Swimming Pool (2003)

recommended

There's a good chance the film will make you laugh out loud, but if it doesn't, there's an even better chance it will make you openly sob.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Sarah Morton, a middle-aged English writer specialising in detective novels, goes to stay in a country villa in France owned by John Bosload, her publisher, in order to work on her new book. One day Sarah is surprised to find a young woman in the property and, assuming that she is a trespasser, asks her indignantly what she is doing in the house. The girl, Julie, explains that she is John's daughter, and that her father has given her permission to use the house. Sarah and Julie begin to live together in the house, but theirs turns out to be an uneasy relationship because of their very different lifestyles. Sarah is looking for peace and solitude to concentrate on her writing, but her life is constantly disrupted by the brash, noisy Julie who brings a succession of lovers back to the house.At first the film seems to be developing into a comedy of manners (or perhaps a comedy of bad manners) based around the contrast between a stereotypically sexually and emotionally repressed English spinster and a stereotypically sexually uninhibited French girl. (Julie is half-English but has a French mother, one of John's former mistresses, and has lived all her life in France; she speaks English with a heavy accent). Sarah is disgusted and, at the same time, secretly fascinated by Julie's irregular sex-life. There is even a hint of a lesbian attraction towards the younger woman; it is notable that whenever Sarah is looking at Julie the camera seems to zoom in lovingly on Ludivine Sagnier's generally scantily-clad body.And then, suddenly, the film takes a sinister turn and becomes not a comedy but a sort of mystery thriller. Franck, a waiter in a local café and one of Julie's many boyfriends, disappears, and Sarah suspects not only that he may have been killed but also that Julie may be responsible.In his review of the film Roger Ebert stated that "François Ozon (the director and co-writer) understands as Hitchcock did the small steps by which a wrong decision grows in its wrongness into a terrifying paranoid nightmare". He was not the only critic to draw a comparison with Hitchcock, but I wonder if such critics actually saw the same film as I did. To begin with, it is normally random chance which plunges Hitchcock's heroes and heroines into a terrifying nightmare, without the need for any wrong decision on their part. (Think of Roger Thornhill in "North by North-West" or the married couples in the two versions of "The Man who Knew Too Much"). Ebert may have been thinking of Marion Crane in "Psycho", who does indeed find herself in a nightmare as a direct result of stealing from her employer, but she is not really typical of Hitchcock's characters. Secondly, in "Swimming Pool" the "nightmare" arrives suddenly out of the blue rather than by small steps. In a matter of minutes Julie goes straight from performing a sex act on Franck to battering him to death with a rock, without any motive ever being given. The only possible explanation is that Julie is mentally deranged, but even if one accepts this explanation one still has to explain why Sarah should help an insane murderer to dispose of the body and to cover up her crime.The ending of the film has been described as "ambiguous". It has been suggested that Sarah has been alone at the villa all the time and that Julie, Franck and some of the other characters only exist in her imagination as characters in the novel she is working on. Now I am well aware that the idea of a work of fiction supposedly created by an author who is himself or herself a character in a larger work of fiction is a variety of what has become known as "metafiction" and is one of the games which authors sometimes play with their readers. This game, moreover, can be a very effective literary advice; something similar occurs in Ian McEwan's novel "Atonement", and I have great admiration both for that novel and for the film which Joe Wright made of it. The concept of "metafiction", however, does not serve to turn a bad plot into a good one, and the plot of "Swimming Pool", whether one regards it as having been created by the real Francois Ozon or the fictional Sarah Mason, is a pretty poor one with more holes than a colander. Moreover, when I was watching the film myself it never occurred to me that Ozon might be playing metafictional games; I assumed that we were supposed to take everything that happened at the villa at face value.The titular swimming pool, which plays a part in the story, and the theme of two women trying to dispose of the body of one man, may have been intended by Ozon as a reference to Clouzot's "Les Diaboliques", but his film cannot bear comparison with that masterpiece of the French cinema. Nor, pace Mr Ebert, can it bear comparison with "Psycho" or Hitchcock's other classics. Even the Master's weaker movies ("Stage Fright", "Torn Curtain", etc.) were normally more coherent than this. In terms of quality about the only Hitchcock film I would compare it to would be something like "Jamaica Inn", but then I have always considered that to be Hitch's worst film. It would have got a lower mark but for a decent acting contribution from Charlotte Rampling. 4/10

