The Phoenician Scheme (Wes Anderson, 2025)

[hearthesilence]

Failing that, he could at least consider adapting more works. I thought Fantastic Mr. Fox took him in the right direction, mainly for finding a context where the increasingly mannered approach of his previous two features could work, and so did The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three More, but diving into Stefan Zweig's work and letting in his ideas also resulted in The Grand Budapest Hotel. It may not be an adaptation, but it was heavily inspired by Zweig. Long story short, I think it helped him break out of his own limitations when he allowed Roald Dahl or Zweig's body of work to help him find and explore new territory.

[therewillbeblus]

It's possible that this was inspired by something too, just not overstated right now. It's supposedly by far his most violent film, and quite concerned with capitalist attitudes.

[Mr Sausage]

Long story short, I think it helped him break out of his own limitations when he allowed Roald Dahl or Zweig's body of work to help him find and explore new territory.

I actually think that rather than letting in outside influences, he just picked from them whatever was already Andersonian in their work. I don't know that adaptation will explain why those films are better in comparison.

[hearthesilence]

Long story short, I think it helped him break out of his own limitations when he allowed Roald Dahl or Zweig's body of work to help him find and explore new territory.

I actually think that rather than letting in outside influences, he just picked from them whatever was already Andersonian in their work. I don't know that adaptation will explain why those films are better in comparison.

I think that often happens with adaptation, where someone gravitates towards elements that they already relate to, but I don't think he simply took from those elements without drawing something from Zweig that he wouldn't have found himself. For example, Anderson said he was struck how his books were written from the point of view of someone "who’s quite innocent and is entering into kind of darker territories." That is certainly seen in Anderson's work, but when you get into specifics, it's never had the political dimensions of Zweig's work, and indeed that made a huge impression on Anderson - when discussing how Zweig's life was changing under fascism, he called it "the beginning of everything that became too much to bear. Not only because he was someone who had friends all over Europe and collected people actively — made friendships and made these connections and so on. He also collected manuscripts and books and musical scores, and he was gathering things from all over — among artists he admired. And eventually all this, plus his own work, was taken away, destroyed, made impossible for him to continue pursuing in that way. And when you read The World of Yesterday you just see how all the things he invested his life in, this world that he prefers to call the world of security, this life that had been growing more and more refined and free that’s so meaningful to him, is just obliterated." And that's pretty much why I thought The Grand Budapest Hotel was a big step for Anderson, where he's really thinking about what's happening in the world beyond his own imagination even when he's deep into his own fantasy world creations.

[domino harvey]

It's possible that this was inspired by something too, just not overstated right now. It's supposedly by far his most violent film, and quite concerned with capitalist attitudes.

Can’t be all that violent, considering it’s only PG-13

[Mr Sausage]

I don't mean that Anderson gravitated to a work he was in sympathy with. I mean that Anderson's creative personality is large and that he takes from his sources the parts of himself that they already contain rather than adapt himself to material shaped by another personality. I don't see much of Zweig's personality in Anderson's film--I don't think Zweig even has a big personality as a writer (he was, as I'm sure he'd admit, a regular-sized man walking among giants). There's nothing in The Grand Budapest Hotel that you cannot imagine existing without Stefan Zweig. If Anderson admitted tomorrow that he'd never read Zweig and had created the film out of whole cloth, it'd be perfectly believable. I think he took from Zweig's book the parts of it that were already his (Anderson's) and nothing else.

Funnily, that quote of Anderson's gives me the opposite impression as you. It doesn't sound like Anderson has been shocked into acknowledging the wider world, it sounds like he's talking about himself. He seems to've been shocked by the fragility of this artistic space he's spent his life creating. He doesn't focus on the violence and destruction and displacement of the war, but "this life that had been growing more and more refined and free that’s so meaningful to him, is just obliterated." That doesn't sound like a man looking outward, it sounds like someone confronted by the idea of the obliteration of their selfhood. That can be pretty shocking for an artist who tends to live in their own world.

