|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Add your comment
 | | | | From: |
Bobby | 2004-01-13 22:22:25 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool: OK, what happened? | | Comment: | I just finished viewing the unrated version of swimming pool. Please explain it to me. Did the French Julie and all her lovers really exist? Did someone really die? Was the mother's book really the mother's book?
Or was it all just her imagining her story?
Up until the murder (I agree that it was the sexiest murder I've ever seen on screen) I was doing OK. But I don't understand why Sarah did what she did after the murder (I'm trying not to give too much away here) and I certainly don't get the Julia character in her publisher's office.
If I could understand it, I would probably give it a good ranking. | | | | | From: |
Dick | 2004-01-17 04:45:06 | | Subject: | review of the movie swimming pool | | Comment: | Your review was extremely precise and exemplifies my feelings exactly. There are many who feel the same. Thank you, Dick | | | | | From: |
Lisa | 2004-01-18 16:08:55 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool | | Comment: | Thank you for being as confused as I am. I have no idea what I missed in regards to the Julie we saw thru the whole movie and the Julie at the end. Was most of the story just in the writers imagination? | | | | | From: |
kymberlee | 2004-01-20 12:41:21 | | Subject: | swimming pool ending | | Comment: | I found this movie to be slow starting and wasting an inordinate amount of time illustrating trivial everyday events in the beginning. It picked up midway, and then the ending left me wondering what I missed. I love murder mysteries, but this one takes the cake. What does it mean? If the girl wasn't the real Julie, how was it that the gardener didn't seem to notice or bother to say anything? The waiter who was killed just appears out of nowhere near the swimming pool with an erection. Was this real or imaginary?
There are too many loose ends for me to recommend this movie to anyone. However, if you're in it for the skin show, it's a real treat...too bad that wasn't my reason for watching it. | | | | | From: |
Graham | 2004-01-23 21:11:05 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool Ending | | Comment: | Yes, yes, it was confusing but here are my answers that may satisfy you. The daugther was not the real daughter (of course) because really, a london's publisher's daughter would really act like that? Second, the fake Julie killed the guy because she has never been rejected in her life, so she didn't know what else to do. Anymore questions? E-mail me. | | | | | From: |
pete | 2004-01-25 14:55:25 | | Subject: | swimming pool plot | | Comment: | Here is how Swimming Pool makes sense to me, which one of you implied in his/her comment: The entire series of events beginning with Charlotte Rampling's arrival at the French country house, is all fabricated by the authoress - she creates the character/daughter Julie in her imagination of what she believe's Julie might look and be like. Everything, including the murder, Julie's mother's incomplete book, the sex with the grounds keeper, the meal with Julie, are simply all part of Rampling's new creative plot, stimulated by her isolated country vacation. At the end of the movie, the real daughter (Julia?) enters her father's office, a young girl who is totally unknown to Rampling, as the authoress muses through the door's glass windows at the end of the film. | | | | | From: |
TL | 2004-02-03 12:13:50 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool | | Comment: | I have one question that I can not figure out in this movie. Since Julie was fake and a part of Sarah's imagination, why did she give her publisher a copy of her new book, autographed to give to his daughter, when she never met the real daughter? | | | | | From: |
pete | 2004-02-05 19:06:31 | | Subject: | swimming pool - why a book to publisher? | | Comment: | I believe that Rampling was thanking her publisher, by giving him an erotic and amusing tale dedicated to his daughter, perhaps partially to celebrate her new-found creative freedom at the country house, because it was the unknown daughter that allowed her to have poetic license in order to create a fantasy tale, less rigid and less predictable than her usual mysteries. | | | | | From: |
Jimmy | 2004-02-21 04:10:32 | | Subject: | cross in room | | Comment: | There were 2 scenes that, I think, were clues to the story's true unfolding. One was that the cross 'reappeared' on the wall about two-thirds through the movie. The other was a camera shot of Sarah in the mirror(s). They lent to the 'is this real or memorex' quality of the movie.
What's the deal with the scar on Julie's stomach? | | | | | From: |
Max | 2004-03-06 23:08:02 | | Subject: | What really happened is ... | | Comment: | She got tired of writing books about murders and she was imaginating everything about her publisher's 'daughter' (to start a new book), but at one point, she decided to write the other book about love (that's when the waiter was killed by the 'daughter'), and that was the end and the start of the brand new book about love. That's why she told John (the publisher); 'give it to your daughter' because it was about a happy ending (love) instead of a crime-murder books that she used to write. It was like a 'break-free' for her, that's why she published her book with another agency (publisher), because she knew that John wouldn't accept that change in her. It makes sense, think about it ... | | | | | From: |
Sarah | 2004-03-23 05:10:16 | | Subject: | Sarah's Wild Imagination | | Comment: | Where I believe that the imagining of this supposed Julie really became apparent was after Sarah woke up from her sleep really startled (after Julie killed the waiter) because the movie went on later showing Sarah coming out of the house the same night the waiter was killed. Then, Sarah and Julie bury the body the same night the waiter was killed, which doesn't really make any sense because in previous scenes Sarah went around town looking for the waiter. I don't know, the ending just really confused me and that's all I could make of it. | | | | | From: |
Woody | 2004-04-14 02:10:55 | | Subject: | Help | | Comment: | My first thought about the end of this movie agreed completely with pete above, but then i remembered the part where john said to her 'i hope my daughter wasn't to much trouble', that means his daughter had to be there and nullifies the thought that it was all her imagination. Now i am completely lost again, please somebody figure the end of this movie out and let me know. | | | | | From: |
jeff | 2004-04-15 20:33:56 | | Subject: | how about this for a theory? | | Comment: | at one point julie refers to her father as 'the king of orgies' and she asks sarah, near the end,
'will you tell my father?'
is it possible that john had an illigitimate daughter from previous (mis)adventures?
a daughter who felt neglected and unimportant,
and as a result, compensated for that by allowing herslef to be run through by as many guys as possible?
is it possible that she felt 'entitled' to use of the house?
is it possible that she had been using this house without john's knowledge for years, and had befriended the locals?
is that what sarah meant by
'there are things you haven't told me about'
towards the end?
what about the death of her mother, and feelings of abandonment?
