Swimming Pool

[Pwaybloe]

For those who liked this movie as much as I did, I found the most concise explanation to the ending.  You might as well just leave now if you haven't seen the movie.

(SPOILERS)

"The way I began to think about this film to find the meaning is in the way the people did or did not react. So...

Let's start at the beginning. Sarah, as we all know, goes to her publisher because she is having a hard time writing her next novel. The publisher says she should stay in his house in France to get away from everything. When she asks if he'll come to visit, he mentions that he can't except for maybe a weekend because of his daughter. This is key point number one.

Key point number two is the fact that when she first talks to the publisher from the house, she mentions that she has had this idea that has gotten ahold of her and she can't let go. What is she talking about? The daughter. When the publisher mentions his daughter, this sparks an idea in Sarah's mind since she had no idea that the daughter even existed. This fact is evident in the end when she mentions that there were things she did not know about the publisher (i.e. his daughter.)

So next scene after Sarah mentions that she has this idea, the novel completely takes over. In other words, what the audience sees is what Sarah is writing for her novel. Now to fully understand, I believe that the story of the novel has to be explained. The story of the novel is based upon Sarah's experience combined with the made up story of the daughter. SO Sarah's novel is about a crime/mystery writer who goes to a French retreat to gain inspiration, but is then disturbed with the arrival of her publisher's daughter. All things unravel and the writer within the story of the novel begins to get inspiration from the daughter and begins basing what she is writing upon her and her experiences. That is why she steals the diary. Everything and events happen (I don't need to write out the whole movie for you) until the end. The novel ends when the writer gets the mother's old manuscript. Julie in a voice over mentions that she hopes the writer can bring her mother back to life. So the end of the novel would be that the writer drops what she is writing (especially since it can be used as evidence against Julie) and rewrites the mother's manuscript to gain revenge and to fullfill Julie's wishes.

WOOH! Only a little bit more to go.

Now the reason why the scene in the publisher's office at the end is reality is because of two reasons. One, because the novel is called Swimming Pool, not whatever the mother's book was called. And two, because the publisher does not react in a way that what he read is actually true. Don't you think he would have mentioned something about the Mother or the book that the motehr wrote? Or even more... something about his daughter?

Then, there is the very end. When Sarah walks out of the office she walks past Julia (the publishers actual daughter.) BUT... Julia does not act as though she knows Sarah. Which means this is their first time crossing. Besides that, Sarah stands at the window in the door and watches Julia. So what the end means in the waving scene is that Sarah was jsut thinking about her book and was now able to put a face to what had inspired her story.

There, I think that's it. There may be more later, and if you read all that, well, I thank you."

[jokerspath]

Wait a second.  So did Lardass have to pay to get into the contest??

aw

[Sal]

And then what happened?

[jokerspath]

But really, I do appreciate the post...

aw

[Gold Trumpet]

With the ending, I thought the movie ended it on the wrong way of being ambiguous. It became the Sixth Sense and a mere puzzle of when things shifted from real to fiction and so forth. I'm not even going to comment on the rest. This isn't that kind of movie. You can look at the end and ask yourself how intrigued you are. I don't believe the movie was acting to stands on its own feet with the entire film, but an ending. The kind of ending you don't reveal, an ending that is all too revealing in weakness with the script.

~rougerum

[Newtron]

For those who liked this movie as much as I did, I found the most concise explanation to the ending.  You might as well just leave now if you haven't seen the movie.

(SPOILERS)

"The way I began to think about this film to find the meaning is in the way the people did or did not react. So...

Let's start at the beginning. Sarah, as we all know, goes to her publisher because she is having a hard time writing her next novel. The publisher says she should stay in his house in France to get away from everything. When she asks if he'll come to visit, he mentions that he can't except for maybe a weekend because of his daughter. This is key point number one.

Key point number two is the fact that when she first talks to the publisher from the house, she mentions that she has had this idea that has gotten ahold of her and she can't let go. What is she talking about? The daughter. When the publisher mentions his daughter, this sparks an idea in Sarah's mind since she had no idea that the daughter even existed. This fact is evident in the end when she mentions that there were things she did not know about the publisher (i.e. his daughter.)

