Debate about the nude scene: Kinski vs. Wenders: What happens next in the dispute between actress and director?

Wenders said at the German Film Prize that he would “never do the scene like that again today.” But he couldn’t blame his younger self at the time. He made a film in his time. But a question arises that concerns all filmmakers: “How do you deal with film heritage?” Wenders asked the German Film Academy for a debate.

Kinski’s lawyer Schertz criticizes Wenders’ speech as an attempt to evade personal responsibility. “In fact, he has once again taken no responsibility; only he alone can solve the problem. He is the director, it is his film. So this is not about censorship or cancel culture, as he suggested in his speech.”

Since, according to Schertz, Wenders has “refused to have a personal conversation with Kinski about the scene for years,” the lawyer announces the transition to formal legal steps. We will wait this week to see whether there is a reaction to the recent public debate. “If we don’t receive confirmation that the scene will be removed, we will sue,” he says, citing the violation of Kinski’s personal rights as a child.

What scene is it actually about?

“False Movement” (1975) is about the writer Wilhelm, who goes on a journey through Germany. Meanwhile, he meets various companions, including an actress and a mute artist named Mignon – played by Kinski. When they return to an abandoned house together, Wilhelm sneaks through the dark hallway at night. But instead of in the room of the actress who is waiting for him, he ends up with Mignon.

In the approximately two-minute scene you can see a female body lying on a bed. Wilhelm takes off his clothes and lies on top of him wearing only his underpants. When he turns on the light, he looks into Mignon’s face. First he slaps her, then he strokes her face. Kinski is only wearing underwear in this scene and her upper body is bare. It is later implied that sexual acts took place between Wilhelm and Mignon.

Why is the scene problematic for Kinski?

Her lawyer Schertz argues: “The point is that, as a director, he filmed a half-naked actress at the age of 13 and shows her in the film as the victim of a sexual encounter with a much older man, and that this would be unthinkable today. And this scene can also be cut out without the film being distorted in any way.”

“Looking back, she felt completely overwhelmed by the situation and not protected by him at the time. And they filmed the scene several times,” said Schertz. “Sometimes you look back on your life and realize that things happened that were simply not right and I would like to see them corrected. And that’s how it was here.”

Kinski recently told the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”: “Although I didn’t know that much when I was 13, I already noticed that it wasn’t okay.” She also criticized the production conditions. “It just happened to be the first film, he was my first director and he didn’t protect me.” Kinski also shot his road movie “Paris, Texas” with Wenders.

How does the film industry react to Wenders’ speech?

Wenders asked at the gala at which he received the honorary award: Can and should a scene be cut if it hurts an actress – “whom I admire and admire very much”? “Can you shorten a film afterwards?” He is pretty alone with this question and he is also at a loss.

He asked the German Film Academy for a debate. Assuming he shortens the film, that would be a precedent. “Then it’s possible with all the other films later. I want to discuss it and I don’t want to be left alone.” The Film Academy has not yet commented on Wenders’ suggestion or his speech upon request.

Even days later, his speech caused discussions. “It would have been so big if such a big man had once said publicly: I made a mistake. I failed to protect an unprotected 13-year-old child,” commented director and actress Karoline Herfurth on a post by her colleague Clemens Schick on Instagram.

How should film heritage be dealt with in such cases?

Film scholar Annette Brauerhoch considers whether history can or should be corrected retrospectively to be a “very fundamental question,” as she recently explained on Deutschlandfunk. It touches on everything that is called “cancel culture” or “political correctness”. Then you have to tackle the entire history of art, literature and film, which is partly being done. Brauerhoch believes it is very important to open the debate, “but under no circumstances should one try to correct history, because these are also important documents.”

Heleen Gerritsen, artistic director of the Deutsche Kinemathek, did not comment on the specific case, but basically emphasized the necessary historical classification of old films. “Film heritage needs preservation, research and careful communication,” she said. “When historical films are shown today, introductions, conversations, accompanying texts or curatorial notes are necessary in order to classify the conditions in which they were made and the history of their impact. This is particularly true when works from today’s perspective raise questions about power relations, representation or hurtful depictions.”

Director Julia von Heinz suggested contextualizing the scene in an Instagram post. “Through trigger warnings and accompanying material. All institutions that still rent or archive such an old film can have this accompanying material available.” Part of the material could be an interview or essay with Kinski in which she describes her experience. Even symbolically cutting the scene from the master copy would be a “simple and clear gesture. And would make film history!”, she wrote. The director advised Wenders to talk to Kinski.

Schertz confirmed that there was an agreement with the NDR on the crime scene “Maturity Certificate” (1977) by Wolfgang Petersen. There Kinski plays a student who has an affair with her teacher and is also shown naked there.

In his speech, Wenders mentioned his colleague Steven Spielberg, who subsequently changed a scene in the film “ET” – and later regretted it. Years later, the star producer no longer liked the fact that police officers hunted children with guns.

In a 2002 remake for the film’s 20th anniversary, he replaced the guns with walkie-talkies. Years later, Spielberg said that no film should be revised through the lenses “through which we view today, whether by choice or by force.” However, these cases cannot necessarily be compared.