German filmmaker Wim Wenders said on that date that he was removing his 1975 feature *The Wrong Move* from current distribution because it contains a nude scene involving Nastassja Kinski, who was 13 when the film was made. The move followed Kinski’s public criticism of the circumstances around the scene and her call for the film to be re-edited.
The decision places an influential work of New German Cinema inside a wider argument about artistic legacy, consent and the duties that directors and rights holders owe to performers long after production ends. Wenders acknowledged that Kinski should have received better protection during the shoot and issued an apology to her. He also said the film would remain unavailable while a mutually acceptable way forward is sought.
According to the reported statement, the withdrawal covers current exhibition and distribution channels, including streaming and broadcast television. That makes the action more than a symbolic gesture. It temporarily interrupts public access to a film that has circulated for decades and shifts the debate from abstract ethics to the practical question of what institutions should do when an older title is challenged by one of its participants.
Kinski’s objections also gave new visibility to concerns she has raised over many years about her early exposure to nudity on screen. In the reported account, she described feeling unprotected during her first film experience. That perspective matters because *The Wrong Move* has often been discussed primarily through its place in Wenders’ career and in the literary and cinematic traditions it draws from. The June 2026 dispute instead centers the experience of the young actress and the standards that governed the production.
Wenders indicated that he wanted a broader discussion involving Kinski, the German Film Academy and other film organizations. His remarks suggest that the case may become a reference point for archives, festivals and foundations facing comparable questions about twentieth-century works whose making is now judged differently. At the same time, he reportedly warned that retroactive alteration of completed films could set a precedent that reaches far beyond his own catalog.
That tension is what made the withdrawal culturally significant. The issue is not only whether one scene should remain in circulation, but how the film world balances preservation, accountability and the claims of people whose younger selves were recorded under unequal conditions. By taking the film out of distribution first and leaving the final remedy unsettled, Wenders turned a private grievance into a public test of how cinema history is handled in the present.
