Swimming with Men brought synchronised swimming, male vulnerability, and the spirit of the underdog to British film. Directed by Oliver Parker, the movie is about an accountant, played by Rob Brydon, who is unhappy with his life and finds comfort and support in a group of misfit swimmers.

In this exclusive Q&A with Defiance, Oliver talks about what drew him to the story, how the real-life Swedish team influenced the movie, and why the main theme of this unusual, against-the-odds comedy was redefining success, both on screen and in life.

How did the project of Swimming with Men first come to you?

God, you know, it’s about eight years ago now that I was contacted by MetFilm, who were the producers of a documentary called ‘Men Who Swim.’ They came to me with the script, which Rob Bryden was already attached to the project, and I was a fan of his already, so that helped.

Then they sent me the documentary, and I learnt about the real story, which made a real difference to my engagement. It’s such a charming documentary. For a moment, I thought, why would we want to make a film?

What was it about the real-life Swedish team that resonated with you?

Well, I went over to Sweden to meet the team and kind of fell in love with their charm. The first thing I saw was in the changing room when they did the dry rehearsal. And it looks even more absurd when there is no water because the water covers up many of the actions.

And as people, they were very open. In some ways, the Swedish are more open than we are about gender roles and stereotypes. That fed into our story, the British character and idea, which we can play into, as we are typically not very good at sharing emotions.

Did the real-life swimmers have a direct influence on the film?

Yes, they appear in the film. In fact, they win in the film. That was a big change. The Swedes actually won in real life.

When Ash (Aschlin Ditta) was writing the original script, we thought it was too much for the Brits to win. Although it would have been true to the real story, it felt a bit too cute. It was almost more fun that they didn’t win. One of my favourite moments is when Danny Mays’ character is celebrating, “We didn’t come last.” It was a good opportunity to portray the message of redefining success.

How challenging was it to cast and train actors to perform synchronised swimming?

Originally, we thought we would need stunt swimmers or visual effects. But then we said no. We got the Swedish team’s trainer involved. A lovely and very focused woman, and she brought the moves.

Auditioning was partly about whether you could swim. Most were honest. However, one of the cast pretended he could, and we soon found out he couldn’t pretty quickly. We all had a laugh about that. We then had two or three weeks of synchronising rehearsals. At first, they were cursing me for it, but by the end, they became very proud of the fact that they had learnt the skill of synchronised swimming. It was very sweet to see these men learning to work with each other and the water.

Did that rehearsal process shape the characters too?

Very much so. The script was flexible. It adjusted to what they were able to do and how the characters started to emerge. It was a very organic process. At one point, they even thought about becoming a proper team and competing.

There’s a visual shift in the film from dull office scenes to more colourful, vibrant moments. Was that intentional to reflect the journey of Rob Brydon’s character?

Definitely, the palette was very specific. It becomes more vital as he does. One of his secret powers to the team is his interest in patterns. He is good with figures. So, he finds his superpower. It was really about the blossoming of his spirit, finding himself again, and becoming someone who could connect and collaborate.

The final competition scene feels both triumphant and comic. How did you land on that ending?

It is one of those things. We got quite mixed reviews. Some loved it; others said it was cliché. But in our mind, you have to build the tropes so you can break them. It would have been cliché had they won. You build the tension so that, even without a win, it feels like a triumph. Redefining success was the point. It is about finding what success means for each character.

The team’s characters were diverse in age and background. Did that evolve naturally?

Yes, that is what good actors and rehearsal time give you. A big backstory. You pick up just enough as the story progresses. There is Jim Carter’s character, the eldest, so unselfconscious and committed. Tom Turgoose’s character, at face value, is just a selfish criminal, but the story allows you to understand he was not a good-for-nothing criminal. He had just fallen through the net, and this team was catching him.

Danny Mays’ character was confronting failure and defying his inner thoughts with the support of the group. It was about getting the right balance of pathos and comedy.

Shooting underwater scenes must have been difficult, especially on a tight budget. How did you manage it?

That was one of the toughest variables to overcome. It wasn’t easy. But visiting Sweden reassured me. A lot of the moves are not complex, but together they are impressive. We had access to an Olympic-sized pool, which gave us great depth, and the actors were determined. We had no doubles, either. I am not sure how you would double Jim Carter.

Generally, filming in the water for days on end was tough. It got freezing at times, but the cast was incredibly uncomplaining. The budget was also a restriction; it was shot in only twenty-nine days. We did not go to Italy to film. We went to Basildon.

How do you balance staying true to a real story while creating something new?

We were not too inhibited. We were not portraying a major historical event. We could play around a bit. There were strong tent poles in the original story that we stuck to, but we allowed ourselves to improvise.

What did you want audiences to take away from Swimming with Men?

It was at a time when there was a big push for female-led roles, which was great. But this one was about putting men on the table. Not as heroes. Just as people. It affords a view into the male psyche. Vulnerabilities as strengths. People are more interested now in richer male characters with flaws and emotions. That was the point.

The underdog portrayal was a big part of the film; what does the term underdog mean to you?

To be classed as an underdog is almost a crime. Most stories involve characters trying to find out who they are, and who they are is not an underdog. We understand and empathise with the need to break that category, escape it, and overcome the odds because life is surrounded by against-the-odds challenges.

It’s very interesting how different countries and different cultures have various images of what success is. That’s the thing we all want to be able to do is to express ourselves, whether it’s physically, emotionally, or verbally.