813-816 Wim Wenders: The Road Trilogy

[DarkImbecile]

Torn between being thrilled at another typically insightful and too rare Sloper post and deeply disappointed that we didn’t get one when Motel Hell was the Film Club selection.

[therewillbeblus]

Bruno's line also addresses Robert's need to be seen, and Robert's addresses Bruno's need to embrace change. Without being sentimental about it, there is a kind of down-to-earth heroism in the way these two damaged men have made the effort to engage with each other. The film's multiple titles all come to fruition as we see how, by simply passing time together, Bruno and Robert have attained a kind of mastery over their own lives.

I agree with most of this, particularly the analysis of Robert and Bruno’s psychology, though while they certainly help one another achieve newfound growth and readiness to face their fears again, I’m not sure I’d call this mastery. I view the idea of mastery as a measure of refining skills to achieve confidence in control, a behavioral form of action. Robert and Bruno gain insight and acceptance into their respective anxieties through one another’s presence, but Wenders makes it clear throughout this film that neither character has control over his life, or that anyone has control over other people (i.e. women, seen and unseen) or events (i.e. car wreck). It’s the acceptance that these longings for, or attempts at mastery as futile that allow Robert (and we hope Bruno) to forfeit this expectation that has lead to existential crises, and become willing to throw themselves into life, exercising what little control they have to lower their defenses, become vulnerable, and face the risks of the uncontrollable, including change, personal significance, and emotional connection with others. I believe they achieve a kind of anti-mastery, and through that humility, a sense of serenity that allows Robert and Bruno to move on with smiles on their faces. This could be viewed as individual mastery I suppose, if viewed as isolated from other forces in their lives, though even that doesn’t fit with Wenders’ understanding of the emotional man. One doesn’t ever achieve mastery over oneself, as he is subject to intrusive emotions and thoughts, and if one ever did achieve mastery over himself, what would be the point of living without growth? But these men get to smile in this moment and have gained irreversible insight that will help them become more content people.
[Note: this isn’t meant to be an argument over semantics; I actually do see the acceptance of ‘mastery over life as false’ to be a sense of serenity as ‘acute mastery of the mood’- so I appreciate that you used the word “mastery” because its dissection sparked further analysis of the metaphysics Wenders explores here in these characters’ internal drives and relationship with the rest of the world that I hadn’t considered as extensively before]

[Boosmahn]

The one shot that sticks out from my mind is when the electronic rock(?) music swells and we get a beautiful shot of the tree/car wreck. I can't find it anywhere online.

[ando]

Loads to unpack with this film. No one (in this thread) has mentioned what Wenders may be saying about the inheritors of Hitler's failed Third Reich or the children of that German WWII generation. Wenders, Herzog and Fassbinder were three in a handful of filmmakers during the seventies who attempted to illustrate what and/or how the younger generation were grappling with that recent history. Is it like what James Baldwin said about the American Beatniks (his contemporaries) who were perpetually "on the road" because they could not or would not face their history?

The Pepsi-Cola motifs, the American (or, at least, American sounding) records in Bruno's collection (sorry, couldn't identify the songs) and Robert's comment about the American occupation are obvious topical references but is there any deeper significance or influence of the American presence in their lives?

Certainly, the influence of film presentational history runs throughout the narrative, not only due to Bruno's line of work but also in the ways that both project their imaginations to other people - whether through Robert's creative writing; then primitively, through that scrim for the children; or in Bruno's demonstration of splicing and/or recreation of the perverts methods of obscuring portions of a movie-in-progress for sexual kicks and/or in the ultimate full feature showing, from start (though not completely) to finish. Why couldn't both main remain through a promised showing of a full feature through its completion? Because they had embarrassed (even mortified) themselves in the completion of the creative act with the kids? Because their audience was imperso Al and so had nothing in stake? Why was it more cool to walk out (though, actually, their flight from the cinema like two escapee Marx brothers in, initially, the wrong direction was anything but cool!)? Are they hooked on flakiness?

The use of still photographs throughout is certainly poignant. The obvious shots (nods) to Fritz Lang and Andrei Tarkovsky are easy to identify but who is in that cut-out (in the three director Polaroid shot) by Robert? And does anyone here have an inkling about why he does it?

A second viewing is in order for me. Though I'm not sure if it will clarify as much as make a deeper impression of their frightening emotional and psychic ambivalence/paralysis. But I assuredly won't fail to get another kick out of

Spoiler

Bruno's perplexed expression over what to do with a flaming black wax bust candle impression of Adolf Hitler with which he lights his cigarette.