Released in 2003, "Swimming Pool" is a drama/psychological thriller about a popular English novelist named, Sarah (Charlotte Rampling), who vacations at her publisher's villa in France to find inspiration for her next book. Unfortunately, the publisher's oversexed daughter, Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), visits and disrupts her activities.If you remember 70s' films like "Orca" and "Zardoz" you'll know that Rampling was stunning in her physical prime in a looks-that-kill way. In "Swimming Pool" she's still in decent shape for a woman verging on 60, but her character's a joyless biyatch desperately seeking inspiration. Julie, by contrast, is young, friendly and overflowing with sexuality, but – like Sarah – she's not a pushover in the least.Sagnier shines as the wild child French hottie. There's just something about the female French accent that's a turn-on. Despite her sexiness, it's clear in some scenes that Julie's actually sort of plain in a girl-next-door kind of way. It's what she does with what she's got that makes her stunning.Like 2005's "Match Point," "Swimming Pool" is the antithesis of the modern 'blockbuster' and all its moronic trappings -- there's no quick editing, no CGI, no goofy one-liners, no explosions and no promise of $400 million at the box office. No, "Swimming Pool" is movie-making based simply on excellent writing and cinematic storytelling. The end is a revelation to the viewer even if you were expecting it, particularly because, if you research it, it's way more than even that, believe it or not. It's amazing how good writing & storytelling can create a 'Wow' reaction more so than the most elaborate overkill action sequence with all its requisite CGI and explosions.The film runs 102 minutes and was shot in Luberon, Vaucluse, France, and London.GRADE: A- ***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further if you haven't seen the film) The obvious interpretation is that Julie isn't real, but rather a character created by Sarah for her next book whereas Julia is the publisher's real daughter, revealed at the end. People who draw this conclusion, like me on my first two viewings, are on the right track, but this interpretation is only accurate to a point. For details see the thread on the IMDb message board "The Definitive Answer / Color-Key to Swimming Pool."

SWIMMING POOL is a laid-back, sensual thriller with top-notch performances by Charlotte Rampling and Ludivine Sagnier. The story is about a British crime novelist, Sarah Morton (Rampling) who, lacking in inspiration, is allowed by her publisher to vacation at his French home to begin work on a new novel. Trouble starts when his daughter shows up unexpectedly and begins to turn things upside down for the uptight novelist. Gradually, Sarah starts to come out of her shell and then things take a turn I didn't expect (which I'll leave unsaid). The best thing about this incredible film are the great performances given by Charlotte Rampling and Ludivine Sagnier (as Sarah's publisher's daughter). They bring so much depth to their characters and every scene they share is a treat to watch. Also of note is the eerie, mysterious score which does an excellent job at setting the tone of the film. The film is also shot very well, with lots of beautiful location shooting on the French countryside. The only negative I could find was a scene about two thirds of the way through when Julie (Sagnier) brings home a waiter who Sarah happens to know, and they have a little dance party. It was more the choice of song than anything, although the scene was rather awkward in and of itself. Still, this only reminds me why I love French films, especially thrillers like this one. Highly recommended.

This movie will keep you thinking after it is over. The main role is performed by Charlotte Rampling as the successful writer of mystery novels, Sarah Morton. The plot takes you from London to the south of France where the action mainly occurs. There is some wonderful viewing pleasure as the audience sees the transition to a holiday retreat in France. Sarah is on a working holiday at the residence of her publisher, performed by Charles Dance. The publisher has invited her to spend some time there where she can work on her next project. She needs a change to escape the doldrums of a writer's block. Sarah's new-found tranquillity is upset with the arrival of Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), her publisher's daughter. Sarah is uncomfortable with Julie's promiscuous lifestyle and Julie views Sarah as a prude, who is totally unable to relax and enjoy life's pleasures. As the movie progresses, we feel that Sarah has taken a different turn, not only in her writing but also in her life as she adapts to Julie's behaviour. There is a swimming pool below her balcony and it is a dominant location throughout the movie. The animosity between Sarah and Julie undergoes a thaw and we feel that Sarah is anxious to break through the bounds of her own life and become more adventuresome.Francois Ozon, the director, shows us two people whose self-indulgent lifestyle forges a relationship that can literally ignore their wrongdoing. This movie delivers a few surprises at the end but the dominant impression is of two women who are willing to sacrifice people to preserve their own comfortable existence.