I agree, it could have started sooner. I think it started then because there's an abrupt shift of atmosphere, and because Julie's entrance is the first event that's incongruous with the previous setup.
Just a minute before, Sarah is calm, writing, talking on the phone with John (who, remember, in the first scene said he had his daughter, which conflicts with his daughter suddenly showing up in France). After Julie enters, Sarah is tense, divided, pulled in two directions ... and unable to contact John. Julie even enters as Sarah is trying to go to sleep - or perhaps has gone to sleep and is dreaming.
Could this transition be part of the book? It could. I don't see it that way, but it could. Or the transition could be more gradual. It's fine for different people to see it in different ways, as long as people realize that the movie and the book merge at some point.
Perhaps (only perhaps) it's notable that Julie enters shortly after John tells Sarah that he won't be coming for a visit, and Sarah's expression tells us that John means more to her than she means to him.
John does mention his daughter in the scene at the beginning. It's also clear that Sarah and John know each other pretty well, enough so to expect that she knows his daughter's name. However, neither of them mentions her name, so having Julie show up instead of Julia does not mean the initial scene could not be part of the book.
But though Sarah knows that John has a daughter, I don't think that Sarah and Julia have met, since Julia doesn't recognize Sarah at the end. That's when the appearances of Julie (imaginary) and Julia (real) come together.
Edward
reply
share
brixybroxy
13 years ago
Paleolith - I can she you;re really sharp on this film and I admire your insights... I would like to point out that the book(s) Sarah is/are writing are a cosnequence of John's rejection. It's obvious from the first office scene that he has not been great towards her in her relationship. Also, from the first time we see Sarah, in the tube, she has the look of the rejected woman and she will keep it througout until the end of the last office meeting. the owhole film is about how she through Her book(s)gets her revenge on John. she needs to do this to move on - as a writer (to new issues and publishers) and as a person - away from her obsession about John. John has not fault in this at all - he has given her plenty of hints he wants very little to di with her, apart from the business of publishing... Now I do not agree that the Julie book requires nudity for making it a bestselling one, because the Julie book is the outcome more a personal revenge than a marketing ploy.
reply
share
paleolith
13 years ago
Yes, I mostly agree.
I think Sarah is too complex to pigeonhole her as "getting revenge on John" or that the books are "a consequence of John's rejection". She has a lot of background and emotions which are not brought forth in the film. I think that's intentional; she is supposed to be part of the mystery. That "look of the rejected woman" in the first scene is a look into her, not just a look at her perceived rejection.
I completely agree that John has not been at fault. It's a professional relationship. Sarah wanted it to be more, but there's no sign that John ever encouraged that. Her obsession with John is one of the complexities of her character that we do see.
As for nudity, I assume you are referring to the other thread (started, you may have noticed, by a 16yo girl, which to some extent influenced my response). Of course any movie with nudity could be made without it, and I don't argue that it's ever essential. But a writer and/or director can validly use nudity in the course of telling a story. In something like Swimming Pool, with its cross-references and self-references, films referring to books which talk about films which refer to books which ... there's a whole mass of threads intertwined, and if you say "just remove this part", you run into "when you start pulling on strings you find that everything is connected" (misquoted I'm sure). If they just excised the nudity, it would be a different movie, for better or for worse I won't try to say.
Edward
reply
share
lamont-hard
12 years ago
I loved this movie ,but I did not see any form of revenge on the publisher. he rejected her her style of new writing and to me it was business that I feel they both understood. She may have wanted to rub salt in the wound for him not being interested in her physically, but not from a literal writing way. he says why could you not tell me this as he felt they had a good friendship based on professionalism. I also felt the novel started when the Julie came home and she was in bed but stopped and started several times and was not a continuous thing.
another point of her being angry of his rejection is she is constantly saying will you be joining me, meaning he was with the other writer or at least helping him, not in a sexual manner but as a friend, taking him away from her.
One last point is they must have been intimate at some point because she makes the reference of he would never leave his family.
reply
share