[hearthesilence]

I don't mean that Anderson gravitated to a work he was in sympathy with. I mean that Anderson's creative personality is large and that he takes from his sources the parts of himself that they already contain rather than adapt himself to material shaped by another personality.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought you meant. Let me try to clarify more:

I don't expect Anderson to reinvent himself under the influence of another author, especially a literary author rather than a filmmaker. (Not that I wouldn't welcome that, but it's not realistic to expect that for anyone.) But regardless of the similarities Anderson might've found in Zweig's work, it got him into exploring ideas he hadn't really touched before. Formally, Zweig may have inspired the structure of nesting a story within a story, but beyond that it's likely his impact on Anderson's filmmaking was minimal. What makes the film really stand out for me isn't something I see Anderson coming to on his own - his earlier films felt pretty removed from history and the consequences of historical conflict, and this film is all about that. And I actually picked out the quote above for the reasons you give. it makes logical sense why Anderson would make a film like this - no matter how secure anyone may be in creating their own little world to escape in, no one is really protected or free from the most horrendous turns taken by history, and it wouldn't surprise me if he felt a kinship to the way Zweig created his work and saw himself vulnerable to the same historical events that disrupted Zweig's comfortable existence. Confronting the obliteration of the only life one knows is arguably the catalyst to looking outward - it's not uncommon for people to become engaged with the rest of the world when they realize the direct impact it has on their own, it's possibly the most common way it happens.

[Mr Sausage]

I get what you're saying, but I have trouble feeling like history specifically is the important aspect. I don't think Anderson developed a sudden historical sense, or a feeling of insignificance within the movements of history. He sounds like someone confronted with the idea of oblivion, however it occurs, and shocked by it, with the specifics of Zweig's oblivion being tangential. Anderson's comments (and movie, frankly) seem self regarding, not broad minded. And that's fine. One of the greatest lyric poems in English, John Milton's Lycidas, is (in)famous for Milton eulogizing his friend Henry King, a poet who died young, as a way to talk about his own fears and anxieties about dying before he had time to write the great poems he dreamed of creating. It's a poetic masterpiece, but notably self regarding. In The Grand Budapest Hotel Anderson is confronting his own fragility as an artist, with the puncturing element not being reality (in the form of historical forces) but the idea of oblivion itself. For someone who spends a lot of time living in their own constructed worlds, the death of the self is going to feel like an apocalyptic event.

As for Anderson getting new ideas from reading Zweig, well, sure, but he didn't take on Zweig's ideas or anything. Anderson read a book and had a bunch of ideas of his own, all of them pretty Andersonian.

[hearthesilence]

I think we're just going to have to disagree. The way so many people engage with history is how it can relate to their own lives or their own being - a person's own experiences is arguably the foundation to developing any sense of empathy for the consequences of history, it's how the weight of those things are often felt and understood.

And again, what I wrote before was that reading Zweig got him thinking about ideas he hadn't explored before - that's not the same as taking on Zweig's ideas, nor is it what I was arguing for. The point I was originally trying to make about adapting other works is that at minimum it can take you in a direction that you wouldn't have gone if you were trying to do something completely on your own. The ideas may be wholly your own invention, but you still may need the right catalyst or the right inspiration to get there.

[Mr Sausage]

The way so many people engage with history is how it can relate to their own lives or their own being - a person's own experiences is arguably the foundation to developing any sense of empathy for the consequences of history, it's how the weight of those things are often felt and understood.

I mean, yeah, can't argue with you there. But this kind of generalization tends to flatten individual experience. Anderson encountered someone else's encounter with history and took away something not specifically historical, I feel. But we disagree on that, and that's cool.

And again, what I wrote before was that reading Zweig got him thinking about ideas he hadn't explored before - that's not the same as taking on Zweig's ideas, nor is it what I was arguing for. The point I was originally trying to make about adapting other works is that at minimum it can take you in a direction that you wouldn't have gone if you were trying to do something completely on your own. The ideas may be wholly your own invention, but you still may need the right catalyst or the right inspiration to get there.

I guess I just don't see what about this is specific to adaptation. Anderson can read any book at any time and have a new idea. I'm sure it's happened to him many times. That's the fun of reading books. But it hardly needs him to adapt that book for a new idea to go into a movie.

[Big Ben]

It's possible that this was inspired by something too, just not overstated right now. It's supposedly by far his most violent film, and quite concerned with capitalist attitudes.

Can’t be all that violent, considering it’s only PG-13

I recall reading somewhere that more people actually tend to die in certain types of PG-13 fare than they do in R rated films. The obvious key difference between the two is how graphic the depiction of the violence actually is. We are all most certainly aware that you can kill dozens of mooks in an action film and not portray the violence in a particularly grotesque way and get away with it, which is what I'm assuming will be happening here. Given Anderson's penchant for being himself I would wager it will the most twee film (Non derogatory) we've ever seen about this sort of thing.

