SWIMMING POOL - What's it all about? (Spoilers within!) (1 Viewer)

[Ted Todorov]

To me the film is above all about the creative process. It is a huge mystery how an author will sit down in front of a blank page and come up with a compelling novel. While works vividly portraying writer's block abound (Monster in a Box was the first to come to mind), ones that successfully capture art being created and an author imagination at work are few indeed.

I accept some of what Michael is saying -- clearly the murder aspects of the story were a major cheese-fest saved for a future mystery ("Dorwell Eats Foie-Gras"), but I don't see that Julie's encounters with men and her character in general weren't part of the novel that was being written. In any event, Ozon surely wished to leave it to the audience's interpretation, and there isn't any one "correct" reading of Swimming Pool.

Rampling is an amazing actress -- from The Night Porter to Embrassez qui vous voudrez & Swimming Pool -- I think her acting has been underrated because of her beauty...

Ted

 

[Michael Reuben]

but I don't see that Julie's encounters with men and her character in general weren't part of the novel that was being written

Oh, I think they very well could be. All I was trying to say was that the novel and the movie aren't identical. The film is structured as a mystery story, whereas the novel is clearly a romance of some sort (the rest being left to one's imagination).

M.

 

[Ross Williams]

My wife and I watched this film last night, and we were both quite underwhelmed. This film has been getting rave reviews from everybody.

First off, I thought it was a mystery film, there was none. It was a decent film about the relationship between an old stick-in-the-mud English woman, and a young free-spirit French girl. But that is not what it was sold as.

The mystery was... the murder I guess, which doesn't happen until the film is nearly over. There's about 3 minutes of investigation until it is confirmed that who did it, was the person we already knew did it. Then the cover-up takes another couple minutes, with the most ridiculous ending to that part of the story. There's a slight twist at the end, that we both saw coming from a mile off.


Why was this film so highly touted?

The only reason I wasn't completely disappointed with it, was the incredibly sexy French girl is naked for half the film.

 

[David Lawson]

Actually, the mystery is:

Was there really a murder? Was there really an incredibly sexy naked French girl? What is fiction, and what is reality?

 

[Michael Reuben]

It was a decent film about the relationship between an old stick-in-the-mud English woman, and a young free-spirit French girl.

Uh, no.

M.

 

[Ross Williams]

I did a search for this thread, but it didn't come up, now that I've read it, it helps a bit. But I'm still not getting out of it what everybody else seems to be.

I get that it's about her writing process. The real house and the real girl we see at the end are the things that inspired her to write Swimming Pool. That's all I got out of it. The only thing that throws me is when she sees the real daughter in the office, she doesn't even acknowledge her, but at the very end, there is a "loving" wave between them.

It was a decent film about the relationship between an old stick-in-the-mud English woman, and a young free-spirit French girl.

Uh, no.

I don't know how you can say that. The entire film revolves around them learning to deal with one another. Maybe this really was the writer coming to terms with her younger, wilder self. Or maybe it was just a characterization of the real daughter Julia. Either way it's about their relationship. That it is fiction, is inconsequential.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I still stand by my own interpretation.

~Edwin

 

[Michael Reuben]

That it is fiction, is inconsequential.

That's where we disagree.

M.

 

[Ted Lee]

thank gawd for htf. i just watched this for the first time. at the end i was like, wtf? i thought i missed something quite pivotal.

ultimately, i agree that this was nothing more then a "dream sequence" for sarah.

it really makes sense. during the whole part where she was helping to cover up the murder, i kept thinking "what the heck is she doing?".

it's all clear now...peace and tranquility are returning.

 

[Rich Malloy]

An entertaining movie, which is saying alot for a story about writer's block and the creative process. These tend to be quite boring to me, and particularly when the "creative process" in question is merely that of a hack genre writer. Whatever novel she's writes over the course of the film, however different it is or isn't from her previous pulp fiction, is certainly no more interesting or ambitious than her usual dreck (tho' I did continue to chuckle over the title "Dorwell Wears a Kilt"). In other words, we're not witnessing the act of an artiste creating or a person becoming an artist... it's so much more pedestrian than that. Perhaps a sentimental love story "with a happy ending", or maybe just another true crime novel, but without Dorwell? Whatever. Does it matter?

And maybe it does. Not a rhetorical question. I just don't find this movie interesting as an exploration of the creative process or the overcoming of writer's block. If it's about that, it doesn't really get very far. However, as an exploration of one woman's psyche, her sexuality, and her acts of sexual domination, submission and brinks(wo)manship (a la Fassbinder) is. And I don't think we can rightly consider an Ozon film without acknowledging his debt to Fassbinder. So, there you go... acknowledged.