it is safe to assume from the scene where julie throws herself at sarah, calling her mommy,
that julie is a person who 'projects' her feelings.
after rejection from a father who may or may not know about her, feelings of abandonment from a mother who died,
rejection from frank may have ben too much to deal with, and culminated in an act of violence.
she had claimed to have seen frank around, and had some sort of feelings about him, because she was day-dreaming about him earlier in the film.
and she is obviously a survivor,
'anyone that messes with me and i wil mess with them back' | | | | | From: |
Lori | 2004-04-21 16:32:19 | | Subject: | Complete Confusion | | Comment: | I went looking online for answers to this movie and its true meaning as well. I think it is fair to say by all the posts I read here that this movie can be interpreted in MANY different ways. Everyone's theories seem to make sense, yet you can see that they are all conflicted with one another. This movie is insane. And really trying to figure out what the heck it all means will make you insane right along with it. I guess only the real writer of this movie can tell us what it really is supposed to be about. It really isnt a good movie, I think its getting alot of critical acclaim simply because it sticks to the roof of your mouth like peanut butter. This one has had me thinking about it for a long time. Most movies you watch, you move on and you forget about. This one? Oh gosh, it's like ANNOYING how it sticks with you because you just demand answers to it. And yet, there are none. Only theories of answers. Lots of good theories though guys. I could buy just about any of them. | | | | | From: |
Lori fans | 2004-07-04 04:22:25 | | Subject: | We agree with Lori | | Comment: | It's ambiguous by design. We are stumped. | | | | | From: |
Lisa S. | 2004-07-14 10:11:32 | | Subject: | This is what I think | | Comment: | I think everything that happened in between the time she arrived at the country house, and the end, was the book Sarah was writing. If you recall, at the end, she waves to the 'real' Julie by the pool, who soon turns into the 'Julie' character from her book, for a brief, but confusing, ending.
I think the real Julie was at the house the whole time, but she turned her into the 'character' Julie, who was the polar opposite of the 'real' Julie, to take her writing in a new direction. The whole on and off animosity between her and the 'seductress' Julie was part of the subplot of her book, which soon led to murder and intrigue, something Sarah is very well versed in, as demonstrated by dialog in the movie referring to her previous books.
The point is, instead of her usual murder mystery type book, she added relationships, feelings of inadequacy, and jealousy, which was clearly uncharacteristic of her usual writing. I also think the whole part about the 'imagined' Julie giving her her mother's book, was part of the story, as any 'real' writer could never take someone else's work and pass it off as their own.
To sum it up..everything in the middle, was the story Sarah was authoring. We were watching Sarah's imagination as she wrote her book. | | | | | From: |
bee | 2004-07-15 10:01:58 | | Subject: | A Paradox | | Comment: | I totally agree with what Lori said . Anyway , what i'm just hopping for is a sequel to Swimming Pool where we may find comprehensible answers , the sooner the better . I believe it will do the whole film justice rather than allowing confusion to prevail because next time people will arguably not bother viewing such paradox - film directors & screen writers - be warned . | | | | | From: |
Jesse | 2004-07-16 11:56:52 | | Subject: | Excellent Analysis | | Comment: | I enjoyed the discussion of the film. I agree it is open to a variety of interpretations. The one that makes most sense to me is that the film is based on Morton's new novel. She creates her fantasy using real people, but projects her own fantasy of these people. The characters in the film are both real and her imaginative recreation of them. She is an uptight woman who wishes she could be more like the imagined Julie, but she is both attracted and afraid of the imagined Julie’s sexuality. She is both drawn to and afraid of Frank. She wants an affair with him, but will have to kill him because she is ashamed of her feelings.
The cross comes down and then goes up and then comes down. Moral and Immoral,Virtue and Vice--if the Judeo/Christian myth is your bag. The movie is the battle of the Id and the Superego, with her ego creating a way for her to have her cake and eat it also. Very Freudian. Anyway it was no Hitchcock--Hitch had no problems with letting his Id run wild. In a Hitchcock you always payed for your sins--there was no getting away with murder. | | | | | From: |
Milena | 2004-07-24 00:50:23 | | Subject: | i'm trembling..... | | Comment: | i can't believe i did this to myself.
i couldn't sleep, so i decided to see this movie, which my friend gave to me a few months ago. the end confused me so much... now, i think i won't sleep at all :(
milena, belgrade | | | | | From: |
Bev | 2004-08-15 13:19:22 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | It was ok, until the end. I hate these movies... and feel cheated when I can't work out what the hell happened. The only consolation was it looks like I'm not alone! | | | | | From: |
jemmy | 2004-08-29 21:43:51 | | Subject: | finding out | | Comment: | does anyone know how to contact the film's people and find out what the hell happened? | | | | | From: |
susan | 2004-08-30 05:26:10 | | Subject: | Good on Lisa S. | | Comment: | After reading the posts, I have to agree with Lisa S's interpretation. It makes sense and resolves the excellent question brought up by Woody: how can the daughter be a figment of the author's imagination when at the end 'john said to her 'i hope my daughter wasn't too much trouble?'' Nice work Woody and Lisa S. | | | | | From: |
Andrea | 2004-09-08 07:13:32 | | Subject: | question....... | | Comment: | If the real Julie was their the whole time and Charlotte Rampling was just projecting the character she wanted to invent onto her, then why didn't the real Julie recognize Charolotte at the end? | | | | | From: |
Rachel | 2004-09-19 08:22:16 | | Subject: | Swimming pool | | Comment: | I hadn't a clue what happened in the end and was very puzzled but after reading all the posts I think I might have seen some of the light! I think! Just one question why did Julie go crazy when Sarah went away and started calling her mummy and what actually happened to Julie's mother that Marcel's daughter clammed up about her? Do you think Julie killed her too because she was rejected? Very confusing film........... | | | | | From: |
Rhonda | 2004-10-14 13:31:58 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool | | Comment: | Is it just me or throughout the movie John's daughter was called Julie by the author and at the end of the movie the secretary called John's daughter Julia. I believe Julie was a fictional based character. When 'Julie' was on the phone with her father she said that mother is waiting, but her mother is dead. I believe Frank never came to the house, but it still leaves the open ended question why would John say I hope my daughter wasn't to much trouble for you. | | | | | From: |
Jimbo | 2004-10-24 22:03:01 | | Subject: | Solution | | Comment: | Some of you are on the right track. Everything that we see happen in france is the story of her book. Everything that is alluded to during the book's narrative, (ie. sarah finding out jon has a family, and she is just a mistress) is what really happened to her prior to going to france. this is where we meet sarah in the begining of the film, just after she learned all this new stuff about jon. sarah knows jon has a daughter, and all the nasty stuff julie does in france, is what sarah was doing there. Julie is just a character of the book. look at it again with this lens on and the film, ending and all will make entire sense. | | | | | From: |
Jimbo | 2004-10-24 22:09:15 | | Subject: | solution... | | Comment: | everything that happens in france is all part of the fictional story sarah writes. Don't get caught up in the particulars inconsistencies, they are all part of the authors work. Its just a fictional strory, based on some true events. | | | | | From: |
Tyson | 2004-11-25 18:17:31 | | Subject: | JULIA! | | Comment: | I've counted only 2 people that mention the fact that the girl at the end of the movie name's Julia...not Julie. This, coupled with the fact that the publisher calls Rampling and asks about his daughter, seems to nullify the idea of Julie being Rampling's imaginative version of the girl at the end of the movie. The only conclusion I could come up with is that Julie is an illegitimate daughter that the publisher is aware of but has little to no contact with (I guess that statement is somewhat redundant). This movie seems to be a bunch of ideas that nobody bothered to tie together. The dwarf, the mother, and Marcel were all begging to aid in that process but nobody took the time to expand on them. I felt like a dog when someone pretends to throw a tennis ball everytime they were mentioned or seen.
