WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.899 Welcome to the Deep Dive. We dig through a mountain 00:00:02.899 --> 00:00:05.759 of sources to pull out the absolute best insights 00:00:05.759 --> 00:00:09.080 for you. Yep, distilling it all down. And today, 00:00:09.259 --> 00:00:12.619 we've got quite a mission. We're looking at Sofia 00:00:12.619 --> 00:00:16.920 Carmina Coppola, a filmmaker whose whole story 00:00:16.920 --> 00:00:20.679 seems built on, well, a paradox. It really is. 00:00:20.839 --> 00:00:24.019 How do you go from being... frankly, slammed 00:00:24.019 --> 00:00:27.280 for nepotism, some really public criticism. Incredibly 00:00:27.280 --> 00:00:29.920 public. To then becoming this really acclaimed, 00:00:29.980 --> 00:00:32.979 very distinct directorial voice. It's fascinating. 00:00:33.079 --> 00:00:35.640 It really is. And that's our goal here, to give 00:00:35.640 --> 00:00:38.420 you the shortcut to understanding how she did 00:00:38.420 --> 00:00:41.039 it, how she navigated that whole Hollywood royalty 00:00:41.039 --> 00:00:44.020 thing to carve out her own space. A space that's 00:00:44.020 --> 00:00:46.439 really defined by certain themes, right? Isolation, 00:00:46.600 --> 00:00:48.939 femininity, confinement. These ideas keep coming 00:00:48.939 --> 00:00:50.740 back. Absolutely. And you can't ignore the legacy. 00:00:50.899 --> 00:00:52.579 It's huge. We're talking multi - generational 00:00:52.579 --> 00:00:54.820 Oscars here. That's the big nugget, isn't it? 00:00:54.820 --> 00:00:57.679 Third generation. Her grandfather, Carmine Coppola, 00:00:57.700 --> 00:01:00.159 won. Her father, Francis Ford Coppola, obviously 00:01:00.159 --> 00:01:02.679 won. And then she wins. That's history right 00:01:02.679 --> 00:01:04.799 there. And not just family history. She's genuinely 00:01:04.799 --> 00:01:07.200 a trailblazer for women in film. Definitely. 00:01:07.400 --> 00:01:10.000 She was only the third woman ever nominated for 00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:12.219 Best Director at the Oscars. After Lena Vert 00:01:12.219 --> 00:01:14.680 Miller and Jane Campion, that's some serious 00:01:14.680 --> 00:01:17.480 company. And the second woman to win Best Director 00:01:17.480 --> 00:01:21.870 at Cannes. That's a huge deal. Huge. So she's 00:01:21.870 --> 00:01:24.549 got this massive pedigree, but also these significant 00:01:24.549 --> 00:01:27.769 firsts for female directors. And she wears so 00:01:27.769 --> 00:01:30.939 many hats. Director, obviously. Screenwriter, 00:01:31.040 --> 00:01:32.680 producer. Actress, too, which we'll definitely 00:01:32.680 --> 00:01:35.480 get into. We will. But also fashion entrepreneur, 00:01:36.019 --> 00:01:38.280 photographer. These aren't just, you know, side 00:01:38.280 --> 00:01:40.400 interests. No, they're absolutely woven into 00:01:40.400 --> 00:01:42.819 her work, into that specific visual style she 00:01:42.819 --> 00:01:45.579 has. It all feeds in. So a career really built 00:01:45.579 --> 00:01:48.859 on dealing with intense scrutiny right from the 00:01:48.859 --> 00:01:51.379 very beginning. Literally from birth. Okay, so 00:01:51.379 --> 00:01:53.180 let's unpack this family tree because it's a 00:01:53.180 --> 00:01:57.239 lot. Born May 14, 1971 in New York. Yep, youngest 00:01:57.239 --> 00:01:59.579 child of Eleanor. Neil, the documentarian, and 00:01:59.579 --> 00:02:01.959 Francis Ford Coppola. The shadow of Francis is 00:02:01.959 --> 00:02:03.859 huge, obviously, but it's bigger than just him. 00:02:03.959 --> 00:02:06.560 Oh, way bigger. The whole family is incredibly 00:02:06.560 --> 00:02:10.000 creative, almost overwhelmingly so. Her brothers, 00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:12.819 Roman Coppola, also a director. Non -Talia Sher. 00:02:13.060 --> 00:02:15.419 Cousin Nicholas Cage, who has had his own share 00:02:15.419 --> 00:02:18.439 of... intense scrutiny, right? For sure. And 00:02:18.439 --> 00:02:20.819 cousin Jason Schwartzman, who she ends up casting 00:02:20.819 --> 00:02:23.159 quite a bit. Right. So she grew up in this like 00:02:23.159 --> 00:02:26.319 creative ecosystem, mostly on the family farm, 00:02:26.520 --> 00:02:28.360 Rutherford, California. And it's interesting, 00:02:28.500 --> 00:02:31.780 film wasn't her first passion. No, not at all. 00:02:31.860 --> 00:02:34.099 She was into all sorts of things, music, photography, 00:02:34.360 --> 00:02:38.139 design, but especially fashion. And this fashion 00:02:38.139 --> 00:02:40.770 interest is key, you think? It explains a lot 00:02:40.770 --> 00:02:42.750 about her later films. I think absolutely. It 00:02:42.750 --> 00:02:44.669 wasn't just a passing thing. She interned with 00:02:44.669 --> 00:02:48.009 Chanel when she was only 15. Wow, 15. Yeah. And 00:02:48.009 --> 00:02:50.069 studied painting for a bit at Cal Arts in the 00:02:50.069 --> 00:02:53.750 early 90s. Then, crucially, she starts a clothing 00:02:53.750 --> 00:02:56.530 line after leaving college. Right, Milk Fed. 00:02:56.669 --> 00:02:59.229 Milk Fed. Still going, sold only in Japan now. 00:02:59.469 --> 00:03:02.289 But that focus, that deep interest in clothes, 00:03:02.389 --> 00:03:05.900 texture, color, it's been there for years. It's 00:03:05.900 --> 00:03:07.960 not an accident that her films look the way they 00:03:07.960 --> 00:03:09.900 do. That makes sense. That careful aesthetic 00:03:09.900 --> 00:03:12.620 eye was developed early. Exactly. But before 00:03:12.620 --> 00:03:15.159 she was known for her eye, the world knew her 00:03:15.159 --> 00:03:17.460 as an actor. And this is where, well, the difficult 00:03:17.460 --> 00:03:21.259 part starts. Her acting career, roughly 72 to 00:03:21.259 --> 00:03:25.879 99. And it was just dogged by cries of nepotism. 