Credits: 9EkieraM1 ; derivative work by LeonNefo / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
Nastassja Kinski Appears In Düsseldorf In 2017, Far From The Contested Teen Images Today. The Portrait Establishes A Restrained Distance From The 1975 Film. Credits: 9EkieraM1; derivative work by LeonNefo / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
Nastassja Kinski is requesting the removal of images filmed when she was 13 in The Wrong Move, a film by Wim Wenders released in 1975. From the outset, the case places European cinema before a difficult choice. It is a question of protecting a performer who was a minor on film, who now contests the circulation of an intimate scene. But the debate also concerns a heritage work, which some refuse to alter in the name of contemporary sensibilities. Rekindled in Germany, this request forces a look at the film as well as the conditions of its making.
A Request Rekindled In Germany
The case was revived on May 22, 2026, with a lengthy interview granted by Nastassja Kinski to the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The German actress, now 65, revisits her first film role. This was The Wrong Move, directed by Wim Wenders when she was a teenager.
The sequence she contests shows her character, Mignon, in a bed situation with an adult male character. Sources consulted describe it as a scene of partial nudity, without repeating the details. The core of the matter is not the scene itself, but its production, the assumed consent and its current distribution.
According to SRF, which published a summary of the case on May 29, Kinski has been asking for years that this sequence no longer be visible. The Swiss broadcaster also reports that her lawyer intends to challenge continued distribution and mentions a claim for compensation. However, no public judicial document has been identified at this stage. These requests should therefore remain attributed to the actress, her counsel or the media reporting them.
What Wenders Says Today
Wim Wenders spoke publicly on May 29 in Berlin, at the Deutscher Filmpreis. The filmmaker, 80, was receiving an honorary award from the Deutsche Filmakademie, announced in March for his entire career. In the presentation text for this award, the institution describes him as a major figure in German and international cinema.
According to Deutschlandfunk, Wenders acknowledged to the audience that he would not shoot that scene today. He said he knows more things now and lives in a different world than that of the 1970s. He also framed the issue as both a moral and a heritage problem.
The director did not announce an immediate cut. He instead called for a collective discussion. Can a film be modified after the fact because a scene harms an actress he says he respects? And if that scene is cut, what precedent does that set for other older works? Concretely, a modification would not only affect a screening copy. It would also concern restored versions, masters, video releases and platform catalogs. Cinematheque programming and the information given to the public would also be at stake. This way of shifting the decision to heritage is precisely what some critics reproach him for. But it also summarizes the difficulty of the case. The individual request runs up against rights, rights holders and the material history of the film.
A Heritage Film Turned Test Case
Released in 1975 in the Federal Republic of Germany, The Wrong Move occupies a recognized place in Wim Wenders’s body of work. The Cinémathèque française presents it as a 103-minute film, written by Peter Handke after Goethe. The entry also lists Rüdiger Vogler, Hanna Schygulla and Hans-Christian Blech in the cast. It notes its belonging to Wenders’s travel trilogy and highlights Nastassja Kinski’s first leading role.
This heritage dimension explains why the case goes beyond the exchange between an actress and a director. The Wrong Move is not a forgotten film: it still circulates in programming, catalogs and auteur cinema platforms. The Cinémathèque française notably screened it on May 8, 2026, a few weeks before the public revival of the debate.
The Kinski-Wenders case therefore poses a concrete question for cultural institutions. How to present today a work containing images filmed with a minor, under conditions that the person concerned deems unacceptable? Possible answers are not equivalent. Cutting a scene, contextualizing a screening or limiting certain uses do not have the same effect. Warning the public or keeping the work as is also sends different symbolic messages.
Consent, Minority And Image Rights
The debate is particularly sensitive because it concerns an actress who was a minor at the time. In 1975, performers’ consent was not regulated as it can be today on sets. The protection of minors was even less discussed. Since MeToo, cinema has seen intimacy coordinators become widespread. Rules protecting young actors and vigilance about power dynamics have also been strengthened.
These developments are not enough to retroactively decide the case of The Wrong Move. They do help explain why the historical context argument no longer closes the debate. Three levels overlap. Image rights concern the identifiable use of a person and how they accept, or contest, that exploitation. The moral right of the performing artist rather protects the respect of their name, status and performance. It does not automatically equate to a veto right over any future circulation of an already produced work. The rights of producers, authors, distributors or rights holders finally govern copies, contracts and restorations.
At this stage, it would be imprudent to assert that distribution would be illegal. Available sources do not specify who currently holds all exploitation rights. They also do not say what formal steps would have been taken, nor which jurisdiction could be seized. The case mixes copyright, image rights, contracts and minors’ protection. This is also why the words used matter. A request for removal is not a court decision. A regret expressed by a director is not a legal admission.
A Responsibility Shared By Distributors
The case does not concern Wim Wenders alone. If the work continues to circulate, distributors, platforms, cinémathèques, broadcasters, video publishers and programming institutions also contribute to its public exposure. Their responsibility is not the same as the director’s. It becomes visible once an actress contests the presence of images of her as a minor in accessible copies.
This responsibility can take several forms. An institution can document the production context and avoid highlighting the contested scene. It can organize a debate, or verify whether an alternative version exists. It can also decide that a work should remain visible, but accompanied. This choice already exists for certain films marked by racist, sexist or violent representations.
The risk for heritage cinema would be to reduce this discussion to a simple opposition between censorship and preservation. The word censorship is not sufficient to describe the request of a performer filmed as a minor. She contests the exploitation of intimate images shot when she was 13. Conversely, the sole principle of redress does not resolve the issue of collective works. It also leaves open acquired rights and the documentary value of a film in its original state. This debate continues a reflection on #MeToo In French Cinema, where creation and public responsibility respond to each other.
The Precedent No One Wants To Decide Alone
Wenders’s position, as it appears in his Berlin remarks, stems from this fear of precedent. If he cuts a scene from The Wrong Move, other filmmakers, rights holders or actors could ask to rework older films. The argument deserves to be heard, but it cannot erase the specificity of this case. These are images of a minor, not a mere aesthetic disagreement or an author’s change of heart.
The debate should therefore focus less on the intangible purity of heritage than on procedures that allow dealing with the most serious cases. Who decides? According to what criteria? With what role for the person filmed? And how to avoid conservation serving, through inertia, to prolong harm felt by a performer? The answer will also affect other works involving minors. This concerns fiction films, documentaries, television archives or old advertising campaigns. Children were sometimes exposed according to standards that are no longer current. Any solution will need to distinguish compensation for harm, historical contextualization and outright rewriting of the past.
Nastassja Kinski may not obtain the removal she requests. Wim Wenders has not, to date, announced a decision to that effect. But the case has already shifted the discussion. It forces film institutions to look at the films. It also forces them to look at the conditions in which certain images became heritage.