The Phoenician Scheme

13 July

Whaddup.

A Wes Anderson movie is almost guaranteed to be a good movie, and this definitely is a good movie, however it felt like it could’ve been a lot more, in a sense that the story was crammed with details, story was sacrificed, and characters were stiff. I loved the concept, the visuals, the music, the creation of the art piece itself, but it didn’t take me on the adventurous ride that I was previously accustomed to with Wes Anderson flicks.

So, for the charges of unfulfilled potential and being the next addition to the recent series of good, yet underwhelming films, ‘The Phoenician Scheme’ is put on trial.

Please be seated.

My relationship with Wes Anderson mainly began with his depiction of the Roald Dahl novel ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ (2009), where the story follows Mr. Fox in helping his family ground-dwelling animals in surviving the aggression of three farmers. I always adored this film, largely because I have been reading Roald Dahl books since I was little, but also because of how I saw the depiction of a childhood character on the big screen. Roald Dahl always had a knack of beautifully depicting the thoughts of a child, and as an extension, the inner child that exists within the adults.

The inner child that goes on to make adult decisions, gets uncomfortable in new settings, and that many take active efforts in disregarding.

Wes Anderson’s films perfectly portrayed that imagination into a visual format, with notable works such as ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ (2014), ‘The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou’ (2004), ‘Bottle Rocket’ (1996), and many others. These films use quirky characters with simple writing that help service the plot progression instead of hindering it.

On the contrary, it seems that Wes Anderson’s last three pictures have suffered from moving away from these core techniques whilst still trying to create a similar feeling to the audience. This film still had that simple outline of structure:

Finish the outlined tasks to get the objective.

In terms of structure, this is quite easy to follow and also gives the audience different settings to interact with, each with individual characters which our protagonist interacts with. This was similar in ‘The French Dispatch’ (2021), which had the story split up into different editorials. I personally really like this style of storytelling. It feels very organised, structured, and also gives you the ability as a viewer to generally follow along with a character’s intentions in scenes a lot easier, giving you capacity to pay attention to extra details.

The failing part, in my opinion, is when you have this simple plot structure, but try to cram the details with as many different quirks, quips, and queries as possible, to a point that you watch a scene and can’t exactly digest what the crux of it was.

I still cannot tell you what the scene with Scarlett Johansson was for. Speaking of which, I like her as an actress, but my word that accent was horrific. At parts it was Eastern European, Russian, American, or British. Could’ve sworn she started speaking Spanish at some point.

Other performances, I felt Mia Threapleton as the daughter of Korda was a little stiff. She had some funny moments and gave a generally good showing, however she was almost trying too hard to be Wes Andersonified.

The best performances, by far, were Tom Hanks and Bryan Cranston. The whole scene with them was the only moment in the film that felt genuine, interesting, and had the Wes Anderson look whilst being proper individual characters.

This is what works in my opinion. Wes Anderson has an extremely distinct style, more so than most mainstream directors, which gives actors a need to assimilate to his palette. Characters work best when they have, ironically, character. The new age of Wes Anderson writing kinda removes that character, and blends everyone into these hyper-introverts who relentlessly speak at you. Hanks and Cranston create an authentic, almost sibling-like presence, which leads you to root for them despite their objective being to block the progression of the protagonist.

The camerawork in this film is superb, definitely a step-up and clear indicator of the continued progression that Wes Anderson puts into his vision. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel has gone all out, with lots of uniquely elevated shots that encompass Wes Anderson’s palette, and continuously revolutionising what story a frame can tell.

A particular favourite shot of mine is that wide shot of Zsa-Zsa and his daughter meeting in the hall; beautifully lit and focused, makes it look like a miniature set.

Alexandre Desplat’s scores are now just fused together with Wes Anderson visuals, and it is always a pleasure to hear his music influence the light-hearted realism that the story projects. You could argue that the continued use of Desplat can cause many of Anderson’s films to blend together from an audio perspective, but I don’t mind that too much as I feel that the consistency of the technical elements is what preserves the style.

Thematically, this film is trying to show us how a family connection that has been severed can heal, both as a relationship and to the people. This is quite a simple message, but I don’t feel like it really landed for me. I personally didn’t empathise with the characters much, and found that the relationship between the two family characters was forced and unresolved. There was no real indicator that they had patched over their issues, and were genuinely able to continue on as family, as well as her becoming an heir to the Zsa-Zsa fortune. Perhaps that was the intention, but if so, it is an interesting decision.

Another aspect of the older Wes Anderson works is how warm and cozy the relationships felt. Characters who were family, or were friends, always showed it through emotions, physically and verbally. Soft spoken, caring, and kind, these characters become comforting to watch, and keeps you, as a viewer, in their arc. The story line barely mattered in these flicks. You obviously had to somehow get from Point A to Point B, but the characters maintaining that warm connection was paramount. Even through seemingly sterner characters, like Ralph Fiennes in ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ who takes on an almost harsh motherly character towards Zero, you still feel the connection and the love that he feels for this boy.

Not everyone has to be a robot, and not all relationships need to consist of two people trying to out-quip each other.

The antagonist in this film, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Uncle Nubar, was also pretty average. The film rolls this character out in a similar way to Colonel Kurtz in ‘Apocalypse Now’ (Francis Ford Coppola, 1973) where we only see pictures of him until we finally meet him at the end. Doesn’t really have the same impact as Colonel Kurtz, and more just seems like a man with a grudge with a forgettable motive.

Overall, I liked this movie, but would begrudgingly watch it again. It is better than ‘Asteroid City’ (Wes Anderson, 2023), but not by a large margin. For the crimes of being underwhelming, losing character and soul, yet still being a technical masterpiece, I sentence ‘The Phoenician Scheme’ to having Wes Anderson’s next film be shot entirely on a handheld camera, using only neon colours in his palette, and everyone speaks in Liverpool accents.

6.1/10

Boran Ceylan

The Phoenician Scheme

“The Phoenician Scheme”

Court of Cinematic Justice

The Phoenician Scheme

“The Phoenician Scheme”

F1

Court of Cinematic Justice