Critic's Grade: A-

Frank's film tip: Highly esteemed French filmmaker Francois Ozone invites moviegoers to do the backstroke in his latest provocative sexual thriller SWIMMING POOL

European writer-director Francois Ozon has always been an auteur with a vision that's both ambiguous and risque. Ozon, the filmmaker responsible for critically acclaimed ditties such as Under the Sand and 8 Women, literally and figuratively dives into another intriguing French sexual drama in the form of the exhilarating Swimming Pool. In this psychological/suspense narrative, Ozon reunites with his preferred leading ladies Charlotte Rampling and Ludivine Sagnier and pits these desirable women against each other in a manipulative mode that is deliciously toxic in its undercurrent tension. Some may feel that Ozon has an inherent dissatisfaction for his female protagonists that usually come off as incomplete and emotionally remote. If that is the case then there's something very shrewd and mysterious about the indifference in his flawed female characters that adds a dash of compelling taunting. Swimming Pool is indicative of the distinctive robust French cinema that continues to push the envelope in all its suggestive imagery and flowing tawdry moodiness.

The premise tells the involving tale of Englishwoman Sarah Morton (Rampling), a successful crime novelist behind the vastly popular series of murder mystery books. As a resourceful writer, Sarah wants a change of pace and longs to use her creativity in some other capacity beyond her trademark concentration of homicide investigations. Sarah is stressed out and needs a break to consider other alternatives in the genre of her writing style. Her opportunistic publisher John Bosload (Charles Dance) would rather have Sarah stay within her realm of the assured crime novels that is the absolute winning formula within his competitive publishing world. The film purposely makes it unclear as to what Bosload's vague relationship is with Sarah outside of their professional connection. Regardless of whether Bosload is playing footsies with Sarah or not, he offers the suggestion for having his prized writer travel to his lavish get-away home in the South of France for the chance to refocus and charge her artistic batteries.

And so Sarah takes the solid advice to leave everything behind and escape to Bosload's scenic and isolated venue. There, she is able to wipe away all her uncertainties and anxieties. Once she arrives at Bosload's spiffy vacation place in the quaint village of Luberon, her existence finally becomes somewhat peaceful and structured. The pressure is becoming more stabilized and Sarah feels quite rejuvenated and rightfully so. The tranquility is too hard to believe but Sarah will soak up the moment even if it's an unfair illusion of sorts. Soon, the serenity bit will be threatened upon the arrival of an unwelcome guest. Well, so much for Sarah's peace of mind, right?

Enter the shapely hot-to-trot Julie (Ludivine Sagnier) whose sudden presence at the doorstep of Sarah's temporary retreat home is violated instantly. Julie, the rowdy daughter of Sarah's boss Bosload, is a vivacious vixen looking to sow her oats and relax in the quirky manner she only knows how. Since this is her father's property, the flirtatious Julie feels that she has the right to stretch out and make herself at home regardless of Sarah's feelings or objections. Naturally, the clash between the reserved older woman looking for solitude and the younger rambunctious sass looking for a cozy spot to be reckless based on her style of expression was going to be an inevitable standoff. And so let the conflicting head games begin!

The turmoil understandably boils and the resentment factor between both demanding women percolates with convincing force. Sarah is the organized one that obviously prefers her chaotic quotient to be lowered if not non-existent in her wishful thinking. The low-key writer is clean, maintains a sense of order and responsibility, and likes to be in control of her manageable surroundings. But the carefree Julie is the extreme opposite in that she's spontaneous, uninhibited, and unapologetic for the mere fact that this French tart loves to have a wild good time regardless of anyone's disagreement. Julie will dine on junk food, smoke, drink, and have random sexual encounters when the opportunity strikes. Plain and simple, Julie will do what it takes to please her frenzied whims--no questions asked.

Although both women resent each other's brand of intrusion, they cannot help but be fascinated by the other individual's hang-ups. For Sarah, she would have simply excused Julie's free-spirited slutty ways and avoided this whole confrontation by simply choosing to pack up and leave. But strangely, the prudish Sarah is engrossed by Julie's devilish mannerisms and finds the ribald escapism through this bombastic babe quite liberating given her restrictive demeanor. In fact, Julie would probably make for an interesting subject matter in a book that could rescue Sarah from the same old written material she yearns to tear away from so desperately. And so Sarah reverts to spying on Julie and keeping a keen eye on her wayward activities. Plus having the possession of Julie's juicy diary certainly helps Sarah as far as creating fodder against this bohemian bimbo is concerned. Whether disgusted, curious or envious by Julie's hedonistic tendencies, Sarah is mesmerized by this curvy honey-bunny.

From Julie's point of view, Sarah could possibly be the mentor that represents a dependable semblance of mental togetherness. Sarah's confining need for diligence and decorum could possible demonstrate to an undisciplined Julie what has been missing from her own lack of positive motherly influences. Essentially, we have two contrasting females with different agendas in contentment and personal suffering. Yet we know that the one thing they do have in common (besides their mutual bond to John Bosload) is the fact that these women have damaged psyches. Of course this feeds into the unresolved emptiness and despair. Also they have a driving need to fulfill desires that they're either afraid to explore or incapable of competently defining.

Swimming Pool is seductively entrancing because Ozone is able to experiment with colorful textures that dictate the stimulating brooding characterizations as well as the flashy situational flourishes in the antagonistic storyline. When Rampling's Sarah and Sagnier's Julie are at heated odds or in some rare cases try to awkwardly relate to one another in an uneasy fashion, the film becomes an exquisite paradoxical portrait. The perfect example would be the use of the Bosload estate's swimming pool. Ozone purposely uses the soothing pool water as a metaphor for rinsing off the indecision or giving rebirth to each troubled woman's complex souls. The pool is symbolic for Ozone's perplexed players to virtually get naked physically and/or psychologically and expose their doubts or demons as they see fit. And even then the pool itself is an unpredictable source in that it too can show signs of inconsistent meaning. One moment the pool is available for use then it's not; it's presentable like some picturesque pond then it's portrayed as dismally as a muddy mote, etc.

Despite the deception and blatant tug-of-war in terms of these women and their sparring personalities, Ozone is able to reluctantly have his hot-and-bothered heroines learn from each other and create an unassuming chemistry that's both hostile and oddly therapeutic. The themes of erotica and other caustic stimulation give this divisive exposition its unique rawness. Rampling and Sagnier continue to serve as the saucy and plagued feminine prototypes that Ozone sharply utilizes in his cinematic campaign of contempt.

Visually arousing and perceptive in its sexy cynicism, Swimming Pool allows one to dip more than just their reluctant toe in the cool and calming turquoise waters?it also invites you to get your provocative imagination wet with sheer intensity and hormonal excitement as well.

Frank rates this film: *** and a half stars (out of 4 stars)

All Reviews by Frank Ochieng [Home page]
If you are the author of this review, you may edit it by signing in.