Review of Song to Song (2017) by Rowan M — 11 Mar 2017

The narrative in "Song to Song" is hard to follow because scenes jump from one setting to the next, to the next, endlessly, without any means to know where we are or even why we're there. Ridiculous choreographed moments between the male and female leads supposedly show us how their relationships develop and die, but just make this two-hour long film seem interminable.

The essence of the plot seems to be to show how the indy music scene has high rollers (Fassbinder) who can get women to accommodate them (Mara, Portman), who can manipulate men (Gosling), who live in fancy high-rise apartments and who have expensive toys (yachts, planes), all set in Austin, because, you know, Austin! It's soooo indy! Don't you get it?

It takes a long time to get used to a character's dialog starting in one setting, continuing in another, and sometimes ending in a third, all for no apparent reason. A scene can start at a gas station then cut to the bats flying out from the Congress Avenue Bridge, then cut to playtime at Lake Austin. We don't know how we got there. We don't know why we're there. But don't worry, we'll be leaving with a cut to waves crashing at the Yucatán before long. Then we'll be under a bridge or back at the gas station. (Oddly, to show these places as examples of the indy music scene of Austin seems like a slap in the face to the city.).

The camera work has a lot of hand-held movement that can get repetitive. Many times the camera pushes in on a character's face from medium to close-up to force an intimacy that just isn't there. Gosling's character tries to stay true to his music while constantly jerked around by Fassbender's "I'm a mogul and you're not" persona.

One of the actors at its SXSW premiere said Malick ceaselessly loaded film into the camera and the endless set-ups and locations demonstrate this. Another actor (I'm not saying who said what on purpose) made a reference to Malick continuously rewriting as the production progressed...a sure indication he really didn't have a clear direction in mind. But hey, it's Terence Malick! It's "experimental" so questioning its style and narrative flow makes you look clueless. (Plus, now that Gosling is famous from La La Land you can see him again in this experiment shot five years previously.).

If you like innovative editing, you'll enjoy how dialog and settings morph from one to the next, but who knows which of the five (yes, five!) editors credited is responsible for its editing style?

It does have a flow that exists independently of the brilliant A-list actors that can draw you in but none of the relationships have any staying power across the endless scene changes. That's because we're going from "Song to Song" with no connection. The scenes and the people are disconnected, so you're supposed to feel their disconnect. And I did!