IVANA MILOŠ: The sea, as it sur­rounds your ears while you float on your back in the water made buoyant by salt, trans­la­tes all audi­ble sen­sa­ti­ons into a faint crack­ling remi­nis­cent of embers fli­cke­ring in the fire­place and yet so dif­fe­rent, worlds apart, in this uni­que expe­ri­ence that speaks volu­mes about the essence of water. Swim­ming in cine­ma is stran­ge becau­se this vital ele­ment is the very one gone miss­ing: the sen­sa­ti­on made up of unna­ma­ble hope and reli­ance that is the sta­te of being phy­si­cal­ly sus­pen­ded in water. At the same time, the­re seems to be an inna­te cor­re­spon­dence bet­ween the sta­te of a swim­mer and that of a cine­ma-goer. The­re is some­thing about let­ting go, redis­co­ve­ring yours­elf in a posi­ti­on of vul­nerabi­li­ty, depen­ding on ele­ments out­side ones­elf for sur­vi­val. Some­thing about trust and faith, some­thing I miss every day I don’t feel it rea­ching all the way to my toes. May­be that is why the first image that comes to mind when I think about swim­ming in cine­ma is not that of a human, but a seahor­se – the prot­ago­nist of Jean Painlevé’s L’Hippocampe ou che­val marin. I can’t ima­gi­ne what it might feel like to be immer­sed in water as a seahor­se, hence the leap of faith I need to make when wat­ching it isn’t too far-fet­ched – it is impos­si­ble. And, of cour­se, it’s all the more inte­res­t­ing for that. The seahor­se sails under­wa­ter, it swings and sur­ges. The seahor­se is bey­ond my wil­dest dreams. I don’t think the way seahor­ses move under­wa­ter can be descri­bed as swim­ming, but it feels right to asso­cia­te them with cine­ma none­thel­ess. Films have pla­ced ano­ther image of swim­ming within easy reach of my mind – that of swim­ming pools. Per­haps unsur­pri­sin­gly, the­se are places who­se con­no­ta­ti­ons I deri­ve almost enti­re­ly from the histo­ry of cine­ma, dra­wing on films like Sun­set Blvd. to Cat Peo­p­le to Boo­gie Nights for inspi­ra­ti­on. Pools are so dif­fe­rent from the sea that I sure­ly needn’t was­te any words on ascer­tai­ning the fact. And even most Hol­ly­wood crea­ti­ons make sure to make films fea­turing pools more about mys­tery and mur­der or luxu­ry and deca­dent loung­ing around than about swim­ming. And that was how swim­ming pools ente­red my rea­li­ty and con­ti­nue to swim on in me. Alt­hough the inclu­si­on of the sen­sa­ti­on of swim­ming in a film may be impro­ba­ble, or even hope­l­ess, the swim­ming we our­sel­ves indul­ge in when at the cine­ma, though far from the sea, is all of its own making.

ANDREW CHRISTOPHER GREEN: Flo­ridi­an child­hood; time spent in front of enorm­ous glass-win­dow aqua­ri­ums loo­king into under­wa­ter land­scapes whe­re exo­tic fish, glit­te­ring like jewels, drifted around aim­less­ly. The­se win­dows were like por­tals, cross-cut sec­tions split­ting apart a habi­tat you could see with the same cla­ri­ty as gog­gles, only framed and ther­eby dis­pla­cing you. The came­ra does this too. Under­wa­ter sce­nes are like a dream. Our des­cent into ano­ther world gets dou­bled. Ever­y­thing beco­mes even more porous in the opaque and mur­ky abyss. Boun­da­ries slip, time dila­tes a bit. And the lens holds the­se move­ments with a fide­li­ty we lose our­sel­ves in. This lin­kage and dis­ori­en­ta­ti­on isn’t purely opti­cal but rela­tes to the move­ment of memo­ry. I think the reco­very of whats been sub­mer­ged is the aim of film criticism.

In Arthur Penn’s Night Moves Jen­ni­fer War­ren and Gene Hack­man, accom­pany­ing Sus­an Clark on a night swim, dis­co­ver a drow­ned pla­ne and see the pilot’s face being eaten by fish through the glass bot­tom of their boat. The mon­ta­ge cuts in and out of the water as Clark shrieks about, and the audio always cor­re­sponds to the camera’s rela­ti­on to the sur­face; under­wa­ter being a muf­fled, almost noi­se­l­ess place. The boats bot­tom lights fli­cker. After­wards, back home try­ing to pro­cess what hap­pen­ed, an attempt at inter­pre­ta­ti­on disper­ses into series of asso­cia­ti­ons. War­ren asks Hack­man whe­re he was when Ken­ne­dy got shot. “Which Ken­ne­dy?” “Any Ken­ne­dy.” “Why do you ask?” “It’s one of tho­se ques­ti­ons ever­y­bo­dy knows the ans­wer to.” She lea­ves, only to return a few moments later. “It was that poor bas­tard in the pla­ne. I remem­ber Bob­by when he got shot; the news­re­els they made it look like ever­y­thing was hap­pe­ning under­wa­ter. The first time anyo­ne ever touch­ed my breasts was a boy cal­led Bil­ly Hand­ru­ther. The nipp­les stay­ed hard for near­ly a half an hour after­ward. Don’t you think thats sad?” “No. I think it’s kind of nice.” “I don’t. I think it’s so fuck­ing sad.”