So next scene after Sarah mentions that she has this idea, the novel completely takes over. In other words, what the audience sees is what Sarah is writing for her novel. Now to fully understand, I believe that the story of the novel has to be explained. The story of the novel is based upon Sarah's experience combined with the made up story of the daughter. SO Sarah's novel is about a crime/mystery writer who goes to a French retreat to gain inspiration, but is then disturbed with the arrival of her publisher's daughter. All things unravel and the writer within the story of the novel begins to get inspiration from the daughter and begins basing what she is writing upon her and her experiences. That is why she steals the diary. Everything and events happen (I don't need to write out the whole movie for you) until the end. The novel ends when the writer gets the mother's old manuscript. Julie in a voice over mentions that she hopes the writer can bring her mother back to life. So the end of the novel would be that the writer drops what she is writing (especially since it can be used as evidence against Julie) and rewrites the mother's manuscript to gain revenge and to fullfill Julie's wishes.

WOOH! Only a little bit more to go.

Now the reason why the scene in the publisher's office at the end is reality is because of two reasons. One, because the novel is called Swimming Pool, not whatever the mother's book was called. And two, because the publisher does not react in a way that what he read is actually true. Don't you think he would have mentioned something about the Mother or the book that the motehr wrote? Or even more... something about his daughter?

Then, there is the very end. When Sarah walks out of the office she walks past Julia (the publishers actual daughter.) BUT... Julia does not act as though she knows Sarah. Which means this is their first time crossing. Besides that, Sarah stands at the window in the door and watches Julia. So what the end means in the waving scene is that Sarah was jsut thinking about her book and was now able to put a face to what had inspired her story.

There, I think that's it. There may be more later, and if you read all that, well, I thank you."

I'm a bit late. This is all true. Very good.

[SHAFTR]

For those who liked this movie as much as I did, I found the most concise explanation to the ending.  You might as well just leave now if you haven't seen the movie.

(SPOILERS)

"The way I began to think about this film to find the meaning is in the way the people did or did not react. So...

Let's start at the beginning. Sarah, as we all know, goes to her publisher because she is having a hard time writing her next novel. The publisher says she should stay in his house in France to get away from everything. When she asks if he'll come to visit, he mentions that he can't except for maybe a weekend because of his daughter. This is key point number one.

Key point number two is the fact that when she first talks to the publisher from the house, she mentions that she has had this idea that has gotten ahold of her and she can't let go. What is she talking about? The daughter. When the publisher mentions his daughter, this sparks an idea in Sarah's mind since she had no idea that the daughter even existed. This fact is evident in the end when she mentions that there were things she did not know about the publisher (i.e. his daughter.)

So next scene after Sarah mentions that she has this idea, the novel completely takes over. In other words, what the audience sees is what Sarah is writing for her novel. Now to fully understand, I believe that the story of the novel has to be explained. The story of the novel is based upon Sarah's experience combined with the made up story of the daughter. SO Sarah's novel is about a crime/mystery writer who goes to a French retreat to gain inspiration, but is then disturbed with the arrival of her publisher's daughter. All things unravel and the writer within the story of the novel begins to get inspiration from the daughter and begins basing what she is writing upon her and her experiences. That is why she steals the diary. Everything and events happen (I don't need to write out the whole movie for you) until the end. The novel ends when the writer gets the mother's old manuscript. Julie in a voice over mentions that she hopes the writer can bring her mother back to life. So the end of the novel would be that the writer drops what she is writing (especially since it can be used as evidence against Julie) and rewrites the mother's manuscript to gain revenge and to fullfill Julie's wishes.

WOOH! Only a little bit more to go.

Now the reason why the scene in the publisher's office at the end is reality is because of two reasons. One, because the novel is called Swimming Pool, not whatever the mother's book was called. And two, because the publisher does not react in a way that what he read is actually true. Don't you think he would have mentioned something about the Mother or the book that the motehr wrote? Or even more... something about his daughter?