00:03:26.020 --> 00:03:27.900 Constantly. I mean, her very first appearance 00:03:27.900 --> 00:03:31.219 was as the baby, Michael Francis Rizzi, in the 00:03:31.219 --> 00:03:34.240 baptism scene in The Godfather. Uncredited. But 00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:36.560 still. Talk about being born into it. Literally. 00:03:36.659 --> 00:03:38.960 And she popped up in the background of, what, 00:03:39.020 --> 00:03:41.080 eight of her dad's films? But she did try to 00:03:41.080 --> 00:03:43.180 step outside that shadow, didn't she? With a 00:03:43.180 --> 00:03:45.340 stage name? Yeah, briefly. She used the name 00:03:45.340 --> 00:03:48.240 Domino for a part in Tim Burton's short Frankenweenie 00:03:48.240 --> 00:03:52.219 back in 84. Domino. Why Domino? Apparently, she 00:03:52.219 --> 00:03:54.819 just thought it sounded glamorous. And, you know, 00:03:54.879 --> 00:03:57.340 it wasn't Coppola. An early attempt to carve 00:03:57.340 --> 00:03:59.319 out her own identity. But the family connection, 00:03:59.500 --> 00:04:02.080 the Coppola name, it pulled her back in. Pulled 00:04:02.080 --> 00:04:04.259 her right back into the fire, really. Which leads 00:04:04.259 --> 00:04:06.860 us to the big one. Mary Corleone in The Godfather 00:04:06.860 --> 00:04:10.080 Part 3, 1990. Okay, let's really dig into this 00:04:10.080 --> 00:04:11.900 because it feels so formative for everything 00:04:11.900 --> 00:04:14.500 that came later. It absolutely was. So the story 00:04:14.500 --> 00:04:17.220 goes, Winona Ryder drops out right before filming. 00:04:17.740 --> 00:04:20.199 Nervous exhaustion, apparently. And Sophia gets 00:04:20.199 --> 00:04:24.060 cast like super last minute. Days before shooting, 00:04:24.199 --> 00:04:27.800 reportedly. And the reaction was immediate. And 00:04:27.800 --> 00:04:31.600 pretty vicious. Vicious is the word. Critics 00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:34.519 just tore into the performance, said it was weak, 00:04:34.680 --> 00:04:37.740 out of place. A massive distraction in what was 00:04:37.740 --> 00:04:40.519 meant to be this epic conclusion. Some reviews 00:04:40.519 --> 00:04:43.100 were brutal, suggesting she actually damaged 00:04:43.100 --> 00:04:46.379 her father's film, his legacy even. And definitely 00:04:46.379 --> 00:04:48.639 damaged her own career before it had even really 00:04:48.639 --> 00:04:51.339 started. Unequivocally. And the public shaming 00:04:51.339 --> 00:04:54.720 aspect was intense. Those Golden Raspberry Awards. 00:04:54.740 --> 00:04:57.050 The Razzies. Yeah, she won worst. supporting 00:04:57.050 --> 00:05:00.649 actress. And worst new star for the same role. 00:05:00.930 --> 00:05:04.329 Ouch. At 19 years old with that name. That's 00:05:04.329 --> 00:05:06.569 a defining kind of public humiliation. It really 00:05:06.569 --> 00:05:09.009 is. But here's the crucial part, the insight 00:05:09.009 --> 00:05:11.509 that connects to her directing career, her reaction 00:05:11.509 --> 00:05:14.079 to all this. What did she say about it? Essentially 00:05:14.079 --> 00:05:16.180 that it didn't really hurt her that much personally 00:05:16.180 --> 00:05:17.959 because she never actually wanted to be an actress 00:05:17.959 --> 00:05:20.379 in the first place. Really? Yeah. She said she 00:05:20.379 --> 00:05:23.019 only did it as a favor to her dad to help him 00:05:23.019 --> 00:05:25.100 out when Ryder dropped out so the failure wasn't 00:05:25.100 --> 00:05:27.540 tied to her own ambition, her own passion. Hmm. 00:05:27.720 --> 00:05:30.160 Okay. So it wasn't like her dream was crushed. 00:05:30.360 --> 00:05:33.500 It was more like she learned a lesson about being 00:05:33.500 --> 00:05:36.060 in the spotlight without control. Exactly. The 00:05:36.060 --> 00:05:38.399 cost of being watched, judged when you don't 00:05:38.399 --> 00:05:40.769 even want to be on that stage. So she retreated. 