They make love. Hack­man wakes up to the sound of Sus­an Clark screa­ming and crying. She’d been having a night­ma­re about the pilot. He goes to calm her down, pat­ting her back. “I like being pat­ted like that. It’s sup­po­sed to remind you of befo­re you were born, your mother’s heart bea­ting on your back. Do you think you can remem­ber back that far?

ANNA BABOS: Being in the water is a libe­ra­ting fee­ling, swim­ming to the other side is a chall­enge, and being sub­mer­ged is a pur­ga­to­ry. You can let yours­elf go with the flow, be pushed down by the waves, or learn to ride them. You can play on the sur­face of the unknown world or going down to explo­re the infi­ni­te depth. All the pos­si­ble acti­vi­ties in the water are rich in meta­pho­ri­cal mea­nings, reli­gious under­to­nes, arche­ty­pi­cal con­no­ta­ti­ons, and asso­cia­ti­ons. Even though the­re are ple­nty of things to do in oce­ans, seas, lakes or rivers, inclu­ding swim­ming, floa­ting is the only thing I have seen in recent fes­ti­val dar­lings, stu­dent films, or com­mer­cial hits. Cha­rac­ters relax, enjoy­ing the sur­face, gent­ly tou­ch­ing their body, thin­king about ever­y­thing or not­hing at all. The­se sce­nes depict a moment when they can turn off what’s going on out the­re and be alo­ne with natu­re and with their thoughts. Dif­fe­rent cha­rac­ters in dif­fe­rent sto­ries, in dif­fe­rent waters, all of them choo­sing the same way to pon­der. Has floa­ting beco­me the con­sen­su­al sign of the wan­de­ring mind, like fid­ge­ting hands show ner­vous­ness or shou­ting from a moun­tain into nowhe­re expres­ses eit­her anger or the joy of free­dom? The­se cha­rac­ters seem doo­med by their wri­ters to reve­al their per­so­na­li­ties through the simp­lest and the­r­e­fo­re most inau­then­tic types of sche­mes. Floa­ting, a plea­sant acti­vi­ty in its­elf, is ren­de­red meanin­g­less in the hands of wri­ters and direc­tors who don’t look for expres­si­ve ways of show­ing emo­ti­ons and ideas.

SIMON WIENER

Kör­per im Was­ser könn­te man stun­den­lang fil­men, man könn­te ihnen stun­den­lang zuschau­en. Das Bild bleibt ohne Zutun immer in Bewe­gung; es spie­gelt, ver­zerrt, fluk­tu­iert; orga­nisch wech­selt es sei­ne For­men. Was­ser bricht auf.

Eben­so reagiert es auf den Kör­per, zer­stäubt, zer­bricht in Ein­zel­tei­le, ändert sei­ne Erscheinung.

In Gun­vor Nel­sons Moon’s Pool sehen wir zwei Schwim­men­de im Was­ser. In José Anto­nio Sis­tia­gas era erera balei­bu izik subua arua­ren… sind die Schwim­men­den nicht mehr im Bild. Wir, die Zuschau­er sind es, die im Zel­lu­loid schwimmen.

Der Lein­wand, auf der hand­be­mal­te Mus­ter irr über uns hin­weg­rau­schen, eig­nen hier Qua­li­tä­ten des Was­sers. Sie agiert als Wun­der­spie­gel, formt und ver­zerrt unse­re Wahr­neh­mung, bestän­dig schil­lernd, sich ins Gegen­teil verkehrend.

RONNY GÜNL: Ein­fach trei­ben und in den Him­mel sehen. Kunst­voll geform­te Figu­ren, auf- und abtau­chend. Oder ver­sin­ken ins tie­fe, dunk­le Nichts. Jede ein­zel­ne Asso­zia­ti­on weckt dabei ihre jewei­li­gen träu­me­risch-fil­mi­schen Bil­der. Erst, wenn die Kame­ra unter der Was­ser­ober­flä­che ver­schwin­det, offen­bart sich eine ande­re Welt. Von oben betrach­te­ten Refle­xio­nen der Wel­len erschei­nen als Strah­len, die sich sanft-wan­kend wie Tücher aus Tüll bewe­gen. Auf­stei­gen­de Luft­bläs­chen ver­zie­ren die stil­le Har­mo­nie. Bizar­re For­men aus Licht und Schat­ten bil­den die­ses Schau­spiel auf geflies­tem oder san­di­gem Boden ab.

