I Didin't get it.


I have seen this movie a couple of times, and it is in a nutshell, to me just plain confusing. Is Ned nuts? Drunk? Or what? Where the hell did he come from from? What happened. I need more information than some nut in swimming drunks swimming his way back home to a dark and deserted house. I thought the movie as a whole sucked.

reply

Read the user review on the imdb front page. It explains pretty much everything.

If you listen to the dialogue along the way, you will notice that he doesn't seem to remember anything for the past two years. And a lot happened during the past two years. The movie makes a point of the TWO YEARS.

If you listen to the dialogue, along the way some man comes up to Ned and says it's a damn shame about that young upstart at Lancaster's company...he'd have shown him what's what, etc.

The dark haired girlfriend says, "You were kicked out of your golden pool" or something like that.

So....Ned, who had a high position and was wealthy, was fired and replaced by a younger man.

He keeps referring to his two daughters as different ages. That's because his memory is faulty.

He asked one of his neighbors for money in the recent past, according to the neighbor chat before Ned shows up. But Ned doesn't remember that. So....Ned was ruined financially.

Ned has been away for a while, but we don't know where. I would guess he was institutionalized for a nervous breakdown. Shock treatments are known for creating short term memory loss. Orrrrrr...maybe he was in prison for a financial crime? But that wouldn't explain the memory loss.

I suppose it could be a comparison of the neighbors at their pools with the people we cross paths with in our lives. Those we think are friends, are not. Those that we least suspect are the ones who stand by us. Who's around when we're not on top, any more? How did we treat THEM, when we were on top?

It's an interesting look at Lancaster's acting, as his memory comes back along the way, and he changes from the tall, wide smiled, pearly white handsome athletic man who has it all, to a broken middle aged man with hunched shoulders who lost it all somewhow. Who maybe wasn't kind to people. Look at the camera angles, too. Camera angle lower at the beginning, emphasizing his size and Adonis physique. Camera angle gets higher as the movie progresses, and he looks smaller.



reply

This may be a reasonable interpretation of the film, but clearly in the story it's more surreal, possibly even science fiction (that's a less likely interpretation but a plausible one). He clearly starts the story as someone who has his status and his memory, and something happens along the way.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

Everything bad has already happened to Ned. Where he has been is not described. In any case, he has been away from his neighborhood for some time. Ned has varying degrees of mental illness, likely PTSD incurred from losing his job, and the status and material things that entailed. He is under the impression that his old life still exist, and that he can step right back into it, and life will be as before.

The plot is organized as such, that the owners of each residence and pool he visits, have a different perspective of Ned. With the early visits consisting of people who have no knowledge of his downfall, and are happy to see him. The property owners are increasingly less sensitive and more hostile to Ned, as his journey progresses. Ned eventually realizes that his old life is gone, and he has nothing.

The only thing that has a surreal element, is the order of the pool owners in which Ned visits. It is improbable that the characters encountered would go from friendly and sympathetic to hostile, in such an exacting and systematic way. But the story has to be laid out that way for it to work.

It's a rather simple story to follow. Many viewers here, in other threads, seem to want to add a science fiction element, or add their enhancements to the story that are not indicated in the film. Maybe the plot is so straightforward, that people think there must be something added to give it plausibility and understanding.

reply

It really sounds like you have not read the story. Have you?

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

I hadn't read the story until now. I can see your point. The movie is considerably altered from the story. The story reads like a fairy tale, with suspension of belief required. The film is presented in a more down to earth, natural fashion. I stand by my previous evaluation of the film, but not the original story. They're two separate entities in my opinion. The concept is the same, but the presentation and information provided the reader/viewer are quite different.

reply

I do believe a film (or TV series) should be able to stand on its own, and be appreciated/critiqued by those who have not read the novel/story it came from (I'm a big fan of the TV show Game of Thrones for instance, though I don't have HBO so I'm a season behind; I always bristle at suggestions on message boards or blogs that "well, that would make sense to you if you read the books" as I think it should make sense to me without having to read the books).

On the other hand, I did read the Cheever story before seeing this movie. So I can't ever create in my mind the perspective of someone who saw the movie without reading the story.

And despite what I said about Game of Thrones, I find it hard to imagine that the filmmaker wanted to take this story and make a movie that had a completely different underlying plot. So I think that for any element that is at all ambiguous or open to interpretation, a strong point can be made by referring to the story. (It's also, frankly, a lot easier to read one short story that's available for free online, as in this case, than to read a whole series of long novels that cost a significant amount of money, as in the case of the George R.R. Martin books.)

