"It's very hard to find critics or a magazine today that will publish material that is genuinely independent and written without any concern about being cut off some distributor's list or not be invited or flown into screenings"
About this Quote
Wim Wenders isn’t just lamenting bad reviews; he’s diagnosing a supply-chain problem for honesty. The line lands because it frames criticism as an ecosystem with gates, perks, and punishments. “Genuinely independent” isn’t a virtue badge here so much as a job description that has become structurally unworkable: if access is the currency, then dissent is a kind of insolvency.
The subtext is a quiet accusation about soft corruption, the kind that doesn’t require envelopes of cash. Wenders points to the mundane incentives that discipline writers and editors: distributor relationships, invitations, flights, screenings. None of these are bribery in the movie-noir sense; they’re the logistics of culture journalism. That’s what makes the critique sting. He’s arguing that the compromised review often arrives wearing the mask of professionalism, because the compromise is baked into the workflow. You don’t have to be told what to write if you know what gets you frozen out.
Context matters: Wenders comes out of New German Cinema, a movement that treated filmmaking as argument, not just product. He’s also watched cinema’s promotional machine consolidate and professionalize, while legacy magazines shrink and ad budgets migrate. As outlets become more dependent on studios for access (and on platform algorithms for attention), the “critic” risks turning into a service role: validating release schedules, amplifying press narratives, feeding the content treadmill.
What makes the quote effective is its specificity. He doesn’t rant about “the media”; he lists the exact levers. The complaint isn’t nostalgia for harsher critics. It’s a warning that when access becomes the price of admission, culture loses a public referee and gains another marketing department.
The subtext is a quiet accusation about soft corruption, the kind that doesn’t require envelopes of cash. Wenders points to the mundane incentives that discipline writers and editors: distributor relationships, invitations, flights, screenings. None of these are bribery in the movie-noir sense; they’re the logistics of culture journalism. That’s what makes the critique sting. He’s arguing that the compromised review often arrives wearing the mask of professionalism, because the compromise is baked into the workflow. You don’t have to be told what to write if you know what gets you frozen out.
Context matters: Wenders comes out of New German Cinema, a movement that treated filmmaking as argument, not just product. He’s also watched cinema’s promotional machine consolidate and professionalize, while legacy magazines shrink and ad budgets migrate. As outlets become more dependent on studios for access (and on platform algorithms for attention), the “critic” risks turning into a service role: validating release schedules, amplifying press narratives, feeding the content treadmill.
What makes the quote effective is its specificity. He doesn’t rant about “the media”; he lists the exact levers. The complaint isn’t nostalgia for harsher critics. It’s a warning that when access becomes the price of admission, culture loses a public referee and gains another marketing department.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Wim
Add to List