This film has left me angry because for the first time in my life I've gone hunting for answers just to find out there really aren't any. I'm OK with a story being left to interpretation but the only possible interpretation (in my mind) is boring and has now wasted my time. There was a chance for this film to be great and they missed it | | | | | From: |
Tyson | 2004-11-25 18:28:07 | | Subject: | I see | | Comment: | Ok I just read Jimbo's comment about Julie being Sarah. That is something I had not yet thought of and I can grasp that however, why did the publisher ask about his daughter? Does he have a daughter named Julie? Did she visit? Perhaps Julie was real but left. Perhaps when she left for a couple of days she never returned. If I remember correctly that would be about the time that Rambling began swimming. I don't know...I'm done with this.
Peace | | | | | From: |
Sarah | 2004-12-13 22:28:09 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | i watched this last night and was entruigued to see what others thought.
At the conclusion it suddenly struck me as being incredibly obvious that it was all a delusion of grandeur,and that she had fantasised the entire plot line, from when she enters the french house.
But, i choose to enjoy the film and let it carry me as it choose without noticing obvious plotlines like this!
Anyway, i thought it was an excellent film. very enjoyable.
p.s. she gives the publisher her signed book for his daughter as an offering of gratitude, for her help writing the novel, regardless of the fact that Julia doesnt know it. | | | | | From: |
david | 2005-01-21 01:53:52 | | Subject: | The midget did it | | Comment: | ya it turns out that the dwarf that sarah went to see when questioning about the waiters whereabouts did it.
That tiny worm looking woman did it.
As for the two daughters, they had nothing to do with it.
The midget did it. I was watching this film on an Xbox and couldnt get the dvd to play the subtitles and as i only speak shards of english and no french i had to go by alot of facial gestures and breast shots to interpret what this film was about. This gave me the upperhand on unfolding the plot compared to those using logic and dialogue as their clues. As soon as that tiny woman came onto the screen i KNEW we had found the killer.
It makes more sense in a fiction isnt so far from reality
kind of way too because dwarves have always been the root
of all absolute evil. Well i hope this settles some issues and puts you all at rest finally.
Take care,
david | | | | | From: |
Hoss | 2005-03-14 03:51:38 | | Subject: | Sarah's Hot Flashes -- Part I | | Comment: | Ok… much has been said – much is right, but everyone is not recognizing the hot flash scene for what it is.
Sarah is dealing with menopause, which serves as her catalyst for addressing her own creative and life-stage stagnation. The time in France we witness is nothing more than a journal of her exercises she uses to not only reinvent her writing style, but this also represents her emotional evolution as she comes to work out her past and accept the next chapter of her sexual self. The France we see is not the final book, and the characters are metaphorical as she massages the process to fruition.
[cont]
Initially we see an awful, bitter woman who can’t stand to be who she is: totally alone and known only for what we can presume are fairly emotionally inconsequential detective mysteries. Her long time friend and publisher is incapable of seeing her beyond the content of her work, and as such she feels a bit used -- not unlike a mistress who will never be seen by her love interest as anything more than a mistress, and who eventually must question if she in fact frittered away her “best years.”
Author Sarah seeks deeper meaning beyond her asexual detective writing, but this takes time. France is a collision -- John planted the seed of a daughter, and the fictional Julie arrives the evening of a hotflash (window thrown open) – the combination is catalyst for her writing to go in a new direction. | | | | | From: |
Hoss | 2005-03-14 03:53:33 | | Subject: | Sarah's Hot Flashes -- Part II | | Comment: | Sarah and Julie are both imagined and metaphorical, but basically two sides of the same person. Julie represents female youth – but is essentially a caricature inspired by envy (and touch of jealous sentimentality) for what is lost—for Julie anything is possible, voluptuous sexuality is in full bloom – naked in the pool to drive the point home. Sarah hates this and that tension plays out, and forces Julie through the paces of having her assets worth little – she’s immature, wonton and reckless: everything Sarah has conquered.
Eventually author Sarah’s writing gets beyond being resentful, and it soon admits that Julie is part of Sarah’s fantasy (let’s face it, she’s the one hot for the waiter) and really an admission of what she feels she is losing… Their dinner date is not good film or writing, it’s an emotional character development exercise via interrogation: Dad’s orgies, abandonment, and bruises are laid out.
