How do you talk about trauma, destruction and political tension while making your audience laugh? This contradiction lies at the heart of Wes Anderson’s storytelling style. From “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014) to “Isle of Dogs” (2018), Anderson has always used aesthetics and deadpan humor to navigate grim histories and worlds. His latest film, “The Phoenician Scheme,” continues this tradition.
The film follows the wealthy Zsa-Zsa Korda (played by Benicio Del Toro), who unexpectedly names his only daughter, Liesl (played by Mia Threapleton), as the sole heir to his empire. As Korda embarks on a high-stakes business venture, his decision attracts greedy tycoons, terrorists and assassins, all vying for control of his crumbling legacy.
Aspiring filmmaker Joshua Collins, who first encountered Anderson through “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014), describes “The Phoenician Scheme” as “formulative and safe.” He explains how Anderson seems to have settled into a style that he rarely deviates from. However, this is not inherently negative. “There’s clearly an audience for it,” he said.
While the visual polish and dry delivery created distance for some, Collins felt that this detachment encouraged him to focus more deeply on subtext and nuance. “The style definitely influenced how I engaged with the film emotionally,” he said, praising Anderson’s ability to blend visuals with the genre in an inventive way, especially within the traditionally serious world of espionage.
“Spy films like “James Bond” and “Mission: Impossible” have always had a bit of goofiness and flair,” Collins said. “So I thought he pulled it off quite well.”
Where Collins saw aesthetic repetition, fellow viewer and Theology and Religion student at Oxford University, Joshua Facer, saw signs of quiet evolution. Having seen nearly all of Anderson’s work, Facer places “The Phoenician Scheme” “somewhere in the middle” of the director’s filmography. “Not one of his best,” he admits, “but definitely a lot more accomplished than his weaker films.”
But beneath the aesthetic surface, Facer sees sharp critique. “Anderson’s style makes you see the absurdity of real-world people like Zsa-Zsa and organisations like the government agency that attempts to destroy Zsa-Zsa’s business empire,” he says.
“They are either so evil, so greedy, or so myopic that it’s effortlessly absurd and funny. And yet, they’re only slightly exaggerated versions of real-life people.” What makes this satire effective, he explains, is that “generally they’re saying the inside thing out loud.”
In other words, “The Phoenician Scheme” exposes the hollowness at its core. “It’s a clever way of making people aware of the ridiculousness of corporatism and capitalism,” Facer said, “and helps to show how corporate greed ultimately deprives everyone involved of their humanity.”
Collins shares a similar sentiment through his reflection on one of the film’s most absurd yet telling moments: a basketball game of H-O-R-S-E used to resolve an investment dispute. He noted that the scene stood out to him because it showed “how petty disputes can impact the lives of many, even in absurd ways.”
In the end, “The Phoenician Scheme” may not be a departure for Anderson, but that is exactly what makes it work. It leans into the familiar grammar of his filmmaking, while hinting and nudging at deeper political and emotional terrain. And while Anderson might be playing it safe on the surface, beneath the pastel hue, there’s a sharp awareness of the absurdity and cruelty etched into power structures. That alone makes it worth watching.
Amazing as always!!
I absolutely loved this article! Great insight about the film. Can’t wait to see what you have next!