00:05:40.790 --> 00:05:43.110 Makes sense. She pretty much stopped acting after 00:05:43.110 --> 00:05:45.870 that, right? Almost entirely. There were a few 00:05:45.870 --> 00:05:50.170 things later, like a tiny cameo sachet in Star 00:05:50.170 --> 00:05:53.490 Wars Episode I. Oh, yeah. I don't remember that. 00:05:53.670 --> 00:05:55.589 Well, crucially, she's silent and kind of hidden 00:05:55.589 --> 00:05:59.029 by the costume and makeup. Very different from 00:05:59.029 --> 00:06:01.699 Mary Corleone. Right. staying out of the direct 00:06:01.699 --> 00:06:04.000 spotlight. And she popped up in some big music 00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:07.000 videos in the 90s, Madonna, Chemical Brothers, 00:06:07.339 --> 00:06:10.779 Sonic Youth. So she stayed in the visual world, 00:06:10.879 --> 00:06:13.259 the collaborative world. But not performing, 00:06:13.379 --> 00:06:16.620 not the center of attention in that same vulnerable 00:06:16.620 --> 00:06:19.480 way. Precisely. Setting the stage really for 00:06:19.480 --> 00:06:21.879 becoming the one behind the camera, the one in 00:06:21.879 --> 00:06:24.620 control of the frame, the auteur emerges. So 00:06:24.620 --> 00:06:26.579 yeah, the move to directing wasn't some grand 00:06:26.579 --> 00:06:28.879 plan from the start. She kind of fell into it. 00:06:29.079 --> 00:06:31.240 Sort of stumbled upon it, yeah. She'd resisted 00:06:31.240 --> 00:06:33.720 the whole family filmmaking thing. But then she 00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:36.620 made her first short film, Lick the Star, in 00:06:36.620 --> 00:06:39.319 98. And that clicked for her. Big time. She said 00:06:39.319 --> 00:06:41.300 it was like, oh, this brings everything together. 00:06:41.339 --> 00:06:43.279 All the things she loved, photography, design, 00:06:43.420 --> 00:06:46.100 music, telling a story. It gave her control. 00:06:46.319 --> 00:06:48.819 Control she didn't have as Mary Corleone. Exactly. 00:06:49.470 --> 00:06:52.029 Which leads right into her first feature, The 00:06:52.029 --> 00:06:54.870 Virgin Suicides, 1999. And you can immediately 00:06:54.870 --> 00:06:57.149 see her style forming. Yeah, that atmospheric 00:06:57.149 --> 00:06:59.629 quality. Yeah. Focusing on the girl's inner lives. 00:06:59.750 --> 00:07:02.689 Not so much on a driving plot. Totally. She found 00:07:02.689 --> 00:07:05.709 Jeffrey Eugenides' novel back in 95 and really 00:07:05.709 --> 00:07:07.769 connected with it. And think about the theme. 00:07:08.089 --> 00:07:11.029 These five sisters trapped in their suburban 00:07:11.029 --> 00:07:13.569 house. Isolated. Watched by everyone. Right. 00:07:13.689 --> 00:07:15.709 Watched by the neighborhood boys who see them 00:07:15.709 --> 00:07:18.750 as these mysterious objects. It's a direct echo 00:07:18.750 --> 00:07:21.709 of her godfather experience, isn't it? Trapped 00:07:21.709 --> 00:07:25.060 by circumstance. Scrutinized. Wow. Yeah. The 00:07:25.060 --> 00:07:27.639 parallels are strong. She felt Eugenides really 00:07:27.639 --> 00:07:30.439 captured that teenage feeling, that sort of lazing 00:07:30.439 --> 00:07:33.579 around the boredom and ennui, which wasn't often 00:07:33.579 --> 00:07:35.800 shown realistically. And there was a personal 00:07:35.800 --> 00:07:38.480 connection too, right? About loss. Yeah. She 00:07:38.480 --> 00:07:40.620 mentioned later that the theme of loss resonated 00:07:40.620 --> 00:07:43.500 because of her older brother, Jimon Carlo, who 00:07:43.500 --> 00:07:46.680 died in a boating accident in 86. She felt she 00:07:46.680 --> 00:07:49.240 was processing some of that grief through the 00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:51.819 film, maybe without fully realizing it at the 00:07:51.819 --> 00:07:54.550 time. So the film comes out, premieres at Sundance. 00:07:54.670 --> 00:07:56.750 Gets really good reviews. It's her first time 00:07:56.750 --> 00:07:59.209 working with Kirsten Dunst, which becomes a key 00:07:59.209 --> 00:08:02.009 collaboration. And critically, it establishes 00:08:02.009 --> 00:08:04.730 her as a director separate from the Coppola legacy. 00:08:04.949 --> 00:08:07.709 She actually credits the film's premiere at Cannes 00:08:07.709 --> 00:08:11.129 specifically as the real launch pad for her career. 00:08:11.329 --> 00:08:13.850 That acceptance there meant something. Okay, 00:08:13.889 --> 00:08:16.610 so Virgin Suicides at the Arrival, then Lost 00:08:16.610 --> 00:08:19.750 in Translation in 2003. That's the stratosphere. 00:08:19.850 --> 00:08:22.740 Oh yeah, commercial hit. Critical Darling Oscars. 00:08:22.740 --> 00:08:25.360 It was huge. It cemented her place. And the way 00:08:25.360 --> 00:08:27.420 it was made is almost as famous as the film itself. 00:08:27.740 --> 00:08:30.560 Not a typical big production. Not at all. It 00:08:30.560 --> 00:08:33.539 was super low budget, shot incredibly fast, just 00:08:33.539 --> 00:08:37.620 27 days. 27 days. Wow. Tiny crew, very nimble, 00:08:37.620 --> 00:08:40.440 almost guerrilla style filmmaking in Tokyo. What 00:08:40.440 --> 00:08:42.529 do you mean by guerrilla style? Like shooting 00:08:42.529 --> 00:08:45.370 without permits sometimes, grabbing shots on 00:08:45.370 --> 00:08:47.970 the street, using the hotel corridors at the 00:08:47.970 --> 00:08:50.330 Park Hyatt really late at night, like 2 or 3 00:08:50.330 --> 00:08:54.039 a .m., to avoid bothering anyone. Does that impact 00:08:54.039 --> 00:08:56.460 the feel of the film, shooting like that? Absolutely. 