Eventually, Sarah addresses her own past sexuality (swinging London days) and future sexuality – the night with the waiter as a love interest, with tension of her old-self and young-self competing. Sarah can still win the man she desires, and with it Sarah eventually learns to not hate what Julie represents, but to embrace her own wisdom and admire youth for what it is. Julie (and Sarah’s writing) grows complex, and is no longer the shallow super sex kitten. Soon mom is a dead writer… and character Sarah becomes more mother-like to her…Author Sarah tests those waters by playing with Julie murdering her love interest – and selfless Sarah does whatever it takes for Julie, who even breaks down crying | | | | | From: |
Hoss | 2005-03-14 03:54:32 | | Subject: | Sarah's Hot Flashes -- Part III | | Comment: | “Mommy!” And then, Sarah tests out her future sexuality – with the old caretaker. All works out.
With that, out comes a book that has nothing to do with France for all we know. The real daughter Julia is thanked with a copy for serving as catalyst… perhaps she was in France, but it seems that at most Sarah observed her from a distance at the pool – it is a big house – had there been much contact, the little daddy’s girl we meet would have turned Julie into something different (as we see in the final seconds of the film). \
But all in all, the new Sarah seems to be confident with her new self and her writing; End of movie.
[end] | | | | | From: |
fred hutchings | 2005-03-22 21:21:09 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | I think I am confused about the daughter issue. Is it possible that there are two daughters; one accepted by the father, and the other rejected - as was her mother. Probably need to know more about the accident and dad/publisher needs more film time to solidify his position. At the closing, the writer seems to understand; indicated by the smile on her face through the door glass in the closing scene.
After reviewing the omitted scenes on the DVD, that they cut just a bit too much out of the movie - scenes relative to the publisher and his roll in things. Too much guesswork here for this to be confused with a Hitchcock movie.
Also think they could have gotten a younger pool guy to get distracted by the writer - he looked like someone's graddad. | | | | | From: |
Knott | 2005-04-11 09:40:43 | | Subject: | Very frustrating | | Comment: | many good views here, but trying to find any answers on the net just made me more insecure about what this movie is about.
Was it 2 daughters? And Julie the one the publisher didnt want to have any contact with?
Was it only one daugther Julia, that was with Sarah the whole time? But then why didn´t Julia and Sarah talk when they meet in the end?
Was there none daughter in France and Sarah made up everything? But then why did the publisher ask about his daughter?
And why didn´t John want to talk wo Sarah when she was down there? Why wouldnt he ho there? Because he didnt want to meet Julie?
When Julie 'talked' to John on the phone and she gave the phone to Sarah, John was gone... was that maybe because he never was on the phone only Julie 'faked' that she talked with John?
Since all in the village knew Julie she had to be Johns daughter... but what about the mother? ´
I dont understand anything..... | | | | | From: |
donostia | 2005-04-15 08:34:28 | | Subject: | thank you! | | Comment: | I saw this movie a couple of days ago with some friends, and we were all puzzled out by the ending; at first we thought it was too slow and even boring, but ever since Julie arrives at the house we begun to see it was a much more complex movie than we expected! Needles to say, that confusing ending made us think we were completely stupid, because we didn't understand anything at all! I have been looking for answers in the net and I must say this web really opened my eyes, I've read great ideas here, thank you all! I still can't believe how you guys have even been able to explain what were senseless shots to us, for example when the waiter was touching himself near Julie at the swimming pool... I still don't understand what the dwarf means... Anyway, now that I understand the plot better, I think this was a good movie, although the first half an hour can manage to make you sleep and miss the rest... | | | | | From: |
Stanton Simon | 2005-05-26 10:48:07 | | Subject: | Movie is a dull knock off - Part 1 | | Comment: | To me, this movie was very disappointing on many levels. It tries to make itself more than it is. In my opinion, it is a knock-off of an original book called Turn of the Screw in which a nanny takes care of some children and we don't know whether it is real or she is insane. Turn of the Screw is well written with consistent story lines to support one or the other argument, but not this movie.
This movie tries to make itself more than it is because it makes it intentionally unexplainable. No matter what you believe to be the true story, there will be facts to contradict that theory, because the movie is full of contradictions. For this reason, it is very poorly written.
People argue that the real Julia stayed at the house with her visit. But of course, there are facts to contradict this such as the fact that Julia did not notice the writer at the end and the writer did not recognize Julia until after the secretary said her name. This would clearly indicate the Julia did not stay at the house. Also, I think that Julia would be too young to stay there without supervision (and I don't think the author is going to do that). | | | | | From: |
Stanton Simon | 2005-05-26 10:48:46 | | Subject: | Dull Knock-Off Part 2 | | Comment: | The people argue about their being two daughters, one who is illegitimate, the other the young girl at the end. If this were the case, then we would have to presume everything we observed as being the truth. But this doesn't work because first of all, the writer’s reaction to the murder is grossly out of character and would not be believable. Also, as mentioned, the writer spent a day traveling throughout the country side looking for this murdered guy. This clearly would raise far more suspicion than if he were seen with Julie. Also, the publisher’s reaction to the manuscript (supposedly written by Julie's mom and known by the publisher) was not one of shock (as I would have expected) but rather stating simply that this isn't her type of work. All these points indicate that what we observed is not true.
Then some argue about an imposter Julie. That is a very weak argument. The writer left messages for the publisher and we would have known about this by the end of the movie.
I think the best we can get to as that she imagined the whole entire story. But even that feels unfulfilling. Especially if the publisher talked about his daughter visiting while she stayed at the house.
So basically, this leaves us with nothing. | | | | | From: |
Chrissy | 2005-06-06 08:27:41 | | Subject: | How to find the answer | | Comment: | I was just as confused as everyone else after watching this movie. So, like all of you, I came looking for a resolution. I read everything you wrote, and agreed the most with Hoss, but wanted a more thorough explanantion. I found it via an Alan C. Shaw analysis at the Francois Ozan website, in case any of you are interested. Although I finally understand the movie, and did enjoy it, I still feel like I just watched a David Copperfield performance. Despite all the fancy pyrotechnics and sexy young girls he's still just a magician pulling one over on us. In this case, the trick was good enough for me to try to figure it out, but, ultimately, finding out how it was done always ruins the magic for the audience.
Chrissy | | | | | From: |
Steve | 2005-07-08 20:35:47 | | Subject: | About Rhonda's comment | | Comment: | I watched the movie, didn't get the ending and have read a number of comments here.