[hearthesilence]

I mean, yeah, can't argue with you there. But this kind of generalization tends to flatten individual experience. Anderson encountered someone else's encounter with history and took away something not specifically historical, I feel. But we disagree on that, and that's cool.

It's still bewildering to me how you haven't even addressed the rise of fascism that provides the context of the film. I realize that would make logical sense if you honestly think Anderson isn't interested in history and the context is merely incidental to self-involved concerns, but I can't ever agree with that.

If you anyone really needs Anderson to just come out and say it, here's this quote from an NPR interview:

"Part of why I feel the impulse to reimagine [World War II] rather than just do it is because it's been done so many times before. This is such familiar historical territory. The reason I want to engage with it is because this series of events in Europe are somehow still right in the middle of our lives."

I guess I just don't see what about this is specific to adaptation. Anderson can read any book at any time and have a new idea. I'm sure it's happened to him many times. That's the fun of reading books. But it hardly needs him to adapt that book for a new idea to go into a movie.

This completely misses the point to a bewildering degree and honestly if you're just looking to make flip jokes at this point, there's no point in continuing this.

[Mr Sausage]

I’m sorry I missed your point so badly, but I wasn’t making any jokes, flip or otherwise.

I don’t remember the film treating the rise of fascism in much detail, but maybe I just need to see it again.

I guess I’m being irritating so I’ll leave off here. But I enjoyed the chat!

[knives]

I do think seeing it again would be helpful, and I’m not just saying that because it’s my favorite. The rise of fascism, genocides of the 20th century, and the way Jews and queers were rendered outside are clearly made themes in the film.

What is fascinating, and explains your memories quite well, is how these themes are told almost only visually with little to no verbal references (the Armenian genocide is explicitly acknowledged in one line). Anyone not completely glued to the mis-en-scene, which is understandable for the Tatiesque density of it all, would probably be completely baffled when Brody is suddenly wearing a pseudo-swastika in the climax.

[therewillbeblus]

The rise of fascism, genocides of the 20th century, and the way Jews and queers were rendered outside are clearly made themes in the film.

The only part of The Grand Budapest Hotel that doesn't work for me at all is a portion of Brody and Fiennes' exchange at the will reading, when Brody accuses Fiennes of sleeping with his mother after calling him a gay slur, at which point Fiennes reminds him of his contradiction, and Brody fumbles "Well... that's because you're bisexual." Fiennes then says "Let's just drop it" with a tired tone that reflects my feelings about the exchange. The lines are all delivered terribly, but I'm not sure the actors are doing anything wrong so much as the idea is simply not as clever or funny played out as it probably felt written down. But, considering this is a running theme in the film, it makes sense that Anderson would leave that in to call attention to the homophobic context in a sharp manner.

[hearthesilence]

FWIW, Anderson actually singled out The Sorrow and the Pity and Shoah as inspirations for the movie, admitting that saying so may sound odd, but he was giving further reason as to why he felt so strongly about doing a film that took place during WWII (albeit a highly fictionalized one).

[Mr Sausage]

I do think seeing it again would be helpful, and I’m not just saying that because it’s my favorite. The rise of fascism, genocides of the 20th century, and the way Jews and queers were rendered outside are clearly made themes in the film.

What is fascinating, and explains your memories quite well, is how these themes are told almost only visually with little to no verbal references (the Armenian genocide is explicitly acknowledged in one line). Anyone not completely glued to the mis-en-scene, which is understandable for the Tatiesque density of it all, would probably be completely baffled when Brody is suddenly wearing a pseudo-swastika in the climax.

In case I’ve given the impression otherwise, it’s one of my favourite Anderson’s! But it’s been a few years, and that’s clearly skewing my opinions. I’ll give it a rewatch soon.

[Black Hat]