00:08:56.500 --> 00:08:59.039 That lack of formal structure, the speed, it 00:08:59.039 --> 00:09:01.559 feeds into the film's whole vibe, that spontaneous, 00:09:01.899 --> 00:09:05.100 fleeting, intimate feeling. It helps capture 00:09:05.100 --> 00:09:07.100 that connection between Bob and Charlotte, like 00:09:07.100 --> 00:09:09.299 you're just catching these private moments. Yeah, 00:09:09.340 --> 00:09:12.120 it feels very real, very immediate. A bigger, 00:09:12.179 --> 00:09:14.220 more structured production might have lost that 00:09:14.220 --> 00:09:17.240 magic. And then came the awards. Historic stuff. 00:09:17.419 --> 00:09:20.000 Totally historic. She wins the Oscar for Best 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:23.240 Original Screenplay. And boom, there it is. Third 00:09:23.240 --> 00:09:26.399 generation Coppola Oscar winner. The narrative 00:09:26.399 --> 00:09:28.559 comes full circle. But it wasn't just the screenplay 00:09:28.559 --> 00:09:30.940 win. The nominations were huge, too. Massive. 00:09:30.960 --> 00:09:33.860 Third woman ever nominated for Best Director. 00:09:34.360 --> 00:09:37.419 Puts her alongside Burt Miller and Campion. Pioneers. 00:09:37.500 --> 00:09:39.679 And she was nominated for three Oscars that night. 00:09:39.799 --> 00:09:43.659 Yep. Picture, director, and screenplay. Only 00:09:43.659 --> 00:09:45.659 the second woman ever to get those three in one 00:09:45.659 --> 00:09:48.039 night, after Edith Head, the costume designer. 00:09:48.279 --> 00:09:50.720 That speaks volumes about her control over the 00:09:50.720 --> 00:09:53.100 whole project. And the themes just resonated, 00:09:53.179 --> 00:09:56.220 didn't they? Loneliness, connection, being adrift 00:09:56.220 --> 00:09:58.840 in this foreign place. Wealth, too. That specific 00:09:58.840 --> 00:10:02.519 kind of privileged isolation. Set against Tokyo, 00:10:02.779 --> 00:10:04.879 which became almost another character. But that 00:10:04.879 --> 00:10:07.139 depiction of Tokyo also stirred up some trouble. 00:10:07.720 --> 00:10:10.250 Controversy seems to follow her work. It does. 00:10:10.629 --> 00:10:13.389 Despite all the praise, groups like the Asian 00:10:13.389 --> 00:10:16.429 Media Watch group really pushed back. They argued 00:10:16.429 --> 00:10:19.509 the film just used Japan as this, like, exotic 00:10:19.509 --> 00:10:22.129 and bizarre landscape for the Americans. That 00:10:22.129 --> 00:10:24.070 the Japanese characters weren't well -developed, 00:10:24.070 --> 00:10:26.710 perpetuating stereotypes. That was the claim. 00:10:26.850 --> 00:10:29.129 They even lobbied against its Oscar nominations 00:10:29.129 --> 00:10:31.529 because of it, saying it lacked meaningful Japanese 00:10:31.529 --> 00:10:33.889 roles. So she had to respond to that, defend 00:10:33.889 --> 00:10:36.330 the film. Yeah, she did. She insisted she wasn't 00:10:36.330 --> 00:10:38.730 racist, that she loved Tokyo, and the details 00:10:38.730 --> 00:10:41.159 she... included, like the confusion over R's 00:10:41.159 --> 00:10:43.860 and L's on call sheets came from her own experiences 00:10:43.860 --> 00:10:47.299 there. So based on truth, not stereotypes in 00:10:47.299 --> 00:10:49.220 her view. Right. She said something like if it's 00:10:49.220 --> 00:10:51.779 based on truth, you can make fun, have a little 00:10:51.779 --> 00:10:54.720 laugh, but also be respectful. But the fact she 00:10:54.720 --> 00:10:57.240 had to defend it. shows that scrutiny, especially 00:10:57.240 --> 00:10:59.200 when you're dealing with culture clashes and 00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:01.539 privileged perspectives. Okay, so after that 00:11:01.539 --> 00:11:04.620 huge modern success with Lost in Translation, 00:11:04.799 --> 00:11:07.960 she makes a big jump back in time for Marie Antoinette 00:11:07.960 --> 00:11:11.639 in 2006. A huge jump, adapting Antonia Fraser's 00:11:11.639 --> 00:11:13.919 biography, shooting on location at Versailles. 00:11:14.019 --> 00:11:16.379 I mean, talk about opulence. It looked incredible, 00:11:16.500 --> 00:11:19.860 but the style was controversial, especially the 00:11:19.860 --> 00:11:22.759 music. Oh, definitely provocative. casting Kirsten 00:11:22.759 --> 00:11:25.419 Dunst again, her cousin Jason Schwartzman. But 00:11:25.419 --> 00:11:27.840 yeah, the music was the big talking point, using 00:11:27.840 --> 00:11:31.019 70s and 80s new wave and post -punk. Like the 00:11:31.019 --> 00:11:34.279 curé Susie and the Banshees in 18th century France. 00:11:34.419 --> 00:11:36.860 Exactly. That clash is intentional. There's a 00:11:36.860 --> 00:11:39.500 term critics sometimes use for this film, ironic 00:11:39.500 --> 00:11:42.299 torsion. Okay, unpack that for us. Ironic torsion. 