As Rhonda mentioned, the daughter(s) have two different names: according to the end credits there is Julie (Ludivine) and Julia (Lauren Farrow).
What does this mean? I'm plumping for the events in France being part of Sarah's imagination ... but then, what do I know? | | | | | From: |
Blndbat8710 | 2005-08-22 07:05:56 | | Subject: | 'Daughters' | | Comment: | I believe that the publisher's daughter JULIA was actually present at the house. She served as a basic template for JULIE, Sarah's fictionary character. If you compare the two girls, they look somewhat the same, have the same length and color hair, and apparently the same clothing tastes and styles. But JULIA is a template, so that means that in reality she is pretty bland and from her looks isn't likely to be pulling guys left and right. So Sarah creates JULIE to be this sensual girl who is strong and independent and maybe a little of what Sarah wants to be. JULIE says to Sarah, (paraphrasing) 'You are some old English hag who writes about dirty little things but is too afraid to do them!' So I believe that the publisher's daughter was plesant and most of the 'everyday' (no sex stuff)interactions and events concerning Sarah and JULIA occurred but only as to the extent to serve as a template for the fiction that Sarah creates for JULIE. | | | | | From: |
Dan G | 2005-09-04 15:02:03 | | Subject: | swimming pool - part one | | Comment: | I think this explains everything... Julie is the daughter of the publisher by his French lover. Julia is his daughter with the publisher's wife in England. We know this because when Sarah was talking with Julie about her mother, Julie says her mother moved to Nice and 'wanted John to leave his wife and family to move there with her... John would never do that.' Now, also remember that Sarah is interested in a relationship with John, and her interest is more in Julie's mother (jealousy) rather than Julie. Sarah used information about Julie's mother in the book, and as a writer, added fiction to the story to make it a crime mystery (her specialty). Julie reads this when she sneaks into Sarah's room to read the book, and what she reads includes a murder similar to the one Julie later commits. Julie actually brings the waiter home and kills him to try to force Sarah into abandoning the book. At one point, she tells Sarah, 'you should burn your book because it could be used as evidence.' This is also why Sarah immediately knows something is wrong and starts looking for the waiter -- she had written the plot and it was coming true. This is then why Sarah is so helpful to Julie in cleaing up after the crime. *** MORE - see next *** | | | | | From: |
Dan G. | 2005-09-04 15:03:55 | | Subject: | swimming pool - Part 2 | | Comment: | (Continued) Additionally, remember that Julie's mother wrote a book about her and John, and that John told her he didn't like it and told her to burn it (probably because it revealed their affair). Knowing that Sarah stole from Julie's diary, Julie gives Sarah a copy of her mother's book so that Sarah will use it in her own book. In Julie's mind, this will finally allow her mother to be published (even though it ends up being by someone other than John). Sarah knows it will be rejected because of what Julie tells her, and that is why she goes to another publisher. When Sarah says 'give a copy to your daughter' she is referring to Julia, not Julie, because she wants Julia to know the truth about her father. Remember, that at the beginning of the movie, Sarah wanted John to go with her to France, but he said he couldn't go because he had to take care of his daughter. This was obviously Julia, not Julie... who was supposed to be working in another city but only showed up at John's house because she suddenly lost her job. *** MORE - see next *** | | | | | From: |
Dan G. | 2005-09-04 15:04:44 | | Subject: | swimming pool - Part 3 | | Comment: | (Continued) Finally, about the dwarf... she gets upset when questioned about Julie's mother, blurts out 'she's dead... it was an accident.' Julie says she's living in Nice, and Marcell squirms a bit in dodging the issue. I think Julie's mother was somehow involved with Marcell, and Marcell raised Julie after Julie's mother was killed in the same car accident that left the scar on Julie's stomach. The dwarf, Marcell's daughter, is resentful of Julie's mother, and may have even had a role in the accident. At one point, Julie introduces a 'boyfriend' to Marcell, saying of Marcell, 'he's my father,' to which Marcell much too quickly corrects, 'she's just joking.' There's something about the relationship between these characters that I haven't figured out yet, but I'll watch again to try to figure it out. Hope this helps. | | | | | From: |
Bean | 2005-10-11 05:05:27 | | Subject: | here it is. are you ready? ok. | | Comment: | Alright kids, here's the answer for you --
The fact that Sarah invented Julie and the whole story around it is correct. Let's just think of a few things:
- When Sarah first comes to the house in France she observes a picture of her publisher's daughter. This is the first time she has seen her and perhaps the photo is from a few years ago, so she imagines Julie as a grown up and wilder version of the real Julie.
- After Julie kills the waiter, Sarah asks her why she did it. 'For your book, I guess' she responds.
- Watch the deleted scenes and you will see a lot of shots of Sarah wandering the area, picking up 'local color' (on the train to France she observes other passengers intently, indicating to us how much she uses observation to carve her work; she visits the home of Marquis de Sade, but later imagines that she was told about it by the waiter; she goes out to talk to the gardener, and sees his wheelbarrow; she goes to the cafe and is served by an 'anonymous' waiter that she never talks to, who is probably the basis for her murdered waiter character).
- We see one scene played out twice: first -- the waiter stands over Julie, eyes moving over every inch of her body as she begins to stimulate herself; second -- the gardener stands over Sarah, likely doing the same. The second scene was reality, but by reversing the time progression the film manages to confuse us.
- The midget daughter is so random and out of place that it only makes sense that she was imagined by the author (Sarah). Her fear-laced comment of 'it was an accident' only makes her character more circumspect.
[cont.] | | | | | From: |
Bean | 2005-10-11 05:06:10 | | Subject: | continued ... | | Comment: | [... cont]
- Sarah's cold conviction regarding the death of the waiter is how she imagines herself: an expert mystery writer who sees death as nothing more than an exercise in covering up the clues and fooling everyone except -- you guessed it -- the hero / heroine (in this case, herself).
- It's only as Sarah begins to write that the action happens. The more she writes, the stranger the film becomes. We basically follow the progression of her book.
- Sarah wakes up one morning to find the pool covered when the night before, it was not. She sees a lump and quickly tries to uncover it to see if it is a body. Perhaps the pool was always covered, and she has not yet used it? Perhaps the lump inspires the idea that the waiter was murdered the night before?
