the portrayal of physical or neurodivergent disabilities within the available sketches.
Strengths
Areas for Improvement
AI Analysis
This experimental collage succeeds by dismantling the concept of the singular auteur. By utilizing a collective of international directors, the film inherently challenges traditional cinematic hierarchies and embraces a postmodern, multi-perspective worldview. The work functions as a critique of institutionalized media. Its strength lies in its narrative architecture, which favors fragmented, subjective experiences over standard moralities or cohesive plots. While the film lacks deep character development, its creative pedigree suggests an intentionality toward subverting cultural norms and exploring transgressive themes.

1972

1967
1965

1970

2017

1963

1962

1966

1999

2009

1998

1965
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this movie!
Use the rating form above to leave a star rating and optional review.