00:11:42.340 --> 00:11:45.059 It just means twisting together two contrasting 00:11:45.059 --> 00:11:47.600 things to create a new meaning or feeling. Here 00:11:47.600 --> 00:11:49.659 you have the rigid historical setting of the 00:11:49.659 --> 00:11:52.360 French court. Right. Super formal. Twisted together 00:11:52.360 --> 00:11:55.759 with this modern, angsty, rebellious soundtrack. 00:11:56.700 --> 00:12:00.250 So... Copley uses 80s new wave to get inside 00:12:00.250 --> 00:12:03.889 Marie Antoinette's head. It turns her from just 00:12:03.889 --> 00:12:07.429 a historical figure into like a trapped teenager. 00:12:07.980 --> 00:12:10.600 So the music shows her inner life, her boredom, 00:12:10.600 --> 00:12:13.320 her isolation. Precisely. It's a psychological 00:12:13.320 --> 00:12:16.139 portrait, not a history lesson. Coppola said 00:12:16.139 --> 00:12:19.279 she saw her as this innocent whose life unfolds 00:12:19.279 --> 00:12:22.220 like a pampered zoo animal. It's about that feeling 00:12:22.220 --> 00:12:24.919 of confinement, which resonates across centuries. 00:12:25.179 --> 00:12:26.919 And the reaction was pretty split, wasn't it? 00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:29.659 Fiercely split. It got booed at Cannes, but it 00:12:29.659 --> 00:12:31.639 also got a standing ovation at the same festival. 00:12:32.159 --> 00:12:33.940 polarizing from the start but it's found its 00:12:33.940 --> 00:12:36.159 audience since then oh yeah total cult following 00:12:36.159 --> 00:12:38.779 now people really appreciate its visual boldness 00:12:38.779 --> 00:12:41.000 and that unique perspective then she comes back 00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:44.480 to the present day sort of with somewhere in 00:12:44.480 --> 00:12:47.460 2010 back to that theme of isolation but in modern 00:12:47.460 --> 00:12:49.919 hollywood yep set and filmed at the chateau marmont 00:12:49.919 --> 00:12:52.700 that legendary hotel okay about this famous actor 00:12:52.700 --> 00:12:54.580 kind of empty inside suddenly having to look 00:12:54.580 --> 00:12:56.379 after his young daughter and this one felt pretty 00:12:56.379 --> 00:12:58.580 personal right based on her own relationship 00:12:58.580 --> 00:13:01.429 with her father loosely yeah She acknowledged 00:13:01.429 --> 00:13:03.669 that connection. It's exploring that emptiness 00:13:03.669 --> 00:13:06.730 that can come with fame and privilege, a recurring 00:13:06.730 --> 00:13:08.950 theme for her. And it was really well received 00:13:08.950 --> 00:13:11.429 critically. It won the Golden Lion at Venice. 00:13:11.730 --> 00:13:14.649 The top prize. Made her the first American woman 00:13:14.649 --> 00:13:17.230 to win it. Quentin Tarantino was head of the 00:13:17.230 --> 00:13:19.389 jury. Right. I remember that. He said it kind 00:13:19.389 --> 00:13:21.169 of grew on them. Yeah, something like it grew 00:13:21.169 --> 00:13:24.629 and grew in our hearts and our minds. Suggests 00:13:24.629 --> 00:13:27.639 it's a subtle film. Takes time to sink in. But 00:13:27.639 --> 00:13:29.820 does that closeness to her own life, that focus 00:13:29.820 --> 00:13:33.779 on Hollywood privilege, risk feeling a bit navel 00:13:33.779 --> 00:13:36.460 -gazing? Or does it give her the authority to 00:13:36.460 --> 00:13:38.639 critique it? That's the constant tension, isn't 00:13:38.639 --> 00:13:41.080 it? It's a tightrope she walks. Which brings 00:13:41.080 --> 00:13:45.019 us neatly to the bling ring in 2013. Okay, total 00:13:45.019 --> 00:13:48.700 shift here. Shark contemporary satire. Based 00:13:48.700 --> 00:13:51.039 on that true story. Those teenagers in California 00:13:51.039 --> 00:13:54.139 robbing celebrity homes. Yeah, based on a Vanity 00:13:54.139 --> 00:13:57.059 Fair article. And Coppola saw them as what? products 00:13:57.059 --> 00:14:00.019 of reality tv culture exactly she explicitly 00:14:00.019 --> 00:14:03.539 said that and the ultimate irony filming scenes 00:14:03.539 --> 00:14:06.539 in paris hilton's actual house one of the victims 00:14:06.539 --> 00:14:09.899 whoa really that's meta super meta so the intent 00:14:09.899 --> 00:14:13.220 seems clearly satirical a comment on materialism 00:14:13.220 --> 00:14:16.220 and fame obsession but did the satire land That 00:14:16.220 --> 00:14:18.379 was the debate. That was a big debate. Some critics 00:14:18.379 --> 00:14:20.759 felt maybe it didn't go far enough, that it ended 00:14:20.759 --> 00:14:22.919 up just showcasing the materialism, listing off 00:14:22.919 --> 00:14:25.000 name brands and staring at their phones without 00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:27.059 really condemning it. Like it might have accidentally 00:14:27.059 --> 00:14:29.539 glamorized the whole thing. That was the argument. 00:14:29.659 --> 00:14:31.980 Did she trust the audience too much to see the 00:14:31.980 --> 00:14:34.860 critique? Especially when her own visual style 00:14:34.860 --> 00:14:37.379 is so, well, beautiful and focused on lovely 00:14:37.379 --> 00:14:40.500 things, does the aesthetic undercut the satire? 