Confusing? Sure. Fun? Absolutely. I think any film that can generate this much discussion is brilliant. Not to mention that the subtlely of this film was amazing. So understated and character driven, leaving a lot up to the viewer. | | | | | From: |
Kevin | 2005-10-30 04:00:10 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool | | Comment: | Well, I guess I was off base because what I thought was that the ENTIRE story was the book being written. Even the parts about the author being burned out and going to France and then meeting Julie. That is a part of the story.
The reason Julie looks different at the end is because this is how the author imagines that character to look despite meeting Julie in person. She created 'her' Julie.
She is waving from the balcony,...sort of a hello/goodbye as the real Julie returns to her life in her car. | | | | | From: |
Kevin | 2005-11-02 08:23:53 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool | | Comment: | Ok, I was wrong...I just watched this again. Here's what I think if anyone cares!! :>) The publisher does indeed have a secret life/past. That's why he never returns Sara's calls after she calls and tells him 'your daughter is here!' This is why he doesn't want the book published!
And...the girl in his office at the end is INDEED called Julia, not Julie. At the end, Sarah looks out over the pool and you see Julia there waving up at her and then Julie looking up and waving at her. I took this as 'my next conquest, Julia. Goodbye Julie and thanks!' There, that's my theory. | | | | | From: |
James | 2005-11-29 18:29:07 | | Subject: | Hmm.. | | Comment: | I just finished watching the movie and rushed to came online. Thanks guys for the reviews, apparently it really was jsut Sarahs Imagination but truly is confusing.
Regards,
James
www.o2domains.com | | | | | From: |
Randy | 2006-03-23 16:57:12 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | I couldn't sleep after watching this. Anyway, no one else has touched on the fact that Sarah is an alcoholic. You see it in the first shopping scene as she eyes the wine but buys the diet coke. The house is full of liquor. It's all an alcohol fueled dream.She feels guilty after her first glass of wine so covers it up by filling the bottle with water. Using the name Julie is based on her knowledge of a daughter named Julia. You are watching her imagine her book and it gets more wild the more she drinks. See, she is alone. She is admonishing herself for her life as it has become. She knows her publisher has a family. She is telling herself she is a stuck up english woman. She is imagining Franck coming to the house. When the fictional Julie kills the Franck who isn't there, she is really trying to kill her relationship with her publisher. When she buries that, she is then able to write the book she wants to. She is also trying to become who she was. The girl who suddenly remembers 'swinging London'. When 'FRANCK' catches her masturbating by the pool -yes, that is really Sarah-,it's really Marcell. She wishes it was Franck, because she is fantasizing about him. At the end, when she meets Julia, the faces go back and forth as she releases the fictional Julie, who is really herself. Waves goodbye to her. She is free. It's over. | | | | | From: |
Becca | 2006-07-01 01:03:02 | | Subject: | American Psycho | | Comment: | I think the theme is very similar. Disillusionment with the pointlessness of life and creating a morally-questionable fantasy world, leaving us with a very challenging 'oh my god, what happened here?' feeling which I thought was very cool.
I'm very impressed with anyone who guessed that Julie was imagined from the beginning - it must be frightfully dull watching films if you're that clever ;-) | | | | | From: |
Robert | 2006-07-06 10:33:28 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool answers {PART THREE} | | Comment: | At the end of the movie, Sarah has given her publisher 'her' novel, which logic says is mostly inspired by the story in the manuscript the fake Julie has given Sarah. Remember, the fake Julie has told Sarah that the manuscript was written by her now dead mother, and that 'her dad' the publisher rejected it as too emotional. Thus insulting 'her mother.' Sarah presented it to her publisher, who after reading it, told her he won't publish it, it isn't any good and its 'too personal' and Sarah isn't capable of writing a novel of that complex and 'subtle' a type. Sarah smirks knowingly, thinking 'you bastard, that's the same thing you told Julie's mother when she presented the original version. I figured you would reject it in the same condescending manner you did back then.' Sarah submitted it to him partly to tweak him about the way (she thinks) he has treated his now deceased wife. Sarah probably wondered whether her publisher recognized the elements that were like his dead wife's book, or was so cold and uncaring that he didn't catch the similarities after so many years. If he recognized the similarities, he obviously didn't want to know how Sarah got ahold of it, so he acted nonchalant.
One part I don't get is why Sarah is so smug when she sees THE REAL JULIE visit her publisher as she herself is leaving his office. Doesn't she realize that in a minute her publisher will ask the real Julie about how she liked living with Sarah, and part of the lie will unravel? Because the real Julie would say, 'what? Who's Sarah?'
CONTINUED IN PART FOUR | | | | | From: |
Robert | 2006-07-06 10:41:18 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool {PART FOUR } Conclusion | | Comment: | But, in a way, it is understandable Sarah would be so calm about it. After all, even if her publisher found out Julie was not there, Julie would be in trouble, but not Sarah. Sarah had no reason to disbelieve the young blonde, who after all didn't steal or damage anything in the house.
And uncovering that lie wouldn't reveal the murder anyway.
Even if my scenario is correct, there are still some loose ends. [1] Why would Sarah bury the body right by the house? She was a mystery writer who was supposedly knowledgeable about crime. Even the hapless old grounds keeper almost discovered the body. If the body was found, the logical suspect would be whoever was at the house. And that's Sarah [2] Sarah went to the place of employment of the missing man, who she later found out the fake Julie had murdered. Yes, the victim had no family in the area. But the woman who worked at the cafe would eventually go to the police, and say, 'my employee hasn't shown up for work in 2 weeks. He never called, he never picked up his paycheck. And this woman (Sarah) asked about him right after he disappeared. ' The police would go to the victim's apartment, see his clothing and possessions were still there, so he hadn't abruptly left town, and then they would visit Sarah and ask why she was asking about him. And the body was buried right there by the house! This makes no sense.
I told you, I didn't figure out everything. My scenario makes more sense than any other scenario, but the writer did not attempt to write an airtight plot. There are holes in the plot no matter how you figure it.
