813-816 Wim Wenders: The Road Trilogy

[GaryC]

I'd say the nudity involved in Wrong Move is in the setting of unambiguously eroticized physical contact. Was this screened in the UK?

OK, this is interesting; it seems that the BBFC did indeed cut it for UK video release in 2004, and for precisely that reason. So yes, it did cross that particular line in a way that À nos amours didn't.

(I haven't seen it myself.)

It opened theatrically in mid-1977, but without a BBFC certificate, and in any case this was before the passage of the 1978 Protection of Children Act.

I haven't seen it either, but do you have a source for it having been cut? The BBFC site has a cinema pass in 1980 (with an obviously inaccurate time of 41 minutes - should be 103) and homeviewing passes in 1995, 2007 and 2008, but not 2004, none of them cut. Going by the Monthly Film Bulletin, it was indeed released non-theatrically in 16mm in 1977, by the same distributor (Cinegate) who submitted it to the BBFC in 1980.

I wonder if Kinski has ever spoken about To the Devil a Daughter, which she made at the age of fourteen. She's not only topless but full-frontal in that, but as she's the only person in that particular shot, it's deemed not to be a sexual scene and not in breach of the Act so the BBFC have never cut it. There are other reasons in the film for an X or 18 certificate. But I wonder if this might go out of circulation too.

[The Curious Sofa]

I'd say the nudity involved in Wrong Move is in the setting of unambiguously eroticized physical contact. Was this screened in the UK?

OK, this is interesting; it seems that the BBFC did indeed cut it for UK video release in 2004, and for precisely that reason. So yes, it did cross that particular line in a way that À nos amours didn't.

(I haven't seen it myself.)

It opened theatrically in mid-1977, but without a BBFC certificate, and in any case this was before the passage of the 1978 Protection of Children Act.

I haven't seen it either, but do you have a source for it having been cut? The BBFC site has a cinema pass in 1980 (with an obviously inaccurate time of 41 minutes - should be 103) and homeviewing passes in 1995, 2007 and 2008, but not 2004, none of them cut.

I wonder if Kinski has ever spoken about To the Devil a Daughter, which she made at the age of fourteen. She's not only topless but full-frontal in that, but as she's the only person in that particular shot, it's deemed not to be a sexual scene and not in breach of the Act so the BBFC have never cut it. There are other reasons in the film for an X or 18 certificate. But I wonder if this might go out of circulation too.

In the German media it was reported that Kinski collectively called out all early films and TV series where she appeared naked or near naked, which comprises at least her first five appearances on screen and she's been pursuing this for a while now. I guess the focus is most on Wrong Move because she was so young and Wenders recently issued a reply that didn't go down well. A notable case in Germany is a feature length episodes of the long running (56 years and still going) German police procedural Tatort, which was directed Wolfgang Petersen. She was 15 then, played a seductive teen femme fatale and the context of her nudity was certainly sexual. In 2024 she's received an apology and come to "an agreement" with the TV channel ARD and that there are no plans to screen the episode again. I guess for Kinski this came all more into focus since her sister Pola Kinski revealed that their father Klaus Kinki sexually abused her from the age of 5. I always wondered why there hasn't been more outrage over that.

[therewillbeblus]

Currently on backorder on Criterion's site

[dwk]

The DVD version ia still available.

[TMDaines]

I noticed Falsche Bewegung had been allowed to drift OOP on Blu-ray in Germany a number of years ago and was never included in subsequent compilation sets where it might otherwise be expected, nor did it get a single release.

[spectre]

I guess for Kinski this came all more into focus since her sister Pola Kinski revealed that their father Klaus Kinki sexually abused her from the age of 5. I always wondered why there hasn't been more outrage over that.

I don't think there was or is any less "outrage" than anyone would expect, and it's not one of those things where it's somehow slipped under the radar – I think most people who are in any way familiar with Kinski are by now aware of Pola's sexual abuse allegations against him. But the fact he was long dead by then and already such a disreputable (to say the least) figure meant there was nothing much to do with the revelation except to acknowledge it in horror and sadness (and, for those so inclined, make decisions about how to engage with his work in future accordingly).

With a person as mentally unwell as Kinski sr, one's instinct is to look more sharply at the people and the broader film industry that might have enabled or covered up for him. But I'm not sure even they could have been expected to know that this was happening or to have been in a position to do anything about it.

By the way, speaking of Klaus, I'm seeing a lot of commentary on social media suggesting that he was the person enabling or encouraging Nastassja to be cast in sexually suggestive roles as a teenager. But if I understand correctly, she was (mercifully) long estranged from him by her teens, and I'm not aware of him playing any role in getting her cast in Wrong Move or any of the other films she acted in afterwards.

[hearthesilence]

Coverage in today's New York Times.