00:14:40.659 --> 00:14:43.049 Hmm. Interesting point. And that tension, that 00:14:43.049 --> 00:14:44.769 question about her choices and what gets left 00:14:44.769 --> 00:14:47.509 out, really flared up with her next film, The 00:14:47.509 --> 00:14:50.610 Beguiled, in 2017. Yeah, big time. This was a 00:14:50.610 --> 00:14:52.750 genre shift again, Southern Gothic thriller. 00:14:52.990 --> 00:14:55.269 A remake, sort of, of that old Clint Eastwood 00:14:55.269 --> 00:14:58.470 movie from 71. A reinterpretation, she called 00:14:58.470 --> 00:15:01.870 it, starring Nicole Kidman, Elle Fanning. Smaller 00:15:01.870 --> 00:15:05.450 budget, under $10 million, but it got huge recognition. 00:15:05.889 --> 00:15:08.759 Won her Best Director at Cannigan. Second woman 00:15:08.759 --> 00:15:11.720 ever. First American woman. Massive achievement. 00:15:11.980 --> 00:15:15.220 Huge. But the conversation immediately pivoted 00:15:15.220 --> 00:15:18.399 to what wasn't in her version. Right. She said 00:15:18.399 --> 00:15:20.360 she wanted to tell it purely from the women's 00:15:20.360 --> 00:15:22.240 perspective, that the original made them seem 00:15:22.240 --> 00:15:24.940 like crazy caricatures. Which sounds reasonable. 00:15:25.120 --> 00:15:27.759 But then came the whitewashing controversy. That 00:15:27.759 --> 00:15:29.700 was the specific issue there. In the original 00:15:29.700 --> 00:15:32.779 novel and in the 1971 film, there is a supporting 00:15:32.779 --> 00:15:35.799 character who is a black female slave, Hallie. 00:15:36.730 --> 00:15:38.850 Coppola removed that character entirely from 00:15:38.850 --> 00:15:41.850 her version. Okay. And the criticism was? That 00:15:41.850 --> 00:15:44.210 by removing her, she was essentially erasing 00:15:44.210 --> 00:15:46.870 the reality of slavery from the Civil War era 00:15:46.870 --> 00:15:49.889 Southern setting, making it easier to focus on 00:15:49.889 --> 00:15:52.049 the psychodrama of the white women in their beautiful, 00:15:52.190 --> 00:15:55.190 isolated world, ignoring the racial context to 00:15:55.190 --> 00:15:57.370 protect the aesthetic, basically. That's a serious 00:15:57.370 --> 00:15:59.950 charge. How did she respond? She talked about 00:15:59.950 --> 00:16:02.450 wanting to tell a specific story, maybe feeling 00:16:02.450 --> 00:16:05.289 she couldn't handle the topic of slavery sensitively 00:16:05.289 --> 00:16:07.649 enough. She also mentioned having young girls 00:16:07.649 --> 00:16:09.629 in her audience, maybe implying she wanted to 00:16:09.629 --> 00:16:12.190 avoid depicting certain brutalities. But the 00:16:12.190 --> 00:16:16.009 criticism stuck. That she prioritizes the privileged 00:16:16.009 --> 00:16:18.690 viewpoint. It definitely fueled that ongoing 00:16:18.690 --> 00:16:21.559 critical conversation about her work. the focus 00:16:21.559 --> 00:16:24.440 on privileged women the gorgeous aesthetics and 00:16:24.440 --> 00:16:26.899 what gets sidelined or ignored in service of 00:16:26.899 --> 00:16:28.980 that focus and she pushes back against labels 00:16:28.980 --> 00:16:31.899 doesn't she like feminist filmmaker. Yeah, she 00:16:31.899 --> 00:16:34.639 tends to avoid saying her work is feminist, prefers 00:16:34.639 --> 00:16:37.120 to say it has a female perspective. What's the 00:16:37.120 --> 00:16:38.899 difference, do you think? Maybe female perspective 00:16:38.899 --> 00:16:41.679 feels more observational, less explicitly political, 00:16:41.879 --> 00:16:44.200 less pressure to make grand statements, perhaps. 00:16:44.779 --> 00:16:47.019 She also said she made The Beguiled's beautiful, 00:16:47.220 --> 00:16:50.360 poetic style, partly as a reaction against what 00:16:50.360 --> 00:16:53.600 she saw as the harsh Los Angeles aesthetic of 00:16:53.600 --> 00:16:56.159 the bling ring. Interesting. Always refining 00:16:56.159 --> 00:16:58.779 that visual language. Okay, so let's get up to 00:16:58.779 --> 00:17:01.980 her more recent work. 2020 saw On the Rocks. 00:17:01.980 --> 00:17:04.400 Right, back to New York, reuniting with Bill 00:17:04.400 --> 00:17:07.420 Murray. Felt a bit like familiar territory in 00:17:07.420 --> 00:17:09.599 some ways. Yeah, comedy -drama Rashida Jones 00:17:09.599 --> 00:17:12.880 plays his daughter, exploring that father -daughter 00:17:12.880 --> 00:17:15.319 dynamic again. Definitely lighter than The Beguiled 00:17:15.319 --> 00:17:17.319 or somewhere. It's about the daughter thinking 00:17:17.319 --> 00:17:19.680 her husband might be cheating and her charming, 00:17:19.819 --> 00:17:22.680 slightly roguish dad helping her investigate. 