But I've answered the questions that they have left clues to. | | | | | From: |
Dax | 2006-07-23 05:07:41 | | Subject: | Cesspool | | Comment: | Everything was imagined by the author... end of speculation. Now on to the movie itself: again a European piece of 'let's make it campy and slow so people will think it's art'. There are not enough outstanding European movies out there (Lola Rennt and F*cking Amal come to mind as good ones) because for some reason the directors keep everything as 'Artsy-fartsy' as possible. The concept of what art is is lost in Europe (in a different way than in the US)... art touches you, not bores you to death.
This movie was a 3. It should be lower except for the okay acting by Sagnier. | | | | | From: |
djr | 2006-08-23 16:12:42 | | Subject: | swimming pool theories | | Comment: | my theory after watching it twice is that rampling has multiple personality disorder and is actually having an affair, teasing the gardener and commiting the murder of the waiter. this all occurs before the real julie comes to stay at the house. | | | | | From: |
Cynthia Wolfe | 2006-09-04 06:37:11 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool is museterious indeed | | Comment: | Sarah, famous author is experiencing a deadly dry spell. She's depressed and drying up fast. Perhaps she is trudging through a life transition where everything that has worked before just isn't working presently. She is empty, aging, has has little personal life except for an affair with her evasive publisher, and caring for an aging parent. She is so discouraged that she comments to a fan that she is not who the fan thinks she is, possibly internally commenting to herself that she no longer is in touch with herself or her spirit. Her publisher offers his remarkable French residence to her for a working vacation. She shows up tired, but gradually begins to revive in sunlit France in the summer. Sarah moves from the gloominess of London to the caressing sensual light France offers. The house is spare, elegant and quiet, as are Sarah’s movements, restricted and barren. Then, there is a glimpse of a girlish photograph and, golden bars of sun cross Sarah’s face as the unhappiness begins to lift. Enter the muse, giver of new life and refreshment, giver of permission to explore, promiser of fluency and adventure that the author can own, as long as she is willing to pay the price. Enter the niggling, giggling wiggling free- spirited muse, in the personhood of Julie. (Thanks for bearing with me – continued.) | | | | | From: |
Cynthia | 2006-09-04 06:59:59 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool museterious, continued | | Comment: | Julie arrives just in time to give the dried out, withering Sarah her new idea, fleshed-out story, freshly watered eros,(the pool) new or long-forgotten feelings, and permission to experience it all either in fantasies or realities. Julie also presented battle with the old artist, stoggy used up ideas, and challenged her to risk. The muse 'appeared' to give new life not only to old dead writing, but to a dangerously depressed writer The muse took on form and content, life and dimension, until the muse, which began as an impression from a photograph, walked, talked and lived -- in Sarah's exterior and interior space. Wasn't there a statement early on in the movie 'There's a fine line between fantasy and reality'? Some writers are willing to walk this edgy line and even cross back and forth. They risk everything to create. Sarah’s task was to deeply risk (swimming underwater), and coming up as if baptized. I also offer that Julie was not the daughter at all, but the mother returning to deliver her story. Thus the explanation for the scar on her stomach which looks exactly like a traditional caesarian-section scar. Julie replied when asked about the scar 'It's a gift from the gods.' Where did the orange kimono come from, and Sarah’s new freedom when inside of it? | | | | | From: |
Cynthia | 2006-09-04 07:06:28 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool museterious, end | | Comment: | Muses come in the strangest forms with no respect for conventional time lines. They can 'appear' in any form they wish, from any era, or even planet. A muse can appear as a dead mother looking like her daughter, also a muse. Sarah was a close observer. Who did she become when she exchanged her old tweeds for the red kimono, and bright lipstick? Herself? Did anyone notice a resemblance between Marcel's daughter and the adoring fan on the train at the beginning? Sarah collected data, but Julie breathed life into it, Julie, who was actually the writer’s creation. The real daughter's name was Julia who was destined to read the truth about her father, if indeed that truth existed. After all, it was all for the story. Perhaps the real daughter, Julia stopped by for a short uneventful visit, thus the publisher's comment, hoping his daughter was not too much trouble. But, if my opinion holds up, what a gripping exploration of how a story can take hold of a writer, and vice versa until it's done, all done. Thanks for bearing up. | | | | | From: |
Pomrana | 2006-10-25 04:33:08 | | Subject: | not so difficult | | Comment: | Fairly simple concept, all in all. If you haven't understood the film after the first viewing, watch it once more, and pay attention to the subtle bits along the way. It's not meant to be so difficult, folks. | | | | | From: |
Lisa V | 2006-10-31 05:09:18 | | Subject: | one detail | | Comment: | Note that the credits include both Julie and Julia. That said, I am still confused. Based on the comments I've just read through, either the writers intended for us to be confused and did a good job, or they intended for us to understand the story, in which case they really missed the mark. | | | | | From: |
Deborah | 2006-10-31 15:48:50 | | Subject: | Swimming Pool | | Comment: | This movie haunts me and I think it will go down as a popular Cult movie. I have seen it 5 times and no, I still haven't figured out the total weave and may never. It is full of metaphors. Sarah representing the dull, aging, insecure, cautious and Julie representing youth, vitality, the unbridaled sexuality. Thats a given. Being a woman, I can honestly say, guys, that these emotions of feminine mystery are battled within us on a dayly basis just as strongly as good vs evil. I have heard it said that if you can't get to sleep just go to that place in your mind, no matter how beautiful, exotic, naughty or unatainable it is and there you will be and you can move the characters of your imagination as you see fit, reality can be replaced by fantacy and I think that this is basically what Sarah did and wrote down. Writers are license to create a world of their choosing. It doesn't have to make sense. I believe the only reality took place at the beginning and end of the movie, the rest was totally made up in Sarah's mind including the waiter, Marcel, Julie, the calls to and from John, the whole bit. It comes across the screen that this actually happened but, in fact, was all totally made up in the writer's mind. Disappointing but interesting. | | | | | From: |
lj | 2007-06-10 06:24:11 | | Subject: | sp | | Comment: | in the swimming pool, i think that john sends this 'fake' daughter to his house to inspire his writer.......... | | | | | From: |