Then, there is the very end. When Sarah walks out of the office she walks past Julia (the publishers actual daughter.) BUT... Julia does not act as though she knows Sarah. Which means this is their first time crossing. Besides that, Sarah stands at the window in the door and watches Julia. So what the end means in the waving scene is that Sarah was jsut thinking about her book and was now able to put a face to what had inspired her story.

There, I think that's it. There may be more later, and if you read all that, well, I thank you."

I'm a bit late. This is all true. Very good.

I'm a bit late as well.  The above post really helped me out piece everything together.  I enjoyed the film, but I couldn't figure out why. The above post let me see written out what I was attempting to put together.  I thought both the lead performances were great.  Ludivinie Sagnier was stunning, the less amount of clothes she wore the better she looked (which I feel is often the opposite).  The first 2 acts I really dug, the 3rd act not so much and the ending I enjoyed.  After reading the above post I think I can enjoy the 3rd act more so.  I really need to see it again.  Probably in this year's top 10 for me, but I'm not sure where.  It needs another viewing.

[MacGuffin]

In America, actresses are constantly starved for good roles, but overseas, François Ozon is single-handedly doing his part to give women their due. The Paris-born director put eight women to work in his last movie, the whodunit musical, 8 Women, and now he unveils Swimming Pool, a sultry little mystery he wrote especially for actress Charlotte Rampling, whose career he salvaged from obscurity in his celebrated psychodrama, Under the Sand.

In the grand Old-Hollywood tradition, the director elevates his leading ladies to pedestals, but in a twist entirely his own, Ozon also makes it very clear that his muses are always at risk of being unseated by the same erotic power that put them there in the first place. Each successive film sheds light on a different facet of the feminine mystique, and yet they are all characterized by the same trademark blend of the sinister and the sexual, not to mention an almost comic self-awareness that sometimes borders on camp.

Like America's own film-school brats, Ozon's style emerges from the filmmakers who preceded him (he studied cinema at France's celebrated national film academy, FEMIS). In trying to pinpoint his influences, critics have suggested directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Claude Chabrol and Roman Polanski, but it is Swedish director Ingmar Bergman whom Ozon admires most. Now, in his own words, find out which five films really inspire the rising French director.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persona
(1966; dir: Ingmar Bergman, starring: Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullmann)
I think Bergman is the most important director alive. His way of filming the two actresses, of showing the connections between them is fabulous and a big inspiration for me. I loved the closeups he used and his way of searching the female soul through their faces. When I began work on Under the Sand, I understood very quickly that I did not have to show a lot of events because the face and eyes of Charlotte Rampling were enough. I think that's something I learned from Bergman's movie. When you are in front of someone you admire, the camera can capture your desire, and with Charlotte I found that. It's the first time in one of my films that I really identified with the character. Usually, I keep a certain distance, but this time, I wanted to be very close to the character, maybe to be in her head. (In Swimming Pool, too, you are in the head of Charlotte Rampling, but it's not a film about emotions. It's more cerebral and intellectual.) I know Ingmar Bergman saw Under the Sand, and he loved the film, and I was very, very touched by that.

The Mirror Crack'd
(1980; dir: Guy Hamilton, starring: Angela Lansbury, Elizabeth Taylor)
When I was a child, I loved all the films adapted from Agatha Christie novels with their prestigious casts full of famous American actors each playing a small part. I love the whodunit, and I play on it with 8 Women, which is a film filled with references to the different kinds of movies I like, where the common point between all these films is the actresses and my pleasure filming them. There was one Agatha Christie movie that was a little bit stupid, but I liked it. It was a Miss Marple story called The Mirror Crack'd. It's full of bitchy dialogue between the actresses, because there's a rivalry between Kim Novak and Elizabeth Taylor. They were the beautiful women of the '50s and the '60s, but they are old, so it's funny to see. Rock Hudson has a part, and so does Tony Curtis, so it's an amazing cast. The direction is not great, but it has a good plot inspired by the life of Gene Tierney. I love popular culture and movies, too. I can love Bergman and a film adapted from Agatha Christie, it's not a problem for me.