Ein Film wie Taris, roi de l’eau von Jean Vigo geht dar­in ver­lo­ren. Gedreht in Zeit­lu­pen, einer­seits fas­zi­niert von der ele­gan­ten Bewe­gung des olym­pi­schen Schwim­mers, ande­rer­seits von der Anmut des Was­sers. Nur all­zu gern möch­te man füh­len, zwi­schen Was­ser und Schwim­men bil­de sich eine unzer­trenn­li­che Ein­heit. Doch unter­lie­gen bei­de Sei­ten nicht gänz­lich ent­ge­gen­ge­setz­ten Prin­zi­pi­en? Die Unge­gen­ständ­lich­keit des Was­sers in einer fil­mi­schen Erfah­rung zu beschrei­ben, ermög­licht sich erst durch die prä­zi­sen Schwün­ge der Glied­ma­ßen sowie den ste­ti­gen Rhyth­mus des Ein- und Ausatmens.

Schein­bar mühe­los wir­ken die tech­nisch anspruchs­vol­len Bewe­gun­gen Jean Taris’, als wäre das jah­re­lang zeh­ren­de Trai­ning der Immer­sel­ben nur ein frei­zeit­li­ches Ver­gnü­gen gewe­sen. Ein trick­rei­cher Sprung zurück an den Becken­rand ver­wan­delt ihn in sei­ne Stra­ßen­klei­dung. Mit­hil­fe einer Über­blen­dung ver­schwin­det er im nächt­li­chen Schwarz des Beckens. Geht er über das Was­ser oder schwimmt er mit der Men­ge, gedrängt auf den Bou­le­vards der Stadt?

SIMON PETRI: Swim­ming is pre­ce­ded by ritu­als: the swim­mer chan­ges clo­thes and then waters his own body to get con­di­tio­ned on the tem­pe­ra­tu­re. The degree of effort or fus­si­ness by which the­se actions are con­duc­ted can signal the swimmer’s sta­te of mind: his rela­ti­on to nudi­ty, to cold, whe­ther he is an impa­ti­ent intru­der or a careful explo­rer. The boy in Jac­ques Rozier’s Ren­trée des clas­ses doesn’t mind get­ting his clo­thes wet, and he doesn’t need to fear the cold on the spar­k­ling sum­mer day he swims down a creek into the maze of natu­re. Though he is a bra­ve and curious drift­er, he goes into the creek atten­tively. The boy repairs the holes in his shoe befo­re step­ping into the water. He careful­ly choo­ses his way and uses his arms to balan­ce as he adjus­ts to the creek’s rhythm. He wades far­ther away from the town and the folia­ge abo­ve grows den­ser: lights and shadows con­stant­ly chan­ge on his bright dress. He lies on his back, try­ing to let the creek car­ry him, but it’s too shal­low. He rea­ches the wil­der­ness and noti­ces a sna­ke: now, it’s the right depth to final­ly swim.

Rozier, like many French film­ma­kers, knows how to film peo­p­le in water. First, he film­ed this litt­le fri­end of sna­kes, who­se sear­ching, respon­si­ve gaze reflects the won­ders of swim­ming in natu­re. Both Rozier and his cha­rac­ters grew older but he con­tin­ued to allow them to indul­ge in the locations.

JAMES WATERS: The swim­ming sce­ne in Joan­na Hogg’s Exhi­bi­ti­on is 42 seconds long, one among a suc­ces­si­on of sta­tic takes show­ing artist-cou­ple H (Liam Gil­lick) and D (Viv Alber­ti­ne) per­forming their last errands – like ritu­al, almost – as a way of say­ing good­bye to their house, new­ly on the mar­ket after 18 years of use.

In the­se 42 seconds, D swims naked in her house’s pool. D and the pool are shown in unna­tu­ral­ly white and blue hues, respec­tively. The sound of her floa­ting, then spin­ning, is con­vey­ed via deli­ca­te foley-work, uncom­mon in sce­nes of swim­ming. Too often the splas­hes are dea­fe­ning, the pool an excu­se for the film­ma­kers to indul­ge in a luxu­ria­ting, ASMR-like set piece.

The muf­fled, out­side noi­ses are more pre­do­mi­nant than the sounds of swim­ming, even. Hogg refer­red to this sce­ne as a musi­cal sequence wit­hout the music, but it’s bet­ter than that. All the ele­ments are the­re: a musi­ci­an (Alber­ti­ne, for­mer front­wo­man of The Slits) and her 360 moti­ons, floa­ting slow­ly from right-to-left. But the song is miss­ing (upon first inspection).

The scene’s quiet tenor brought a song’s lil­ting melo­dy to my mind. The song was Gareth Wil­liams and Mary Currie’s Breast Stro­ke (Wil­liams was Albertine’s con­tem­po­ra­ry in the 70’s Lon­don music sce­ne). There’s an unob­tru­si­ve­ness to a song’s melo­dy when the view­er brings it to the film ins­tead of the filmmaker.

So, D swims. Not in silence – but quietu­de. Aural­ly, there’s not­hing bet­ween us and her. The intri­ca­ci­es of her and the swim­ming pool’s noi­ses toe the line per­fect­ly bet­ween the afo­re­men­tio­ned noi­se and death­ly silence – the kind of silence com­mon in films but absent in life. The­se two ele­ments – the woman, her move­ments and her pool – say more than any lite­ral song or dance could. Wha­te­ver song plays is for both D and the view­er to dis­cern. Per­haps it’s no song at all.

SEBASTIAN BOBIK