SPOILER ALERT! Do not read the following if you haven't seen the movie. It will ruin the experience.

The plot of Swimming Pool seemingly runs fairly straightforward for the majority of the film's runtime. However, as Sarah returns to her publisher's office in London, she drops a book on his desk that is entitled "Swimming Pool." She states that she knew he wouldn't publish it because it is such a departure from her normal subject matter, so she had it published by a different publisher.

Here's where the big shocker comes in! As Sarah is leaving John's office, his secretary buzzes in to inform him that his daughter is here to see him. We see John's daughter as a gangly teen with braces. We (as well as Sarah) immediately realize that she is different than the Julie whom we had seen at the house in France.

Following is my interpretation as to what happened:
There was never anyone else at the house with Sarah, ever! (except for Marcel). Sarah was totally alone when she wrote the book! All of Sarah's interactions with Julie (John's daughter) were imaginary. Made up and written into her book.

In one particular phone call, Sarah discovered that John had a daughter. This set Sarah's imagination into action. Sarah worked Julie(a) into her book and Ozon worked Julie(a) into the movie.

So, we learn that from the point where Julie enters the house until we see Sarah at the publisher's office is actually taken from Sarah's book. This would explain Sarah's look of bewilderment when she actually sees Julie(a) at John's office. She had an image of what she wanted Julie(a) to look like (as did we) and when she actually saw her, it was quite a shock.

The final scene of Julia beside the pool is just Sarah imagining what it would have been like for the real Julia to have been there.

Here is a rundown of what was real in the movie:
1) Sarah Morton is riding the train to her publisher's office.
2) John informs Sarah that she can use his house as creative stimulation to write the book.
3) Sarah flies to France and is driven to the house by Marcel.
5) Sarah returns to London and presents John with her newly published book.
6) As Sarah leaves John's office she sees his daughter Julia.

Everything between 3 and 5 comes from Sarah's book and her imagination.

Think about it!

This is the ending I thought was true, too, until I saw the deleted scenes and I got confused. There's a scene where she speaks to her publisher on the phone and he both remarks that he hopes his daughter isn't bothering her and whether the book is about his daughter. Unless I assume that her interaction with him is fictitious as well, this doesn't fit...

The fact that Julie had spoken to her father who warned her not to disturb Sarah raises questions about the interpretation that it was all a figment of the author's imagination. If so, who's to say what was 'real' and what wasn't? Furthermore, can someone please elaborate on the significance of the cross, the red dress, and Marcel's daughter's reaction to the question about Julie's mother.

Cheers,

T

I pretty much agreed with your explanation except for the end...
When Sarah was standing on the balcony, the house looked different. It was a stone house and the house in the story was a stucco house. That threw me. What do you think ??

My reasoning led me to the same conclusions. Also, remember that she was somewhat disappointed that her publisher didn't seem too interested in coming to visit her at the house? I feel this sparked her imagination about what else was going on in his life. Note as well that after the daughter "arrived", she never actually made contact with him (except in a deleted scene which I think was removed to minimize confusion.)

Sorry, but you are all wrong (my ego). This is what really happened:
Julie was in fact the mother of Julia fathered by the publisher (note: she was talking about having her first sexual experience when she was 13 years old).
speculations:
the scar: happened in the car accident...the car accident where she supposedly died...or: a cesarian scar??...from a thirteen year old who gave birth. (I know cesarians are done differently nowadays)

the book which is given to writer by Julie:
if she really is the mother of Julia, she would be the person who has written the book...it's her own story

but: who's the woman on the photo in Julie's diary?? That's the only point where the story doesn't fit together again.

Maybe this version is useful to get closer to the real concept behind the storyline. If there is none, I don't think it's a very clever movie. Everyone can just make up unrelated scenarios and put them together to a confusing movie. To a certain extent confusion can make a movie interesting, but not when it includes major points like in swimming pools.

I agree that Julie being the author is a possiblity, whether intended or not...it fits. I have no explantion for the photo of the woman in the diary...maybe it is Julie's mother. Remember how upset Marcel's daughter was when asked about Julie's mother.

Just saw the movie last night...beautiful. The only way that I could get the movie to hang together in my head was that Sarah had imagined the whole Julie thing.

So I have to agree with the spoilers above.

-Roger

i agree. in the last scene, sarah is waving down at the pool but she stops waving a little as if there was nothing there and she just got a little carried away.

Thank you so much for helping me understand what happened at the house in France. I loved the movie even if I was confused, because I love to look at Charlotte Rampling's face, especially in the last part of the movie when she brightened up.

I see your interpretation of the plot and how it works. My problems with it are: 1. if we take your interpretation, then the whole section of the plot involving the mother's book is superfluous... you could take it away and the plot as you describe it would still work. 2. For us (the audience) to be part of the film is just naff I think - or at least for the film to only exist in our minds and not the characters'/ possibly doesnt work... a bit like one of the characters looking down the camera lens and asking the audience a question...