00:17:23.039 --> 00:17:26.119 It got good reviews, right? People seemed to 00:17:26.119 --> 00:17:28.339 enjoy it. Yeah, praised for being witty, well 00:17:28.339 --> 00:17:31.119 -directed, but maybe not seen as like a major 00:17:31.119 --> 00:17:33.579 work in the same way as her earlier stuff. Some 00:17:33.579 --> 00:17:35.420 critics said it probably wouldn't reach that 00:17:35.420 --> 00:17:38.500 iconic status of Lost in Translation. More like 00:17:38.500 --> 00:17:41.140 a comfortable, well -made film within her established 00:17:41.140 --> 00:17:44.000 style. Felt that way. Skilled, enjoyable, but 00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:47.220 maybe not breaking new ground. Then came Priscilla 00:17:47.220 --> 00:17:50.579 in 2023. And this felt like a return to those 00:17:50.579 --> 00:17:53.559 core themes of female isolation under intense 00:17:53.559 --> 00:17:56.299 pressure. Totally. Based on Priscilla Presley's 00:17:56.299 --> 00:17:58.319 memoir, Elvis and Me. And it came out not long 00:17:58.319 --> 00:18:01.299 after that big Baz Luhrmann Elvis movie. Felt 00:18:01.299 --> 00:18:03.700 like a direct response almost. A definite counterpoint. 00:18:04.579 --> 00:18:07.619 Luhrmann's was all spectacle. Coppola's is the 00:18:07.619 --> 00:18:10.880 opposite. Super intimate. Focused entirely on 00:18:10.880 --> 00:18:13.400 Priscilla's experience. Getting inside Graceland 00:18:13.400 --> 00:18:15.940 from her perspective. Yeah, focusing on Elvis's 00:18:15.940 --> 00:18:19.900 darker domestic side, she called it. The control. 00:18:20.079 --> 00:18:23.559 The alleged emotional and physical abuse. The 00:18:23.559 --> 00:18:26.000 feeling of being this young girl trapped in that 00:18:26.000 --> 00:18:28.579 opulent cage. Showing her side of that famous 00:18:28.579 --> 00:18:31.140 relationship. Exactly. And Coppola said she drew 00:18:31.140 --> 00:18:33.579 on her own teenage memories growing up in the 00:18:33.579 --> 00:18:36.339 Bay Area. That feeling where everything being 00:18:36.339 --> 00:18:39.640 epic and important, senses heightened. To connect 00:18:39.640 --> 00:18:42.420 with Priscilla's intense, controlled world inside 00:18:42.420 --> 00:18:44.880 Graceland. Right. And the film got a lot of praise. 00:18:44.960 --> 00:18:47.240 Some people called it her best since Lost in 00:18:47.240 --> 00:18:50.369 Translation. biography, especially about figures 00:18:50.369 --> 00:18:52.829 like Elvis and Priscilla, it always attracts 00:18:52.829 --> 00:18:56.009 scrutiny. Always. Lisa Marie Presley, before 00:18:56.009 --> 00:18:58.349 she passed away, apparently contacted Coppola. 00:18:58.470 --> 00:19:01.630 Oh, really? What about? Expressing concern that 00:19:01.630 --> 00:19:03.509 some aspects of the portrayal of Elvis in the 00:19:03.509 --> 00:19:05.650 film didn't quite align with what Priscilla had 00:19:05.650 --> 00:19:08.369 originally written in her memoir. Hmm. So navigating 00:19:08.369 --> 00:19:11.109 those conflicting narratives and memories. It's 00:19:11.109 --> 00:19:13.710 complex. Extremely complex. And again, it puts 00:19:13.710 --> 00:19:15.910 Coppola in that position of interpreting these 00:19:15.910 --> 00:19:18.690 very specific, privileged and complicated lives. 00:19:18.970 --> 00:19:21.549 Beyond the features, though, she keeps so many 00:19:21.549 --> 00:19:23.809 other creative projects going. It's not just 00:19:23.809 --> 00:19:26.289 a film every few years. No, her portfolio is 00:19:26.289 --> 00:19:28.910 really diverse and it all seems to feed back 00:19:28.910 --> 00:19:32.069 into her main work. refining that aesthetic like 00:19:32.069 --> 00:19:34.309 her tv work yeah didn't she do something way 00:19:34.309 --> 00:19:37.269 back on comedy central yeah high octane in the 00:19:37.269 --> 00:19:40.269 mid 90s co -helmed it focused on underground 00:19:40.269 --> 00:19:43.410 music kind of counterculture but her commercial 00:19:43.410 --> 00:19:46.450 work is maybe more revealing right she directs 00:19:46.450 --> 00:19:49.089 a lot of ads and they often feel very Coppola 00:19:49.089 --> 00:19:51.990 -esque. Totally. That Christian Dior one, Miss 00:19:51.990 --> 00:19:54.809 Dior Cherie from 2008. It's super popular online 00:19:54.809 --> 00:19:58.490 still. Yeah. Dreamy, Parisian, very atmospheric. 00:19:58.829 --> 00:20:00.930 Like mini versions of her films. Exactly. She 00:20:00.930 --> 00:20:03.470 did Gap holiday ads, too. They're not just paychecks. 00:20:03.470 --> 00:20:05.849 They're like little visual exercises honing that 00:20:05.849 --> 00:20:07.829 style. And she's moved into screaming projects, 00:20:07.950 --> 00:20:10.490 too. Yep. Directed that Netflix special of Very 00:20:10.490 --> 00:20:13.759 Murray Christmas back in 2015. Got an Emmy nom 00:20:13.759 --> 00:20:16.259 for it. Oh, yeah. Bill Murray again. And she's 00:20:16.259 --> 00:20:19.359 developing an Edith Wharton adaptation, the custom 00:20:19.359 --> 00:20:22.940 of the country, for Apple TV plus low. Wharton 00:20:22.940 --> 00:20:25.059 seems like a perfect fit. Wealthy women, restrictive 00:20:25.059 --> 00:20:27.519 society. Right up her alley. And she even popped 00:20:27.519 --> 00:20:30.220 up as herself in an episode of What We Do in 00:20:30.220 --> 00:20:32.779 the Shadows. No way. The vampire show. Yeah. 00:20:32.839 --> 00:20:35.759 In 2022. Just a fun little guest spot. OK. And 00:20:35.759 --> 00:20:39.500 she's even directed opera. Yep. La Traviata in 00:20:39.500 --> 00:20:43.400 Rome. 2017, her first time directing stage opera. 