You just know Wenders was busting to bring in The Doors!

[Sloper]

I agree with most of this, particularly the analysis of Robert and Bruno’s psychology, though while they certainly help one another achieve newfound growth and readiness to face their fears again, I’m not sure I’d call this mastery.

No, you said it much better in your post - I really struggled to phrase this correctly, because despite my complaint about themes being spelt out, this remains a very low-key ending, and any points being made are made very obliquely. That makes it sound vague, but it doesn't feel vague because of the tonal and emotional clarity of the final scenes. I guess I wanted to express this in words somehow, and to say that the film's English title seems to fit the ending in a (mostly) un-ironic way. But as you say, what the characters achieve at the end is more complex than 'mastery over their own lives'.

No one (in this thread) has mentioned what Wenders may be saying about the inheritors of Hitler's failed Third Reich or the children of that German WWII generation. Wenders, Herzog and Fassbinder were three in a handful of filmmakers during the seventies who attempted to illustrate what and/or how the younger generation were grappling with that recent history. Is it like what James Baldwin said about the American Beatniks (his contemporaries) who were perpetually "on the road" because they could not or would not face their history? The Pepsi-Cola motifs, the American (or, at least, American sounding) records in Bruno's collection (sorry, couldn't identify the songs) and Robert's comment about the American occupation are obvious topical references but is there any deeper significance or influence of the American presence in their lives?

I don't really have any answers to this, but maybe it's interesting that the ex-Nazi ex-silent-film-accompanist singles out Die Nibelungen, a nationalistic epic 'dedicated to the German people' and one of Hitler's favourites, and Ben-Hur, which you could see as an emblem of Hollywood's (and America's) encroaching cultural dominance? (Probably less interesting and relevant: Fritz Lang made another two-part German epic in the same year as the remake of Ben-Hur.)

And to follow up on one of Sloper’s points: yes, that defecation scene, coming as early as it does, really sets a tone. It’s an unusually bathetic way of presenting a protagonist on-screen, and although I don’t think the effect is necessarily humorous, I remember being struck by the result of the defecation itself being so...large. And the way Wenders frames things has stuck with me as well. The relative size of Vogler compared to the beach makes it feel like we’re watching a “primitive” man in an old nature documentary — like we’re seeing something at once a part of us and apart from us.

It's sort of a primal, heroic shit, isn't it? It's this film's equivalent of Siegfried venturing alone into the forest to slay Fafnir.

[The Curious Sofa]

I watched Kings Of The Road for the first time recently and it may have been my favourite movie watching experience of the year. I’ve been working my way through Wender’s early films, never having given him much of a chance because his two most famous movies never quite landed for me. Paris, Texas and Wings of Desire look stunningly beautiful, but on a character level I never could connect with them. I don’t understand the casting of Harry Dean Stanton and Nastassja Kinski as a former couple in the first film and while Kinski is fine, I think the film would have worked better with an older actress. After a stunning introduction to its world Wings of Desire goes of the rails once some sort of plot kicks into gear. Solveig Dommartin may be one of the most pitiful attempt of a movie director attempting to make his muse a movie star. She is so awkward and uncharismatic, I felt nothing but sorry for her whenever she was on the screen. I love Peter Falk and Colombo (who in their right mind doesn't ?) but his whole plot strand is way too cute for me.

Now I’m working my way though the early films I can get hold of in HD. So far I’ve watched The Goalkeeper’s Fear..., Alice in the Cities, The American Friend and Kings of the Road. I liked all of them better than Paris, Texas and Wings of Desire and each of them better than the previous film. Alice in the Cities is charming but in terms of tone now feels like a dry run for Kings of the Road. The American Friend I’d watched in my teens. I saw it on TV, didn’t make an impression and I probably was too young for it then. This time it blew me away. It may be one of the most atmospheric and beautiful looking films I’ve ever seen, the way it takes you to Hamburg and Paris in the 70s. Bruno Ganz holds this movie together, he’s utterly compelling to watch. Dennis Hopper’s Ripley may be the only quibble I have with the film. It’s not that he’s nothing like Highsmith’s Ripley, I just never thought he was a good actor. Only someone like Lynch understands how to utilise him. I was in Hamburg soon after I saw the film so I ended up checking out some of the locations. Ganz’s apartment block is still there, but the whole area by the water has been redeveloped and it made me mourned the grungy settings of the first film.

The American Friend is the movie which convinced me that Wenders can be amazing and which finally made me watch a three hour, plotless movie by a director who I’d previously considered overrated. I’ve never seen another movie about a male friendship quite like it, two men grappling with each other’s and their own inadequacies and sort of getting closer. There are images which have seared themselves into my mind and one I wished I could forget. A week on, I can’t shake the emotions the film left me with.