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

By the way, I want to compliment you for conceding a point, even partially, in an online debate. That's a rare thing to see, and I myself would cop to often being too stubborn to do it. Kudos.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

I'm far from an expert on this film. I've got a short, but yet long history with it. I was 15 years old when the film came out, and remember Lancaster hitting the TV talk shows hyping the film. I never thought much more about the film. Somehow I had the image all these years, that the film was about some old guy trying to set a swimming record. I never came across the film on TV or in video stores, or maybe I did, and just passed it over.

In August of 2014, I came across the film on the digital sub-channel GetTV. I have purchased and watched the film several times since. I was unaware it was derived from a short story or anything else about it. So I'm just now learning the differences between the short story and film. Interesting that the short story is in the public domain, and easy to find on the web.

reply

Here are some quotes from the first couple pages of the Cheever story to illustrate why it cannot be true that as the story starts, he has already lost everything:

It was one of those midsummer Sundays...


This was not a quote from Neddy or any other character, but from the author, flatly stated as the setting for the action.

Neddy Merrill sat by the green water, one hand in it, one around a glass of gin. He was a slender man—he seemed to have the especial slenderness of youth—and while he was far from young he had slid down his banister that morning and given the bronze backside of Aphrodite on the hall table a smack, as he jogged toward the smell of coffee in his dining room.


See, he still had his house that morning, when the story begins. It is mentioned again shortly thereafter:

His own house stood in Bullet Park, eight miles to the south, where his four beautiful daughters would have had their lunch and might be playing tennis.


One more excerpt:

He hoisted himself up on the far curb—he never used the ladder—and started across the lawn. When Lucinda asked where he was going he said he was going to swim home.


Note that Lucinda is his wife--so she is still with him at the beginning of the story.

Even in the movie, we see different stages of his fall as he goes. At an early-middle party, a guy consoles him on losing his job but says he can refer him for a position that he thinks would be a good fit for Ned. It's clear by the later stages that he has fallen way too far into alcoholism and has made too much a disgrace of himself in very public ways, staggering around asking people for money, for it to be plausible that anyone would think he could move horizontally into another executive-type job.

So you see, the story is not so simple--and I'm afraid that it is you that seem to have misinterpreted it.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

I think you're missing a few facts about the story and about the movie:

1) Even in the short story by Cheever, there is much ambiguity about whether some of the images Ned is seeing that day, and images described by the narrator, are really happening on that day, or whether they are just happening in Ned's mind; and

2) The movie is not an exact, literal copy of the short story; and

3) Even in the first few encounters Ned has with neighbors, you see clear signs from those neighbors that they recognize Ned is not seeing things clearly. One woman seems shocked, and in disbelief, when Ned describes his life as if he is still with his wife and everything is moving along as it used to. She glances at her husband as if to ask: "Is this guy serious?" Clearly, early in the movie, Ned's life has already unravelled.

I strongly disagree with the suggestion of another poster that there was "science fiction" involved in the plot in this movie. Nothing of the sort is suggested by anything in the movie.

My real name is Jeff

reply

I'm with BobbyDupea on this one


1) Even in the short story by Cheever, there is much ambiguity about whether some of the images Ned is seeing that day, and images described by the narrator, are really happening on that day, or whether they are just happening in Ned's mind; and


RIght, the narrator says "it was midsummer," but could well be implying, "from Ned's point of view."



2) The movie is not an exact, literal copy of the short story; and





Although, as you point out, the movie could be following the story a lot more closely if we treat the story as a "Ned's eye view" of what happens in the literal world of the movie.



3) Even in the first few encounters Ned has with neighbors, you see clear signs from those neighbors that they recognize Ned is not seeing things clearly. One woman seems shocked, and in disbelief, when Ned describes his life as if he is still with his wife and everything is moving along as it used to. She glances at her husband as if to ask: "Is this guy serious?" Clearly, early in the movie, Ned's life has already unravelled.


The people at the first pool are already humoring him to some extent, as their sideways glances confirm.

And it doesn't seem too unreasonable to me that people further away from Ned's home could be less aware of his current situation.

While people closer to Ned's home could be more aware AND less tolerant, possibly having had to deal with the brunt of his daughters' behavior more directly. They are literally "closer to home" for him.


reply

Great movie!
Next time i gotta listen why Ned ventured on this journey.
Fillm Critic Leonard Malten described it the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit trying for one more day in the sun.
After crashing Dolph Sweet pool and getting knocked down,everything went downhill from there.
Shirley Abbott was a total slut/bitch. Ned should've check the weather for late showers.
Totally gripping.

reply

Shirley Abbott was a total slut/bitch.