The older I've gotten, the more put off I've been by Anderson's films. I think this has a lot to do with both his fans, they remind me of jam band weirdos, or worse, Springsteen worshippers, and critics who I feel let him off the hook. Even the ones who have been critical of him are usually dropping their critiques in the most superficial ways. To give you an idea of where my tastes land with Wes, I think Grand Budapest is by far his best film with Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic behind it, tho I'm curious how well both films hold up today. For that matter, you can say the same for GBH. I guess it makes sense that the flowery touch of Moonrise is most people's favorite, as simplicity is more immune to changing attitudes. I almost skipped out on The Phoenician Scheme, but I then heard something about it that piqued my interest and decided to give it a go. To my surprise, I was incredibly impressed by this film. It's smart, has depth, is personal, and yet speaks to broader themes of where humanity, or the structures, institutions we create to manage ourselves, operate. It moves fast as all Wes Anderson films do, but there is so much going on in each frame, even more than usual, that all these threads will reward rewatching. In contrast to his last few films, this one has a clear lead, perhaps even two, and he lets Benicio cook. I think his films work much better when he has a protagonist working as the center of gravity. Michael Cera, who at first had me wondering what the fuck is this, he is severely miscast is revealed to be giving an extremely satisfying performance, best of his career. Of all Anderson's tertiary characters, I think Cera's is the best. The actress playing Liesly does the same most other actresses in his film do, but she has a more Hawksian presence with a poise on screen that's dynamic. I do enjoy how Anderson has added unknown performers to his stock company. He has a talent for getting the best out of them. The use of art, actual paintings, and the music of Stavinsky was perfect, subtly refreshing. In contrast to Asteroid City the film looks great, and there are so many references to cinematic ghosts that I'm sure will excite any cinephile. The only part of the film that didn't work for me was Cranston & Hanks, but that's a matter of personal taste, as I can't stand either anymore. Thankfully, they are barely on screen. Anderson makes a lot of fascinating choices in this film, there's a lot to unpack, and I probably will go see this two or three more times while it's in theaters. We'll see what happens, but this film felt like a pivot point in the Anderson oeuvre. Looking fwd to where he goes from here and hearing what everyone else thinks about a film I'm close to calling a masterpiece.

[Black Hat]

This is getting the worst notices of his career (though for some of the critics that still means lukewarm praise)

Do you happen to remember who disliked this? I can't conceive of any intelligent critic or smart cinephile disliking this, not finding it endlessly fascinating.

[domino harvey]

The overall response at Cannes was pretty middling. Perhaps it has leveled off since then, I haven't really been paying attention to be honest. Despite my skepticism, I'd love nothing more than for this to be good after how bad his last couple features have been

[Black Hat]

Tough to predict where you'd land on this. If I remember right, you liked Moonrise Kingdom a lot, then again, you hated his last few films like me, so I wouldn't be surprised either way, but would be curious as to why. For the first time in my life, I went over to the aggregator site that shall not be named, and the two negatives come from Dana Stevens, not surprising in the least, and of all people, Kurt Loder, who I didn't know was writing about film these days.

[Never Cursed]

This is getting the worst notices of his career (though for some of the critics that still means lukewarm praise)

Do you happen to remember who disliked this? I can't conceive of any intelligent critic or smart cinephile disliking this, not finding it endlessly fascinating.

Check the various Cannes grids: the critics in Moiree, the ICS, and Screen Daily all gave it ratings that placed it at best in the middle of the films in competition. Not sure why Dana Stevens hating it doesn't surprise you given that she's loved all of Anderson's recent movies

[Black Hat]

How depressing is it to click "read more from so and so" and have that link lead you to a podcast? If there was ever a group that should only be read and not heard, it is film critics.

NC - You answered your own question, but I like Dana Stevens, think she's a good writer (her Keaton book is great), but her sensibilities as a critic are predictable, with no insight particularly illuminating. It makes sense she'd love his recent films, but not this one with its radically different tone. Phoenician is an uncomfortable film, pins you down, and bludgeons questions at you without relief. When you deny your audience what they expect, like Anderson has you open the door to being attacked on specious grounds.

[Yakushima]

To my surprise, I was incredibly impressed by this film.

Thanks to Black Hat's endorsement, I decided to check this out in a theater, and glad I did! There are still signs of life in Wes Anderson after all!
After the grating Henry Sugar and the disaster that was Asteroid City, I went into The Phoenician Scheme with a sense of dread.
I am happy to report that, despite what the trailer may lead you to believe, The Phoenician Scheme ditched the garish blow-your-eyes colors of Asteroid City in favor of a more balanced and natural palette. The central performances are excellent, although exceedingly cartoonish by design. The set designs are otherworldly beautiful. It has live bugs, if you appreciate this sort of thing. It's still lacking a strong emotional core, so it can't hold a candle to Anderson's first nine feature films, but it has plenty of inventive visuals, some amusing slapstick moments, and a good measure of laughs and giggles.

So overall, this new entry into Anderson's "Movies about Bad Fathers" gallery feels like a partial return to form.

On a side note, trailers for M3GAN 2.0 and Honey Don't! were fun. I'll definitely be watching both in a theater when they are out.

[beamish14]

Screening in 70mm at the Vista in Los Angeles. The first Anderson film to get a blow-up