I don’t really have that much to add to the posts I’ve read in this thread and I much enjoyed reading them. Maybe one thing which hasn’t been touched on that Wim Wenders has an eye for clothes. There is an effortless cool to the clothes Rüdiger Vogler and Hans Zischler wear and how they wear them. They are one thing which make the movie timeless, these guys would still look great now. It’s a touch Wenders never lost, hipsters still emulate Harry Dean Stanton’s look in Paris, Texas.

I love the offhand way the film deals with 20th century German history, the first scene with the projectionist who was a Nazi party member, feels like documentary. I assume it was a real interview ? In the early films Lisa Kreuzer played characters who still reasonably felt like real women, before Wenders’ female characters became abstract enigmas, viewed and desired by men, or Wenders more specifically.

I haven’t watched The Wrong Move yet, I thought it would be better to stick with the more highly regarded early films, but it will be the next Wenders for me. I’m intrigued by The State of Things but it’s not that easy to get hold of. I’ve seen Faraway So Close, which I enjoyed slightly more than Wings of Desire but not enough to revisit it. Otherwise I’ve got Pina on BD, more because of the subject matter. The rest of the later films don’t seem that well regarded but I’d like to check out more of Wenders’ documentaries.

[A Tempted Christ]

Wenders pulls Wrong Move from distribution over child nudity

[mfunk9786]

Feels like a very strange reason to hurry up and buy a Criterion release, but I’d expect this to go OOP quickly.

[dwk]

With that announcement, I was curious to see if it has been taken down and it appears that it ia gone from the Channel and Apple. Appears to be still available from Amazon and Fandango At Home (though I assume any digital purchases will be deleted.) The discs are still up on Criterion's site and other etailers.

[mfunk9786]

Feels like a very strange reason to hurry up and buy a Criterion release, but I’d expect this to go OOP quickly.

Sold out on Amazon (from their first party stock).

[therewillbeblus]

Still available on Deep Discount

[Maltic]

I was expecting more media outlets to attempt a pun on the films title for their headlines.

[hearthesilence]

I'm sure Criterion has the okay to sell off their inventory. If Wenders really wanted to, I guess he could pull the physical edition, but given the economics involved (destroying inventory, loss in future sales, legal complications that may arise from contractual agreements in the licensing), I can also see a practical compromise in letting Criterion sell off whatever stock they have. Besides, there's probably more "out there" than what's in their warehouse(s), and it's doubtful Criterion is stockpiling an enormous amount of these sets when the demand is modest.

[RPG]

It's not just that she's topless, but she gets into bed with and embraces an adult man who's wearing nothing but tighty whities. It's pretty friggin icky.

[therewillbeblus]

It would be great if they could just remove the shot and keep an excellent work available

[rrenault]

I have a question. Given the controversy over both Wrong Move and Blue is the Warmest Color, not to mention Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, how come Pialat’s A Nos Amours has never attracted comparable scrutiny?

[The Curious Sofa]

I have a question. Given the controversy over both Wrong Move and Blue is the Warmest Color, not to mention Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, how come Pialat’s A Nos Amours has never attracted comparable scrutiny?

Has Sandrine Bonnaire ever complained about how she was treated during the shoot? Because that's the case with actors in the films you mentioned. She was also above the legal age of consent in France.

[MichaelB]

Well, the BBFC spelled it out in the notes that they drew up when they passed it uncut:

Contains moderate, natural breast nudity and sexual references. The film explores the sexual awakenings and encounters of a 15-year-old girl in a naturalistic way, but avoids explicit non-simulated sexual contact.

I suspect they were similarly lenient towards Wrong Movement (since mere underage nudity doesn't present legal problems per se, only eroticised physical contact), but the crucial difference here is that the actress in question later raised strong objections, at a time when the director was still alive.

Compare and contrast with Bertrand Blier's Beau-Père, which doesn't go that much further in that eroticised physical contact is extremely brief (and legally fine in its native France), but that's why it crosses the line into legal difficulty under the UK's 1978 Protection of Children Act, which requires all such footage to be removed, as it legally constitutes a recording of an actual sex crime being committed. Which is why the film has never been released commercially in the UK and most likely never will be.