[swo17]

Well, this is my favorite film in the trilogy, and perhaps my favorite Wenders film full stop. I was not aware Kinski was underage at the time, nor that she later objected to this scene circulating. Obviously this gives me pause

[TMDaines]

Well, this is my favorite film in the trilogy, and perhaps my favorite Wenders film full stop. I was not aware Kinski was underage at the time, nor that she later objected to this scene circulating. Obviously this gives me pause

She’s obviously underage if you stop and think about it for a minute, but culturally it was seemingly acceptable then. I do think this is a great example of the Streisand Effext in action though.

[MichaelB]

One of these days I'm going to look up the debate that led to the creation of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, which I assume is on the Hansard website, because such things normally spell out the impetus that led to the creation of said legislation. For instance, I already know that the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act came about thanks to widespread concern about the mistreatment of horses in American westerns, which is why horse-tripping is so often cut to this day; it was that specific thing that the Act was designed to proscribe.

Incidentally, ignore what I said earlier about Wrong Movement being cut in the UK; my source turned out to be both unique and unreliable. I'm not going to link to it as it's part of a polemical article arguing that graphic depictions of teenage sexuality are being unfairly repressed by prudish censors, an attitude that's... well, "problematic" would be putting it mildly!

As Gary says, it was passed uncut by the BBFC on four occasions (one theatrical, three video), the theatrical certificate being granted in 1980, some three years after it played the club circuit. As to why it was belatedly submitted, my old stamping ground the Everyman Cinema in Hampstead seems to have given an extended run to a double bill of that and The American Friend in March 1980, and I don't think the Everyman had club status at the time.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Not sure if anyone can speak to this, but on a similar topic, I saw 1900 for the first time about a year ago and was shocked by the scene of two very young boys playing with their penises and talking about masturbation. I know that whole film conflates sex and politics into one thought, but that was a little extreme and I’d be lying if I said it didn’t make me uncomfortable, even if there were only a dozen people in the theater. Was this even considered too far in the seventies?

[MichaelB]

Well, the 1978 Protection of Children Act wasn't (by a whisker) an issue for theatrical release, but it's subsequently been passed by the BBFC uncut on three separate occasions for home video, so presumably they didn't have a problem with it. Annoyingly, the website doesn't give any concrete details beyond "contains strong real sex"—the BBFC site used to be an amazing research tool, but they've seriously dumbed it down since.

(The BBFC is a useful yardstick here, because they're legally required by the 1984 Video Recordings Act to ensure that the films that they pass for home video don't break any laws, and the PCA is one of the statutes most often invoked because context and artistic merit don't provide a legal defence if footage is judged to breach it.)

[swo17]

Well, this is my favorite film in the trilogy, and perhaps my favorite Wenders film full stop. I was not aware Kinski was underage at the time, nor that she later objected to this scene circulating. Obviously this gives me pause

She’s obviously underage if you stop and think about it for a minute, but culturally it was seemingly acceptable then. I do think this is a great example of the Streisand Effext in action though.

What do you mean by "stop and think about it"? Look up her birthday and compare to the film's release date?

[beamish14]

Not sure if anyone can speak to this, but on a similar topic, I saw 1900 for the first time about a year ago and was shocked by the scene of two very young boys playing with their penises and talking about masturbation. I know that whole film conflates sex and politics into one thought, but that was a little extreme and I’d be lying if I said it didn’t make me uncomfortable, even if there were only a dozen people in the theater. Was this even considered too far in the seventies?

Their erections are clearly visible. When Paramount re-released Novocento in America in 1991, it retained that scene, and every home video release does as well. It made my jaw drop when I saw it theatrically

[Zot!]

It was an era of changing mores, see also the many platinum LPs that featured underage models. Like most things it can be done with good intent, or it can be done with poor intent. But this is nothing new, it wasn't on accident that most models for classical nude paintings were prostitutes having questionable agency (many likely underage), that's before we get into robbing graves for anatomical models.

Ultimately like anything else I guess it comes down to if the art is good enough and has the internal morality to justify the sacrifice of the performers and crew, and the naughty bits add value and not vulgarity...but it better be damn good. Of course you can write books about Aesthetic morality, and Nietzsche did.

Personally, I'm still a self-possessed "free-thinker" and I'll typically err on the side of the artist rather than the moralistic fig-leafers, but that might also be a reaction to the ridiculous timeframe we're living in where the Nevermind baby is suing for damages.

[hearthesilence]

I've seen 1900 (after buying the DVD cheap through Columbia House many years ago) and I have absolutely no recollection of that part either. I also thought the film itself was a massive disappointment and sold the DVD, probably in a matter of weeks just to get my money back - I guess it's difficult remembering films you dislike!

EDIT: I would've been very young at the time - I started joining BMG/Columbia House when I was in high school - so maybe it's simply much less shocking to witness when you're not far from the same age, relatively speaking. That and of course living in a different time?

[mfunk9786]

Arrived from Amazon in perfect condition. LQ thinks I’m a creep, but I just know this box set will be out of print for possibly a few years (if not permanently) and it’s been on my long list for a while. I’ll close my eyes or leave the room or leap off our roof during the offending moment.