Wait Until Dark
(1967; dir: Terence Young, starring: Audrey Hepburn, Alan Arkin)
There was a film with Audrey Hepburn where she played a blind woman who is alone in the night, and it was very, very frightening for me when I saw it as a child. I loved the last scene with the fridge. There is a man who is trying to kill her in her flat, and everything is dark, so she's his equal. Then he opens the fridge door and uses the light to find her. I love suspense, and I like to play with the audience. When I write the script, it's always important to ask, "Where is the audience at this moment? What do they think? What do they feel?" I think it's a lesson that comes from Hitchcock, who builds all his films on the link with the audience. It's like a game, but it can be perverse. In See the Sea, it's very perverse, because everybody knows that something could happen, but they don't know what. Sometimes the imagination of the audience is worse than the reality, and I like to play with what you want to see. For example, someone who saw Swimming Pool told me why he was sure the relationship between Ludivine and Charlotte would become a sexual relationship. He was so excited to see that, and I said to him, "I didn't have to show it because you imagine it better." Sometimes you don't have to give everything.

Vertigo
(1958; dir: Alfred Hitchcock, starring: Jimmy Stewart, Kim Novak)
Each time I see a Hitchcock film, there's such a pleasure in the mise en scène, in how he directs the actors. It's difficult to single out one film. Vertigo is a very strange movie. The first time I saw it, I hadn't picked up on the perversity of James Stewart with the second woman. Now I realize it is a film about how you are as a director with an actress, because you play puppets, you play dolls with actresses. I think it's a self-portrait about Hitchcock. I also love his exposition at the beginning of his films. He goes directly to the important things. I like the fact that you take the audience by the hand at the beginning, and say, "Come see my small story," and it begins like every film, and gradually you arrive in a different movie. I've learned a lot from his style of exposition. For example, I made a mistake with Criminal Lovers. The murder at the beginning of the film is too shocking. That's why I've made a new cut for the French DVD. You have to be with the audience at the beginning, to identify a bit with the situation, not to be aggressed.

Imitation of Life
(1959, dir: Douglas Sirk, starring: Lana Turner, John Gavin)
Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life was very important for me. It's a very touching story about illusion and what we dream in life. There is something very artificial in the mise en scène, with the colors and characters. Everything is very expressive. Because it's a melodrama, you don't totally identify with the story -- it's a little bit overdone -- but you are still touched by the story. It's important for me to use all the characteristics in a movie to express what I want to express: the colors, the light, the sound. Everything is a way to say things. For me, dialogue is not very important. I prefer to film actions and to show the behaviors of the characters. It tells me more than when someone simply explains what he is doing. The audience is often cleverer than the characters, and they understand things more quickly. I use silence, too, because it gives you the possibility to think. Very often in films now, you have no time to think because the producers are afraid you will start to worry about your own problems and want to leave. For me, it's not a problem. That's why there's very often a distance in my films, because I don't want you to forget you're watching a film. It's not a reality, and you are encouraged to think to yourself.

[Pwaybloe]

According to François Ozon's official website...

The french DVD of Swimming Pool will be released on January 21, 2004 in 2 editions. The collector edition will have bonus features such as images from Cannes Film Festival, a poster gallery, deleted scenes commented by François Ozon...

SWIMMING POOL - Collector Edition 2 DVD (PAL)
* DVD French Release Date: January 21, 2004

• Encoding: Region 2 (France)  
• Color, Widescreen Enhanced for 16/9 TV
• Sound: English & French DTS & Dolby Digital 5.1
• Picture gallery (posters, making of...)
• French subtitles
• Trailers
• Deleted scenes with audio commentary by François Ozon (20 min)
• Cannes Press Conference (15 min)
• Images from Cannes Film Festival
• Interviews of Charlotte Rampling & Ludivine Sagnier


SWIMMING POOL - Unrated Version DVD (NTSC)
* DVD Release Date: January 13, 2004

* Encoding: Region 1
* Format: Color, Widescreen Anamorphic
* Sound: English & French DTS & Dolby Digital 5.1
* Deleted Scenes
* Theatrical Trailer

[godardian]

Yay! Definitely on my "to buy" list! (I have a number of Ozons in my collection: Water Drops on Burning Rocks, Under the Sand, and 8 Women).

