Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#101 Post by domino harvey » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:18 pm

Ah, E Street. I don't really want to commute down to DC for a film I'm only seeing out of perverse commitment to Untitled Indie-Rock Thiller's legacy, but isn't this distroed by a company that has no idea what they're doing? I have little faith this ends up here

Self
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#102 Post by Self » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:19 pm

It's coming to Austin on 3/24. No Drafthouse, only Violet Crown

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#103 Post by knives » Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:12 pm

domino harvey wrote:Ah, E Street. I don't really want to commute down to DC for a film I'm only seeing out of perverse commitment to Untitled Indie-Rock Thiller's legacy, but isn't this distroed by a company that has no idea what they're doing? I have little faith this ends up here
If it is road Green again then yeah.

User avatar
Being
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:23 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#104 Post by Being » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:59 am

Fassbender is the highlight of this film. He steals the show.

Bérénice Marlohe and Portman are also great, though their screen time is limited.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#105 Post by Ribs » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:40 am

This, like its predecessor from Malick, has made me tear up in the theater. I know it's not for everyone, but I've really appreciated what he's done with these films and though I think it's time for him to go back to something different I'm glad he's made this trilogy where each film really does inform and enrich the others.

User avatar
All the Best People
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#106 Post by All the Best People » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:49 am

I saw this movie last Thursday; my thoughts after a few days contemplation (which largely match my immediate reaction when leaving the theater):

Song to Song:Knight of Cups::To the Wonder:The Tree of Life

I find it helpful to consider Malick's last four films in pairs: Life and Wonder about immanence, finding grace in what surrounds you, with a strong dose of the difficulties of parenthood; Cups and Song are about trying to escape a false world of illusion and deceit so as to find the truth of that surrounding grace, with a strong dose of the lack of being a parent. In both pairs, the earlier film focuses on a male protagonist while the latter concentrates on the female lead; what's more, in each of the two latter films, the female lead is the only person whose character name I could walk away from the movie knowing, and both carry thematic weight: Olga Kurylenko as "Marina" in a cinema that celebrates the redemptive power of water, Rooney Mara as "Faye", one consonant sound away from "faith".

Out of the on-screen performers, this is Mara's movie, and she fully delivers. Outside of her Fincher roles, she tends to convey shyness, nervousness, and fidgety insecurity, characteristics that all serve this character well. Gosling alternates Gosling stares with Gosling insouciance, tossing in Gosling indignation when required. Fassbender plays not literally the devil, but practically the devil -- the devil with a bit of a conscience.

It occurs to me that one source of the divisive reactions Malick's last three films (and, to a lesser extent, even The Tree of Life) have engendered is that there is such a contrast between his progressive, abstract, non-commercial style and the earnest, sincere, straightforward messages being delivered; these messages are often religious in nature, though in this film less explicitly so than in the previous three films. I wonder if the audience most susceptible to his messages is the one most unlikely to get past the presentation, and many of those open to his presentation have antipathy for the themes. His most appreciative audience might be those with a tendency toward being avant garde reactionaries, and while that not might get you very far in the marketplace, that friction only adds to the appeal for me.

Of course, there are certainly others who have tired, if they were ever on board with, the style. I do feel The Tree of Life was the apotheosis of this style, where voiceover, music, dialogue, and visuals all exchange ideas, referencing each other, forcing the viewer to pay attention and make constant connections, and observe particular persistent visual hallmarks as avatars for the ideas and themes being explored. After one viewing, I felt those sorts of connections less cohesive in this picture; usually, when I walk out of a Malick film, I see the world through his eyes for a couple of days, and that hasn't happened here. But it often takes a second viewing to really get everything he's going for, so all observations are pending further thought.

