Spoilers ahead for the ending of The Phoenician Scheme.
As a cinephile, I can’t help but be captivated by the story of Zsa-Zsa Korda, the billionaire arms dealer and industrial titan portrayed by Benicio del Toro in Wes Anderson’s newest film, The Phoenician Scheme. After surviving numerous assassination attempts and walking away from his sixth plane crash, it’s clear that Zsa-Zsa is a force of nature. His unyielding determination, which has been the driving force behind his empire, also makes him seemingly invincible. (“If something gets in your way, flatten it,” his father once said to him.)
Recently, Zsa-Zsa has been haunted by visions of the afterlife, reminding him that death is inevitable. In an attempt to leave a lasting legacy, he embarks on a mission to fund grand infrastructure projects across the Middle East. He seeks help from his estranged daughter, Liesl (Mia Threapleton), who is training to be a nun and could potentially inherit his empire.
As they travel together for negotiations, both Zsa-Zsa and Liesl learn from each other. However, their personal growth trajectories differ significantly. Liesl discovers that the life of a nun may not be for her, and she begins to embrace aspects of her father. On the other hand, Zsa-Zsa grapples with understanding the difference between right and wrong. It takes a divine intervention – being told by God himself that slave labor is immoral – for him to realize his mistake.
In the end, after battling his brother Nubar (Benedict Cumberbatch), who represents capitalism personified, Zsa-Zsa funds the infrastructure projects on his own, giving away his immense wealth and instead choosing to run a restaurant with Liesl. The film’s optimistic conclusion offers redemption for a man who has done much wrong, leaving some viewers questioning whether forgiveness should be extended to such an undeserving character.
In Anderson’s latest work, t As Zsa-Zsa jetsets globally to meet dissatisfied investors, the success or failure of his projects significantly impacts the lives of millions, hinging on minor squabbles between a select few billionaires. Naturally, in a Wes Anderson production, these disputes are resolved through unique means such as a sophisticated game of basketball and a witty confrontation involving a hand grenade. (Notably, one of the film’s amusing recurring jokes involves Zsa-Zsa carrying a box of grenades to offer as party favors. “Fancy a hand grenade?”)
Despite the gritty realism that seeps into the polished cinematic landscape, Anderson finds himself drawn to his lead character, Zsa-Zsa. Originally envisioning her as a relentless, merciless businessman who would wreak havoc on those around him and the world at large, Anderson admitted this portrayal to The Atlantic. He described her as being reminiscent of mid-century tycoons such as oil magnate Calouste Gulbenkian. However, the Zsa-Zsa seen in the film underwent a significant transformation, becoming less ruthless and more refined. Given Anderson’s affinity for characters with impeccable taste and cultivation, it is hardly surprising that he would show leniency towards such a character as Zsa-Zsa, who embodies sophistication by advising her son to invest in masterpieces rather than good pictures.
If Anderson chooses to offer redemption potential to Zsa-Zsa by not making it easy for him, he nonetheless requires him to earn it. The movie serves partly as a reflection of recognizing shared traits within your family and deciding whether to embrace them or alter them. Throughout most of the story, the looming presence of Nubar, a rival arms dealer, casts a shadow over Zsa-Zsa, raising questions about his potential involvement in Liesl’s mother’s death. Repeatedly, Zsa-Zsa describes Nubar as “inhuman” and “biblical,” implying that Nubar’s cruelty transcends human standards, thus justifying his actions. In their eventual encounter, the twist is that Nubar appears almost supernaturally evil, with snake-like eyes and strength sufficient to split a ladder. He embodies such wickedness that he must be eliminated, and the movie presents Zsa-Zsa’s final confrontation with him as an opportunity for Zsa-Zsa to eliminate any lingering greed within himself.
In simpler terms, it appears that the filmmaker, Anderson, may be creating an escape hatch by attributing Zsa-Zsa’s flaws to an embodiment of evil. However, during their battle, the film’s style momentarily becomes disrupted as Anderson uses shaky handheld shots, capturing the actors from below and then in alternating close-ups, giving a sense of a synchronized dance between them. This scene could be seen as Anderson’s interpretation of the Tenet character fighting his counterpart. The movie seems to challenge the notion that redemption can be so straightforward, as even a hand grenade and a flood are needed to eliminate Nubar. So, it seems that a confrontation with one’s worst self is enough to reform a ruthless tycoon like Zsa-Zsa. After giving away his fortune for questionable infrastructure projects, he transforms into something resembling a good parent, following in the footsteps of other flawed parents in Anderson’s films such as Royal Tenenbaum and Patricia from Darjeeling Limited. It’s worth noting that while these parents’ actions were traumatic for their children, they did not involve slave labor (as far as we know). The film suggests that even a billionaire might find redemption after brushes with death, but if you encounter someone like Nubar, it’s best to destroy him. Would you care for a hand grenade?
Read More
2025-06-13 23:54