[modage]

just saw this movie tonite (in an attempt to 'play catch up' with a few indie films of last year just to BE SURE i havent missed anything really worthwhile.)  but unfortunately i didnt like this either.  lifetime with nudity seems like an accurate description.  i was atleast with it for the first hour or so, but then it just went off into the ridiculous and i was just waiting for the end.  'julie' looked like the french equivalant of white trash, which made the nudity pretty unattractive.  (she is radiant as tinkerbell however!)  but, ozon is 0 for 2 for me, so i dont think i'll be giving him any more chances.

[godardian]

just saw this movie tonite (in an attempt to 'play catch up' with a few indie films of last year just to BE SURE i havent missed anything really worthwhile.)  but unfortunately i didnt like this either.  lifetime with nudity seems like an accurate description.  i was atleast with it for the first hour or so, but then it just went off into the ridiculous and i was just waiting for the end.  'julie' looked like the french equivalant of white trash, which made the nudity pretty unattractive.  (she is radiant as tinkerbell however!)  but, ozon is 0 for 2 for me, so i dont think i'll be giving him any more chances.

For me, this film was about:

-The creative process (writing)

-The psyche

-Sexuality (or the psychosexual, whichever term one prefers)

-Aging

-Fantasy

-Projection

-Feeling trapped in one's skin/identity


For me, this film was not about:

-The degree to which the nudity contained therein was "attractive" or no.

[Pwaybloe]

For me, this film was about:

-The creative process (writing)

-The psyche

-Sexuality (or the psychosexual, whichever term one prefers)

-Aging

-Fantasy

-Projection

-Feeling trapped in one's skin/identity

I agree with you on all of these.  It's the ultimate mid-life crisis.  Mixing Sarah's own experiences and using the "fictional" Julie's experiences yields a book-worthy fantasy and revigorates her to go on.  It's a full circle.  

For me, this film was not about:

-The degree to which the nudity contained therein was "attractive" or no.

Yeah, but even with your preference, you have to admit Julie had a hot body.

[Pas]

just saw this movie tonite (in an attempt to 'play catch up' with a few indie films of last year just to BE SURE i havent missed anything really worthwhile.)  but unfortunately i didnt like this either.  lifetime with nudity seems like an accurate description.  i was atleast with it for the first hour or so, but then it just went off into the ridiculous and i was just waiting for the end.  'julie' looked like the french equivalant of white trash, which made the nudity pretty unattractive.  (she is radiant as tinkerbell however!)  but, ozon is 0 for 2 for me, so i dont think i'll be giving him any more chances.

I liked that movie a lot. I even found it somewhat (I repeat, somewhat) Lynchian sometimes, with the midget, the nudity and the twisted plot. I like Ozon a lot, he's a fresh breath in french cinema. But you say you "play catch up" with a few indie films, I don't think being foreign equals being indie. This movie is backed by Canal+ and France 2,  and I think it's a pretty big french production. I could be wrong, I don't know the definition of "indie film" but I don't think this is one. Correct me if you please.

And seriously, Ludivine Sagnier is a bomb.

[godardian]

For me, this film was not about:

-The degree to which the nudity contained therein was "attractive" or no.

Yeah, but even with your preference, you have to admit Julie had a hot body.

I would have actually thought so, too. But modernage didn't share this assessment, and I was just pointing out how it's not really an important factor; just because we may or may not think her particular kind of girl is attractive or not doesn't have much to do with the movie. The people in the movie obviously think she's quite attractive, and I think you can see why, even if you don't share that feeling. And that's all that really matters on that (small) point when it comes to analyzing/opining on the film.