User avatar
Being
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:23 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#107 Post by Being » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:46 am

I found Mara to be the Achilles heel of this film--its weakest character, weakest performance. Simply miscast. An actress that could be more sympathetic in this role, either through a sweeter, more radiant, or more sincere natural disposition, or just better acting, would have helped to balance the film and keep the audience more invested in the Gosling-Mara love story. Gosling and Mara have almost no chemistry. As Mara is so unsympathetic, and as the audience consequently waivers in its interest in the core Gosling-Mara love story, Fassbender's character Cook has to carry more of the picture on his shoulders.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#108 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:08 am

All the Best People wrote: I wonder if the audience most susceptible to his messages is the one most unlikely to get past the presentation, and many of those open to his presentation have antipathy for the themes.
I do believe that his latest movies, while clearly needing an open mind regarding their style (narrative, notably), don’t have necessarily to be viewed through the prism of religion, especially The Tree of Life. It certainly has many religious notions, but I think the viewers can pretty much brush this off and still find many elements to reflect upon. The Tree of Life notably is a tremendous movie about forgiveness and growing up.

It varies from movie to movie, sure, but I still strongly believe they can be enjoyed without understanding or enjoying these more religious aspects, and it’s also the case for Song to Song.


All this to say that I don’t fully agree with you on this regarding people who might enjoy his latest movies. I agree with the people unlikely to get past the presentation might be the most sensitive ones regarding religious themes but I think there are much more to take in these movies than this part, which is how somebody not religious at all like me is able to enjoy The Tree of Life so much.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#109 Post by John Shade » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:04 pm

All the Best People wrote: It occurs to me that one source of the divisive reactions Malick's last three films (and, to a lesser extent, even The Tree of Life) have engendered is that there is such a contrast between his progressive, abstract, non-commercial style and the earnest, sincere, straightforward messages being delivered; these messages are often religious in nature, though in this film less explicitly so than in the previous three films. I wonder if the audience most susceptible to his messages is the one most unlikely to get past the presentation, and many of those open to his presentation have antipathy for the themes. His most appreciative audience might be those with a tendency toward being avant garde reactionaries, and while that not might get you very far in the marketplace, that friction only adds to the appeal for me.
I know some Evangelicals who like Malick's movies; he has his share of Catholic and Episcopal (I think this is his church) fans too. Sometimes these fans live in places where the movie arrives a little bit later. I wonder if Malick thinks of himself as the ultimate avante garde now: pushing themes none of his contemporaries think about let alone consider and in his own singular style. So yes, some kind of avante garde reactionary.
tenia wrote:I do believe that his latest movies, while clearly needing an open mind regarding their style (narrative, notably), don’t have necessarily to be viewed through the prism of religion, especially The Tree of Life. It certainly has many religious notions, but I think the viewers can pretty much brush this off and still find many elements to reflect upon. The Tree of Life notably is a tremendous movie about forgiveness and growing up.
I'm glad you bring this up. The Christian themes are very heavy in that film. Origin of the universe, destination of the universe, nature of grace; it also deliberately chooses certain Christian, classical pieces to add to the story. I'm not sure the blatant scenes of the afterlife can be "brushed off", though I think I see your point. Plenty of people have probably found some beauty in cathedrals and Dante's Paradise. And as you said the film offers a lot for anyone to reflect upon. There's definitely more of a richness for the more educated Christian humanist type. A great article on Malick was Alexandre Desplat talking about him as a kind of medieval monk holding all this wisdom in his memory. That being said, Malick might present these images but he's not dogmatic. I'm sure there is a Buddhist out there who enjoys this film and picks up on certain things.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#110 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:13 pm

JohnShade wrote:I'm not sure the blatant scenes of the afterlife can be "brushed off", though I think I see your point.
What I mean is that I've read a lot of things, being from journalists or people online, analysing Malick's movies (especially The Tree of Life) through the classical pieces and religious angles in a way that made them seem as if anybody who didn't know about these pieces, Heidegger etc would miss pretty much every subtext present.

I don't know anything about those and am not religious at all, but I still found a lot of things to discuss and enjoy in The Tree of Life, but also in his latest movies. I enjoyed TTW, KoC and StS less, but it just was because their main stories didn't clicked as much as The New World or The Tree of Life to me.

I just feel that Malick movies, especially his most recent ones, are often only analysed through this angle, but I do believe that you can find plenty of things in them without being religious or mastering Heidegger's writings.

Actually, in this case, you might be better off NOT knowing these stuff and finding by yourself very simple explanations for all the metaphors and imageries used by Malick.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#111 Post by John Shade » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:49 pm

I really didn't disagree with you. I guess my wording was slightly off. The afterlife scenes are important, but as you say so are the themes of parenting and growing up. I have never read Heidegger and get something out of it too--not sure Ben Affleck read it either. I also agree that the films offer something to those not just looking at the Christian themes...in some ways he picks up on the typical themes of the big '50s/'60s European films.