[The Curious Sofa]

As someone who opposes censorship on principle, I think Wenders made the right decision to withdraw Wrong Move until a better solution can be found, rather than cutting the scene. After all, Kinski worked with Wenders twice as an adult, so hopefully they can reach an agreement. Not long after Wrong Move, Kinski appeared nude in other films, which she also called out, so I wonder what will happen there.
And even if those films are cut, scenes and screencaps of nude scenes are forever preserved online for those determined to ogle a nude teen Kinski.

[spectre]

The film actually screened at Melbourne Cinémathèque just a few weeks ago as part of a season of Wim Wenders films – strange to think that might well have been its last ever public screening anywhere.

I have mixed feelings about this: I don’t like the idea of a film being suppressed for any reason, but it’s hard to feel good about watching a film when you know an actor feels like they’ve been exploited in its making. In that sense it’s not a dissimilar case to Last Tango in Paris, really. I still have the box set because I love the films either side of Wrong Move – which I always found a bit leaden in comparison – but I wonder if some people would have qualms about still having it in their possession in the knowledge that Kinski doesn’t want it out there.

Having said that, it’s not like the ethics of the making of the film have actually changed over the decades; one could easily make the case that shooting (and maybe even watching) the scene in question was unethical whatever she thinks of it now, and it’s not like we’re privy to any more basic information now than when, say, Criterion first brought this trilogy out. It’s just harder to avoid confronting it now.

[MichaelB]

I think if the person involved in the scene directly challenges the film's director, it unavoidably changes the dynamic. And while you can argue in the case of Maria Schneider that she was an adult at the time—albeit with infinitely less agency than Marlon Brando and Bernardo Bertolucci—the fact that Nastassja Kinski was thirteen should give anyone pause.

The issue of underage nudity can be a real minefield—Valerie and Her Week of Wonders is another one that's given some people the ick, because Jaroslava Schallerová was also thirteen at the time. Although in that case there's nothing in the film beyond brief nudity (and nudity on its own isn't considered censorable or even particularly exceptionable in most parts of Europe), and the fact that the film is about a young girl's sexual awakening is conveyed primarily through suggestion and symbolism rather than anything graphic. And I haven't seen anything that suggests that Schallerová felt exploited; on the contrary, she's said that in retrospect it was obvious that Jaromil Jireš was carefully shielding her from anything potentially untoward. And she also admires the film enormously.

[The Curious Sofa]

There was a documentary about Brooke Shields a few years ago, where she confronts the way she was sexualised as a young girl, starting with Pretty Baby and peaking with the Calvin Klein campaign and she does so with great insight and eloquence. She had nothing bad to say about the experience of making Pretty Baby or Louis Malle and is still proud of the film. What was traumatising to her was constantly being asked hugely inappropriate questions about sex and sexuality by a leering media, before she even understood what they were about. The documentary is well worth a watch and while I've never been a huge fan of Shields as an actress, I came away with a great deal admiration for her.

[RPG]

Well, the BBFC spelled it out in the notes that they drew up when they passed it uncut:

Contains moderate, natural breast nudity and sexual references. The film explores the sexual awakenings and encounters of a 15-year-old girl in a naturalistic way, but avoids explicit non-simulated sexual contact.

I suspect they were similarly lenient towards Wrong Movement (since mere underage nudity doesn't present legal problems per se, only eroticised physical contact), but the crucial difference here is that the actress in question later raised strong objections, at a time when the director was still alive.

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

[MichaelB]

What was traumatising to her was constantly being asked hugely inappropriate questions about sex and sexuality by a leering media, before she even understood what they were about.

Roman Polanski's victim said something very similar, which is that while Polanski's assault was unpleasant, it was mercifully brief, whereas the subsequent media (and social media) gawping lasted for decades and was far more traumatising (especially when she was outed)—and of course it isn't over to this day, and will most likely long outlive Polanski (who turns 93 in a couple of months). Which ultimately pushed her into the really bizarre position of forming an alliance with Polanski on the grounds that he was the only person who truly understood what she was going through.

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.

Incidentally, nothing should be read into it not having a BBFC certificate; if a film was shown exclusively on the arthouse club circuit there wasn't any point in shelling out hundreds of pounds for BBFC approval, which wasn't legally compulsory if the local authority was happy to sanction it. (I remember having to give Camden Council 28 days' notice every time I wanted to screen anything without a BBFC certificate, but they never once challenged it, let alone requested an advance screening).

[hearthesilence]

If there's a cut version already in existence (presumably Wenders knows and didn't strongly object in the past?), maybe that can become the version of record then?

FWIW, I have to say I didn't like the film much either and have very little memory of it. (Until this made the news yesterday, I don't think I could've recounted a single detail about it.) Not the case with the films before and after it which are two of my favorites from Wenders.