Insecurity has nothing to do with it, so I don’t know why you’d think that. I’m not threatened by Coppola’s (monotone) taste or her underwhelming picks. Perhaps it was my pointed analysis that made you feel “insecure” enough to respond?

Anyhow, there’s a saying that “if you have to tell everyone that you’re a lady, you aren’t.” I think of Coppola in the same regard to her being a filmmaker. If she was really as smart as her and her brother like to think they are, we’d see it up on the screen instead of reading about in the trade press.

While I enjoy “Under the Skin” myself, I can be honest enough to admit that it’s an usual, esoteric, and (by the director’s own admission) an incomplete film. It’s a strange, pretty peculiarity, but nowhere among the best films of this century.

I can also appreciate “The White Ribbon” for what is it. Bravo!

However, when paired alongside “Daddy’s Home” and “Fish Tank”, Coppola betrays her credibility, presenting herself as a prepubescent sipping on strong coffee to impress a desperate image of maturity. No, she really isn’t that smart…

And “Ida” is more anti-Christian tripe!

lol don’t be so insecure

“the white ribbon” won the golden palm at Cannes and is widely considered one of haneke’s best films. “under the skin” has been a cult film ever since it came out and is a staple in any of these kinds of lists. “ida” is a more mainstream choice than either of those two.

i’m not saying that you’re not allowed to dislike these films but maybe certain type of cinema is not for you; don’t imagine a vast critical conspiracy where people pretend to like “boring” movies just to feel smart.

The way I see it is if someone picks the films they are expected to pick then they aren’t really thinking for themselves. Also, I am not sure how you can say nothing happens in White Ribbon, Ida or Under the Skin. A lot happens, just not at the pace of a mainstream superhero movie. They leave time for viewers to be immersed in character development and a slowly unraveling story not overwhelmed with fast edits and narrative twists. If you like Lost in Translation you have to admit it’s much like those films in pacing. The key is if the audience is engaged. If not, then, yes, they seem ponderous. Personally I like Ida and Lost in Translation and Under the Skin. But not for the same reasons I like There Will be Blood or Inception.

Genre picks like “Inception” are both intellectually stimulating and good fun, while “No Country For Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood” (filmed at the same time in the same town in Texas) are absolute cinematic Masterpieces of this century.

Meanwhile, “Children of Men” has only become incrementally more relevant with each passing year, especially for European audiences now suffering a proportional influx of migrants and terrorist attacks!

That’s just part-and-parcel to her hipster, contrarian shtick. There’s a recurring theme that runs through all of her picks, which are dysfunctional characters standing apart or against the world. In other words, “look at me, I’m weird and different and that makes me special!”

When she’s asked to name the Best Films of the 21st- Century and she picks a seasonal comedy like “Daddy’s Home” and virtually silent foreign films where practically nothing happens — like “The White Ribbon”, “Under the Skin”, and “Ida” — I’m reminded again that Sofia remains under the self-imposed definition that her “motion photography” is cinema.

Which is sad, because “Lost in Translation” belongs on this “Best Films” list, even though that film wasn’t entirely exempt of her favorite visuals — lonesome, emoting figures drifting through their environment, silently contemplating unspoken thoughts against a Synth-pop soundtrack.

Sigh.