And though I like seeing some of these ideas on film, almost like a throwback to the great Russian writers, I am also with you on the New World, by far my favorite Malick film.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#112 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:05 pm

Oh no, don't worry, I understood where we agree but wanted to refine exactly what I meant to convey.

User avatar
All the Best People
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#113 Post by All the Best People » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:23 pm

I would certainly agree that there are universal themes at play in these films (particularly with respect to reflections on parenting), and that these can appeal to viewers not steeped in the religious or philosophical issues also at play. Not to mention the sheer beauty of the images and music, which can enthrall anyone. I do think that knowledge of the issues being explored (which doesn't have to be a belief in any religion or dogma) can enhance the experience for those "in the know", as it were. And I do wonder if there are some viewers who find themselves alienated by, for example, the 45-minute (length approximated) soliloquy Javier Bardem's character gives near the end of To the Wonder where he says "Christ above me, Christ to the side of me, Christ below me, Christ diagonal from me ..." and so forth, or maybe even Armin Mueller-Stahl showing up as a preacher for one scene in Knight of Cups to deliver the message that is through suffering that we are bound together.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#114 Post by knives » Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:31 pm

Call me contrary, but I think this is easily one of Malick's better films. It's still a mess with an intellectually dishonest ending (it mustered a giggle from me when Iggy Pop basically sums up the films thematic flaws perfectly in a scene where he complains about dumb producers) and an opening that feels unnecessary alongside being edited by someone with severe ADD. Even with those caveats though this is the most coherent narrative he's put forth since The New World and the structural experimentation feels organic to the story being told along with its themes. All four leads get to play actual characters with actual motivation and personality not fed directly through the incredibly (I mean wow) dumb voice over. We even get fairly well formed side characters like Holly Hunter's mother character and the French lesbian. Malick does some nice things playing with time, but it is too reminiscent of Donen's Two for the Road which does everything far better. Malick seems to also be trying to accomplish with Goethe what he did with Blake in The Tree of Life and though I prefer this movie he is less successful at it here coming across at times as someone who thought Werther's suicide was sexy. Speaking of Malick hilariously plays up the old man perversions here.

The one spot I will compliment the film on with no serious caveats is Portman's plotline. The introduction is gross and she sports a bad accent in that scene for no reason, but where it goes and how it goes about is wonderful with a pretty strong emotional core. Though what really carries it off is Portman herself. In general I'm not a fan of her, but she does everything right here allowing herself to get messy and confused while carrying about that core seriousness in a helpful manner that usually holds her back. I think the reception to the film would be far more positive if it cut out Gosling and Mara entirely in favour for expanding and focusing on Portman as the lead.

J Adams
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:28 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#115 Post by J Adams » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:55 am

I can only celebrate the divergent reactions to this film.

For me, "To The Wonder" is Malick's most perfect film, in that I see no false steps or poor actor choices that on occasion mar his other films. And this despite the fact that I strongly dislike Affleck--both his person and his persona. Both used well in that film.

With "Song", I had very low expectations. Why is Rooney Mara even within the realm of "good" actresses? She is generally terrible in "Song" but, still, she grew on me. I thought she was a total bore in "Carol" and merely serviceable in the Tattoo movie.

Gosling is also a problematic actor. Fine or even great in "La La Land", where his blank-faced blandness worked in context, but, here, he is nothing. But that works here, somehow. Through cinematography.

Fassbender--nada. The worst and most formulaic performance in this film.

Portman and Blanchett--RADIANT. And to clarify, you can be radiantly sad as well as happy.

Regarding the crix who call on Malick to try a different style, I say NO. I wouldn't want every movie to be like this, but I am glad that Malick is doing it. God knows how long he will be permitted to do so.

And finally, I enjoyed Tree of Life, but I think it is an in-betweener, as compared to the his previous films and last three films. The last three are groundbreaking and easily unloveable, which for me makes them more appealing. They are more stylistically coherent than Tree. Tree has the disastrous Sean Penn episodes, the frankly stupid afterlife or whatever sequence, and the egregiously pretentious and out-of-place, albeit generally entrancing, beginning of the universe sequence.