eric | 2007-06-21 14:10:10 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | at the end in saras publishers office why did she say you've been hiding things from me in addition how did she know to bring the book to another publisher? if anything that girl julie at the house was his lover and to maintain her promiscuous lifestyle she posed as the daughter, or it is truly his wife pissed off at him and when the opportunity presents itself she gives her old book to somebody who may possibly publish it in spite of her old husband... crazy but so is that movie. | | | | | From: |
joy | 2007-06-27 08:30:18 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | Very clever movie....my take on it...Sarah wrote the book because she was evaded by her lover/publisher. It became a slap at him. Biggest 'aha' for me... Sarah calls the woman in his office 'Julie', doesn't know the daughter who the woman greets as 'Gabby' and who is too young to be running around France by herself...she was just the plot device to get at him. | | | | | From: |
jewel | 2007-07-25 04:27:34 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | I thought a lot about the ending of this movie. just as many of you have. After going through all of the possible answers I have come up with this..I think that The publisher's affair with the writer is real. I think that she went out there to write a book. she had basic information regarding his wife and daughter ' Julia'. I believe she has passed by her before, but they have never been introduced because she is just supposed to be another writer. Everything that happened at that house, at that pool was a fiction of her writing. Down to every last detail. i think in the end when you see her waving, she is simply waving goodbye as a metephor that the book is completed and her thoughts have ended. There was not anyone at that house with her. I believe she made up the story around the locals, the gardner, the waither and included them in her book. Makes it more real to her and easier to imagine. In the end when she sees the real daughter again, she smirkes because it is a reminder of the facination she has achieved from writing such a courageous book far, far from the truth. Isn't that what good writing is about anyway?!!! | | | | | From: |
bill | 2007-07-26 21:08:11 | | Subject: | The Swimming Pool | | Comment: | I only watched half of the movie.... | | | | | From: |
alex | 2007-11-16 07:02:28 | | Subject: | swimming pool review | | Comment: | what do you mean jarring and crappy murder plot?! this movie was about the creative process and in blurring the line between reality and imagination. you should read the interviw francois gave somewhere | | | | | From: |
Timothy | 2008-02-03 19:47:46 | | Subject: | Check site for analysis - interview | | Comment: | as mentioned previously there is an article explaining everything on francois-ozon<dot>com. Google 'Alan C. Shaw swimming pool' to get the link rather than to wander aimlessly around the site. Also there is an interview with Francois Ozon regarding the film on the same site under 'Interviews' select 'Swimming Pool' from the drop down. This provides lots of insight. In the end though - outside of senseless death does life have a neatly packaged 'answer'? I have the same age as Francois Ozon and call me a dumbass but it took me this long to realize that the answer is 'I don't believe so'. So why does every film we watch have to have one as well? I will be seeking out Francois Ozon's other films for intellectual interest but first I am going to squeeze one out. | | | | | From: |
Frank | 2008-06-27 01:35:34 | | Subject: | Angel Heart | | Comment: | Can someone please explain Robert De Niro's character/role in this brilliant movie | | | | | From: |
paddy | 2008-12-23 06:53:36 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | OK, at first I thought it was all just in the writers imagination, but then my aunt brought something to my attention. She thinks that Julie is the ghost of the dead mother. The writer found the manuscript and the diary and encountered the mother. The photo found in the diary looked very much like Julie herself. Another reason why that is backed up is because the daughter...Julia didn't even know her when they crossed eachother in the office. I'm guessing the mother wanted her story to be heard, and put all that stuff out there for the writer to discover.It's alot more interesting that way.
I don't know but it makes alot more sense, but you never know. | | | | | From: |
Murphy | 2009-01-01 12:39:36 | | Subject: | another idea to consider | | Comment: | I have read through all of these comments, and agree with a lot of what was said. I just finished the movie for the first time about ten minutes ago, and in the last few scenes I was so spooked I had to turn the volume down on the creepy music. My take on the topic? I think Sarah was insane. Her face in the last scene was so... I don't know. Like, she was delusional and had imagined the whole experience as something completely different. I know I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. But on the upside, I actually enjoyed the movie; thought the message overall was a thoughtful one. | | | | | From: |
steve | 2009-06-15 22:46:21 | | Subject: | TWO Julias | | Comment: | There was mention of John's 'English' family, and of course there was the French family. How about if he had daughters by each and both were named Julia? | | | | | From: |
maria alquilar | 2009-11-23 22:25:16 | | Subject: | The Swimming Pool | | Comment: | I agree with Eadan about the public's approval of violence but refutes honest sex. l thought the movie was superb. I thought the ending really left the ending to our imagination. the movies today that are popular with the majority of people in the US remind me of Lily Tomlin's search for intelligent life on the planet.I've almost lost hope of finding any in the movie watching populace. | | | | | From: |
Finn | 2010-03-12 07:50:21 | | Subject: | swimming pool | | Comment: | Sarah does meet the real daughter Julie at the vacation house. The scar on her stomach is from a C-section she had while giving birth to her daughter (little Julie who we see at the end of the film) Think about it. The french Julie is in her 20's old enough to have a 10 or 12 year old daughter. She had a C-section because she was so young when she had little Julie. Little Julie was a product of one of her grandfathers orgies that Big Julie was a part of. The guessing comes here: The mother was killed by the father when she confronted him about her daughters pregnancy. Big Julie witnessed the murder and that is why she is so fucked up. Her father claimed it was an accident. The daughter of Marcel lets us know that she knows the truth by what she doesn't say. She was not random. She was key. | | | | | From: |
french film gal | 2010-05-14 07:35:19 | | Subject: | OK- How about this? | | Comment: | If Julie is an illegitimate daughter then how does Marcel welcome her and pick pick Sarah up from the airport and offer her his number as she says 'John gave it to me'.? So Marcel exists. I also believe that every item and every character has a meaning to this film. I liked the idea of hot flashes however the writer would not have made the film so complex with only one point of reference for possible menopause. Sarah also closes the window and curtain abruptly when she knows that her privacy is now threatened hence the beginning of her breathing in the fresh air etc. Another idea is that as Julie says to Sarah 'If anyone messes with me I mess with them back' she may very well have possibly been in fact someone completely unrelated to John- who had somewhat have owed her or her mother something and she had taken on his daughters name. Plus people abbreviate their names hence Julie instead of Julia. So many answers! | | | |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