I haven't seen this film in years, but I saw it originally in 1968 when I was recently out of college, and it made a huge impression on me. Now I think that I should order it on DVD and watch it again.

But from my young 20s viewpoint in the late '60s, Shirley Abbott wasn't a total slut or bitch at all. He had broken her heart by promising her that he would leave his wife and family because he loved her. He was a 'player' ~~ rich, successful, and used to saying whatever was necessary to get what (or who) he wanted. Then when he decided to end their affair, he took her to an expensive fancy restaurant to break up, hoping that the elegant surroundings would keep her from creating a public fuss and embarrassing him.

In his delusional state, he apparently had forgotten this episode and thought that she would welcome him back. But she remembered everything, and hadn't really gotten over him.

This is the Shirley Abbott episode from the film that I remember from my 20s viewpoint. I now plan to find the film and watch it again to see how my many decades of life experience would interpret Shirley Abbott's behavior!

reply

Elynne, your memory serves you well. I watched it yesterday, and you are absolutely correct.

reply

'In any case, he has been away from his neighborhood for some time. Ned has varying degrees of mental illness, likely PTSD incurred from losing his job, and the status and material things that entailed.'
---------------------------
But why should be assume the unknown, and that the film is superior for being mystical. Why not just be literate, so we don't have to write the plot as it goes along? I think there's a fine line between pretentiousness and ambiguity. If Burt's character was mentally-ill or suffering PSTD, we would likely see signs of it.

reply

The first clear tip off to me that Ned’s sense of reality was off was when he made a comment about his daughter’s weddings in the future tense to his first hosts and they shot a concerned look to one another. I interpreted this to be a sign that his daughters had already wed or died, were estranged from him, or his material circumstances had been much diminished.

Taken together with his unaccountable appearance, his strange fascination with the weather and pool water and the strange plan he formulated for his day, I began to think he was tetched in the head.

reply

I really liked this movie,also big Burt Lancaster fan.
About 20+years ago I was watching Siskel+Ebert and they both appreciated Lancaster in this role.
Leonard Maltin descibed it as "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit" testing the waters,however our star Ned Merrill wanted to finish what set out do.
My observation: 53 yr.old Lancaster excelled like an Olympic athlete,almost scoring w/gorgeous Julie,but reality bithim when he crashed Dolph Sweet gathering.
I thought Shirley Abbott was a slut. I like it when Ned shouts 'You Loved It!' Too bad he didn't check the weather forecast(?)
I wouldn't pick up anyone hitchhiking just wearing swim trunks.
Overall very good picture.

reply

I've read the story and seen the movie. I just figure it's an allegory for how a man's life can go off the tracks.Cheevers was struggling with alcoholism when he wrote the story (it almost killed him before he got dry) and I imagine it was taking a toll on his family. So an allegory.

reply

The film personifies Ned's dreams or memories, but where he is in actuality is unknown. He may be asleep, or suffering a mental breakdown, or daydreaming, or tripping on psychedelics, or maybe he is on his death bed and sparks of recollection are flashing back into his consciousness before passing on. What makes me sure of this is the fact that Ned appears out of the woods which is strange, then when asked where he'd been he nonchalantly replies "here and there, here and there." There are extreme close up shots of Ned's glimmering blue eyes a few times throughout the film, and he repeatedly comments on the beautiful blue color of the pools and the sky. If eyes are windows to the soul then perhaps the shimmering azure pools and radiant sky are relevant to Ned's blue eyes; and as a result signify Ned's (and our) immersion into his dreams. Each pool he dives into represents his immersion into a different section of his subconscious, and because the entire town is seemingly flooded by the brilliant blue sky the film itself is an immersion into this man's "soul."

reply

I am a tremendously exuberant fan of this powerful movie and Burt Lancaster himself. I have seen various essays about The Swimmer in 40-some years, but your poetic interpretation is the best one I have ever read. Thank you so much for sharing. Cheers!

As iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another

reply

[deleted]

Interesting, but I view the story as basically depicting reality. One can look at Ned's journey through the pools as an attempt by him to cleanse himself of his past and the trouble it's brought him - to no avail.

My real name is Jeff

reply

[deleted]

It's not for everyone. Sounds like you should stick with Superhero crap.

reply

He's having a mental breakdown. He's desperately looking for something but not even he knows what it is. He doesn't find it.

reply