For Song, A+.
Last edited by J Adams on Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:31 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#116 Post by Black Hat » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:34 pm

I've seen this twice, but don't have time at the moment to write my thoughts properly through.

A question about people critiquing certain lines of the film, I remember after KoC Christian Bale describing how Malick uses no script on set with the actors saying whatever they wanted. What's I'm curious about is how much of the voiceover is scripted?

User avatar
All the Best People
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#117 Post by All the Best People » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:54 am

Black Hat wrote:I've seen this twice, but don't have time at the moment to write my thoughts properly through.

A question about people critiquing certain lines of the film, I remember after KoC Christian Bale describing how Malick uses no script on set with the actors saying whatever they wanted. What's I'm curious about is how much of the voiceover is scripted?
I believe the voiceover is 100% scripted, and largely during post-production. Jessica Chastain on her VO records for The Tree of Life:
In the incubation period [of the film's post-production] Chastain found herself being continually called from the sets of other movies to record more dialogue for the director. She says: "We filmed it three years ago and he always works on it. He would call me up and say, 'can you do some voice-over for me?' And he'll send me 30 pages. I'll be in London or wherever and go into a sound-booth and whisper these lines, you know, in Terrence Malick fashion, and then he would use maybe one line, maybe nothing, and he would edit, I did that maybe over 30 times."
I attended a screening of Knight of Cups that featured a post-film Q&A with some of the cast, along with Chivo, Jack Fisk, and some producers. Either Chivo or Fisk said that Malick does have a big "book" that is something like a script. I would have liked to have heard more about that; my guess is that he has a notion of what he wants to accomplish by going to various locations and putting various cast in combination with each other, or at least starting points for them. I speculate that he has some sense of an overall thematic or even dramatic arc. Whether he has some notion of the voiceover even before shooting, who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if there were some ideas, notions, phrases, and then as he starts to form the film in post he can refine what he might need in the voiceover, and scripts it and calls up the cast to contribute what is needed.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#118 Post by Ribs » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:56 am

Somehow, this is going to get a UHD disc release

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#119 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:11 am

As a pretty big Malick fan, it makes sense to max out on the visual quality of a release; it's not like anyone is buying his movies for the witty scripts.

I always find it hard to articulate my responses to Malick's films, but as with Knight of Cups, I simultaneously can totally understand the charges of self-parody and creative stagnation (and the mocking of Mara and Gosling's performances) directed at Song to Song and at the same time still find watching it an immersive, thoughtful, and resonant experience. In the end, I find myself totally willing to put up with Malick's less successful or even irritating idiosyncrasies to get a fix of the sublime moments he manages to sprinkle throughout even his lesser works.

That said, it will be fascinating to see if Radegund represents as much of a creative shift from his recent work as he and others seem to be hinting that it will be.

User avatar
htom
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:57 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#120 Post by htom » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:00 pm


User avatar
Alphonse Tram
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#121 Post by Alphonse Tram » Sat May 27, 2017 8:39 am

Paul Schrader on Facebook wrote:If you could photograph the unwanted urine which dribbles from an old man's penis you would have a film titled Song to Song..

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#122 Post by hearthesilence » Sat May 27, 2017 11:16 am

Alphonse Tram wrote:
Paul Schrader on Facebook wrote:If you could photograph the unwanted urine which dribbles from an old man's penis you would have a film titled Song to Song..
I'm a skeptic of Malick's latest work as well, but I hope Schrader's upcoming film isn't imbued with the same poetry displayed in his choice of words.

AK
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:06 am

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#123 Post by AK » Sat May 27, 2017 5:03 pm

Yet the question remains: did he like it or not?

User avatar
Cronenfly
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:04 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#124 Post by Cronenfly » Sat May 27, 2017 6:56 pm

This film is a bajillion times more enjoyable than Dog Eat Dog, so I can't say I put that much stock in what Herr Schrader has to say about it. One who also has an enlarged prostate ought not to throw the first kidney stone, or something to that effect.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017)

#125 Post by knives » Sat May 27, 2017 7:00 pm

I'll have to disagree. At least Dog Eat Dog is funny.

Post Reply