So what did I find so entertaining about this film? Two things. Ok, three things, two of which belong to Ludivine (film is a visual medium... duh), and the third being the hilarious series of interactions in the middle third between Rampling and Sagnier's characters. Yes, yes, Rampling plays yet another stereotypically prim, uptight Englishwoman (perhaps precisely how Ozon views certain Englishwomen), and Ludivine is just as stereotypically the sensual and ripe femme-francais. Fine. Let's draw it all in sharp relief. Watching these two actresses interact as such polar opposites was an absolute joy, and I found myself smiling and even belly-laughing as they poked and prodded or tried vainly to step lightly around one another, or let loose with a few veiled barbs, or just a look, a gesture. Most of it's a tad too subtle to describe in words, but I was completely engaged by this outward manifestation of Rampling's inner turmoil, and, at the very least, fell in lust with both of the women... even the early pre-liberated "bitchy" Rampling!

And so far no one's mentioned "the tracking shot". Sure, sure, we all know Rampling's never shied away from the controversy, or from exposing a bit of flesh, but let's give her a little cheer for being so bold well into her golden years. Bold and beautiful, to coin a phrase!

There was more that I liked about this movie, and not least being Rampling's idyllic first few days before "Julie's" arrival, exploring the house, the village, eyeing the local gentry, uncovering the pool... all that wordless existence, that personal reverie leading up to her inspiration (symbolized by "Julie's" arrival). There's more of this in the deleted scenes, which I enjoyed a very great deal. I don't care much for deleted scenes that add plot points or different views of characters--and there's a bit of that here, too--as these generally detract from the finished film in my mind. But when the deleted scenes give us, essentially, more of the same... well, if one enjoys it, the more the merrier!

And I liked the way Ozon created his own grammar with those series of matching tracking shots, all we really needed to know to clue us in on the "reality" or "irreality" of any given moment. All those revealing finales undercut this a bit, even confused it I think. The shot of the "real" Julie, and the lack of recognition was all that was necessary if Ozon wanted to make absolutely sure that everyone got it, but I confess to remaining a bit stumped by the "waving" scene. I'd like to criticize it as heavy-handed symbolism, but I'm not even sure what he was trying to symbolize. Well, a film that remains opaque tends to remain viable, so maybe that one little aspect will wriggle its way through my subconscious and cause me to watch this film again. That, and maybe one or two other things...

 

[Ross Williams]

And so far no one's mentioned "the tracking shot".

If you clue me in on what you're refering too, I might comment on it.

 

[Ted Lee]

ross - i'm pretty he's referring to the shot when rampling is trying to seduce the gardener.

btw, who is fassbinder?

 

[Lew Crippen]

Ted, try this replacement

is trying to seduce with is seducing.

 

[Ted Lee]

hmm....

but did she really seduce the gardener? or was that also just part of her dreamworld?

 

[Lew Crippen]

btw, who is fassbinder?

Rainer Werner Fassbinder was sort the the Kurt Corbain of German cinema of the 70s: he had an enormous output of films in a very short time, lived a chaotic life filled with drugs, sex of every kind and rebellion, ended by a self-induced drug overdose (though not necessarily suicide).

He, along with Werner Herzog and others began what became known as the new German cinema in the late 60s and which was codified enough by ’76 so that the BBC produced a feature on it (you can see this as an extra on Criterion’s Ali: Fear Eats the Soul. Also available on Criterion is what many consider is seminal work, The BRD Trilogy, the box set also contains a feature on his life and work.

 

[Ross Williams]

Her seducing of the gardener was ridiculous. Even if that was just part of her book, I felt it was completely out of character. She's a smart woman, there's no other way for her to divert his attention? That is where the movie really lost me.

However, I keep thinking and talking about the film, which is much more than I can say about 95% of movies I watch these days. So it obviously has something going for it, I just can't figure out exactly what it is.

 

[Ted Lee]

i hear ya ross.

my take is that since this was just a dream, she could have done whatever she wanted. as part of the whole "i'll have sex with who i want when i want" concept, it fits.

 

[Citizen87645]

I think it's all the yogurt she ate.

 

[Ross Williams]

my take is that since this was just a dream

Oh yeah, I forgot about the dream sequences within the film. (Once I realized it was all her book, I guess I placed it all in the same category.) It does make sense within that realm.

I think I need to rewatch this, without all the hype preceeding it.

 

[Todd Smigelski]

Just a tid bit here Ludivine (Julie) actually has a scar on her stomach.

Has a scar on her lower abdomen as the result of a peritonitis operation. During the operation, the doctors found a tumour on her stomach. Luckily, the tumour was benign and was also removed. No complications derived from it.