Terrence Malick is a bit of a lightning rod. You either think he's a cinematic poet or you think he's a guy who spends way too much money filming grass blowing in the wind while actors whisper about God. When Song to Song hit theaters back in 2017, it didn't exactly settle the debate. If anything, it made it weirder.
Set against the backdrop of the Austin, Texas music scene, the film is this sprawling, fragmented, and honestly kind of exhausting look at love and betrayal. It features an absolutely massive cast—Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara, Michael Fassbender, and Natalie Portman—but it treats them less like characters and more like ghosts drifting through a fever dream. If you go in expecting a standard narrative about indie rock, you’re going to be disappointed. It’s a Malick film through and through.
The Chaos of the Austin Music Scene
Malick didn't just build sets for Song to Song. He dragged his crew and A-list stars into the middle of actual festivals like ACL (Austin City Limits) and SXSW. There’s footage of Rooney Mara actually playing guitar on stage with Black Lips. You see Ryan Gosling wandering through real crowds. It gives the movie this raw, documentary-like energy that clashes with the polished, hyper-stylized cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki.
Lubezki, often called "Chivo," uses his signature wide-angle lenses and natural light here. It makes everything look beautiful but also slightly distorted. It feels like you’re standing too close to someone’s face. The camera is constantly moving, circling the actors, catching glimpses of Patti Smith or Iggy Pop just hanging out in the background. These cameos aren't highlighted with big "hey look who it is" moments; they just exist within the world, adding a layer of authenticity to the otherwise dreamlike atmosphere.
A Plot That Refuses to Be a Plot
So, what is it actually about? Honestly, it’s a love square. Faye (Mara) is an aspiring songwriter involved with a powerful, somewhat predatory music mogul named Cook (Fassbender). She then falls for BV (Gosling), a struggling musician Cook is also "helping." Then Natalie Portman shows up as a waitress who gets pulled into Cook’s orbit.
🔗 Read more: Drunk on You Lyrics: What Luke Bryan Fans Still Get Wrong
It sounds like a soap opera.
On paper, it’s a standard drama about the industry. But Malick edits it into smithereens. Scenes last for seconds. Dialogue is often replaced by voiceover monologues where characters ask things like, "How did I get here?" or "Where is the light?" It’s a style Malick perfected in The Tree of Life, but here, applied to modern rock stars and high-rise condos, it feels more abrasive. Some critics, like Peter Travers, found it mesmerizing. Others felt it was the moment Malick’s style finally ate its own tail.
Why the Production Was a Total Nightmare (For Some)
Making a Terrence Malick movie is famously unpredictable. Christian Bale, who worked with him on The New World and Knight of Cups, once joked about not knowing if he was even in the movie until he saw the premiere. Song to Song was no different.
The film was shot under the working title Weightless. The first cut was reportedly nearly eight hours long. Think about that. Actors like Val Kilmer, Holly Hunter, and Benicio del Toro filmed scenes that were either cut down to nothing or heavily altered. Kilmer famously showed up on stage at a festival, cut off a lock of his hair with a knife, and smashed a guitar. In the final film, it’s a fleeting moment.
💡 You might also like: Dragon Ball All Series: Why We Are Still Obsessed Forty Years Later
For the actors, it’s a test of ego. You aren't the star; the "vibe" is the star. Michael Fassbender is terrifying in this. He plays Cook with this oily, restless energy that feels genuinely dangerous. He's the anchor in a movie that otherwise feels like it might float away.
The Sound and the Fury
The music in Song to Song is less about "hits" and more about the texture of being a musician. You hear snippets of Die Antwoord, Bob Dylan, and Lykke Li. It’s a collage.
Most people don't realize how much the film relies on the editing room to create its rhythm. It took years to edit. Years. Malick and his team of editors—sometimes five or six people deep—carved the story out of hundreds of hours of improvisational footage. This isn't "writing"; it's sculpting. If you hate the movie, you probably hate the editing. If you love it, you love the flow. It’s rhythmic. It’s like jazz, but with movie stars.
Dealing With the Critics
When it dropped, the reviews were... messy. It holds around a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s low for a guy who made The Thin Red Line. But the "Top Critics" are split down the middle.
📖 Related: Down On Me: Why This Janis Joplin Classic Still Hits So Hard
- The Pro-Malick Camp: They argue that he’s the only one capturing what it actually feels like to be alive and confused. They love the visual language.
- The Anti-Malick Camp: They argue he’s become a parody of himself. Too many shots of hands touching tall grass. Too much whispering.
The truth is probably in the middle. Song to Song is a movie about the hollowness of success. It uses beautiful people to show how ugly and empty the "dream" can be. It’s a critique of the very world it’s filming.
What You Should Do If You Want to Watch It
Don't try to follow the "story" in the traditional sense. You'll just get annoyed. If you try to map out exactly when every betrayal happens, you’ll lose the thread because Malick doesn't care about linear time.
Instead, treat it like an album.
Turn off your phone. Dim the lights. Look at it as a series of movements. It’s a sensory experience. If you’re a fan of Rooney Mara or Ryan Gosling, it’s worth watching just to see them work in such a weird, loose environment. They are doing a lot of physical acting here—touching, glancing, moving—because they don't have a traditional script to lean on.
Actionable Steps for the Curious Viewer
If you’re ready to tackle this film or want to understand why it occupies such a weird space in cinema history, here is how to approach it:
- Watch "The Tree of Life" first. If you can’t stand that, you won't survive Song to Song. It’s the gateway drug to late-period Malick.
- Look for the cameos. Part of the fun is spotting musicians like Flea, Florence Welch, and Tegan and Sara in the background. It’s a "who’s who" of 2012-2015 indie music culture.
- Pay attention to the architecture. The film spends a lot of time in cold, modern mansions. Contrast that with the messy, dirty festival grounds. That visual divide is the whole point of the movie.
- Listen to the Patti Smith scenes. Her interactions with Rooney Mara are some of the only moments that feel grounded and truly human. She acts as a sort of spiritual North Star for the characters.
- Check out the cinematography tutorials. If you’re a film nerd, look up how Lubezki shot this. He used a very specific rig to allow for those floating, spontaneous movements that define the "Malick Look."
Ultimately, Song to Song isn't a movie you "get." It's a movie you feel. Or you don't. And honestly, both reactions are totally valid. It remains one of the most polarizing entries in modern American cinema because it refuses to play by any of the rules we usually use to judge a "good" movie.