00:20:44.279 --> 00:20:46.940 What prompted that? A big part of it was getting 00:20:46.940 --> 00:20:49.279 to collaborate with Valentino Garavani, the fashion 00:20:49.279 --> 00:20:51.940 legend. He did the costumes. Ah, the Fashion 00:20:51.940 --> 00:20:53.940 Connection game. Always there. And it was a massive 00:20:53.940 --> 00:20:56.299 hit. Biggest box office success for that opera 00:20:56.299 --> 00:21:00.259 house and room since, like, 1880. Wow. Did she 00:21:00.259 --> 00:21:02.519 bring her usual style to it? She said she wanted 00:21:02.519 --> 00:21:04.900 a modern take to bring out the personal side 00:21:04.900 --> 00:21:07.269 of the courtesan, Violetta. That hidden emotional 00:21:07.269 --> 00:21:10.430 life behind the public facade classic Coppola 00:21:10.430 --> 00:21:12.710 theme. And fashion continues outside of costumes, 00:21:12.849 --> 00:21:16.769 too. Modeling, photography. Still models occasionally, 00:21:16.890 --> 00:21:19.730 like for Marc Jacobs. Shot photos of Paris Hilton 00:21:19.730 --> 00:21:22.430 for Elle. Keeps the Milk Fed line going in Japan. 00:21:22.890 --> 00:21:26.490 And just recently, a lip balm line with Augustinus 00:21:26.490 --> 00:21:29.769 Bader. She stays busy. But maybe the most interesting 00:21:29.769 --> 00:21:32.170 recent thing is her focus on her own archive. 00:21:32.490 --> 00:21:36.410 Oh, that 2023 book, Sofia Coppola Archive, 1999 00:21:36.410 --> 00:21:39.049 -2023. Yeah, that's significant. It's her own 00:21:39.049 --> 00:21:40.849 collection, right? Behind the scenes stuff, notes, 00:21:40.990 --> 00:21:43.390 scripts. Exactly. Annotated scripts, photos, 00:21:43.690 --> 00:21:46.390 mood boards from all eight of her films up to 00:21:46.390 --> 00:21:48.690 that point. After all that early criticism and 00:21:48.690 --> 00:21:51.450 media chaos, this feels like her taking complete 00:21:51.450 --> 00:21:54.430 control of her own narrative, her legacy. 100%. 00:21:54.430 --> 00:21:57.250 She's meticulously documenting her process, defining 00:21:57.250 --> 00:21:59.640 her... context. She's even launched her own book 00:21:59.640 --> 00:22:01.920 imprint with MacBooks. There's another book coming. 00:22:01.980 --> 00:22:04.299 Yeah. A virgin suicides photo book planned for 00:22:04.299 --> 00:22:06.700 2025. So she's not just making the art. She's 00:22:06.700 --> 00:22:09.319 actively curating how it's remembered and understood. 00:22:09.579 --> 00:22:12.839 Total control. Hashtag tag outro. So when you 00:22:12.839 --> 00:22:15.140 pull it all together, what's the picture of Sofia 00:22:15.140 --> 00:22:17.700 Coppola that emerges? Well, she's undeniably 00:22:17.700 --> 00:22:20.920 this director focused on intimate, often female 00:22:20.920 --> 00:22:23.099 -centric stories about people feeling isolated, 00:22:23.400 --> 00:22:26.680 usually amidst privilege. Right. And she managed 00:22:26.680 --> 00:22:29.700 this incredible turnaround from that disastrous 00:22:29.700 --> 00:22:32.640 public failure in Godfather III. Yeah, that potentially 00:22:32.640 --> 00:22:35.119 career -ending moment. To becoming this Oscar 00:22:35.119 --> 00:22:37.759 -winning, con -winning director with a really 00:22:37.759 --> 00:22:40.980 distinct, refined style. focused on those internal 00:22:40.980 --> 00:22:43.880 emotional landscapes. She uses opulence for Psy, 00:22:44.059 --> 00:22:47.059 Tokyo skyscrapers, Hollywood mansions, not just 00:22:47.059 --> 00:22:49.440 for show, but as the backdrop, the container 00:22:49.440 --> 00:22:52.559 for these very universal feelings of loneliness, 00:22:52.779 --> 00:22:55.640 disconnection, being trapped. And she uses her 00:22:55.640 --> 00:22:57.819 own unique background, growing up in that intense 00:22:57.819 --> 00:23:00.500 spotlight, as her source material, her authority. 00:23:00.720 --> 00:23:03.279 Absolutely. Which might also explain her own 00:23:03.279 --> 00:23:05.460 fierce protection of her privacy now. Yeah, she 00:23:05.460 --> 00:23:08.000 keeps her family life husband, Thomas Mars, the 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:10.349 daughters Romy and Kyle. Kosama, very private. 00:23:10.509 --> 00:23:12.950 Very intentionally so. She said she wants her 00:23:12.950 --> 00:23:15.309 daughters not to become jaded, maybe learning 00:23:15.309 --> 00:23:18.109 from her own overexposed youth, protecting them 00:23:18.109 --> 00:23:20.690 from that scrutiny. It makes sense. If your work 00:23:20.690 --> 00:23:23.190 explores gilded cages, you probably want to keep 00:23:23.190 --> 00:23:25.849 your own family out of one. Exactly. And looking 00:23:25.849 --> 00:23:28.509 at her career overall, there's this real mastery 00:23:28.509 --> 00:23:30.329 of subtlety, right? Like we saw in Priscilla. 00:23:30.430 --> 00:23:33.089 Definitely. She doesn't shout. She observes, 00:23:33.109 --> 00:23:36.309 suggests, coaxes out feelings. Her strength is 00:23:36.309 --> 00:23:38.769 in capturing that vulnerability, often the vulnerability 00:23:38.769 --> 00:23:41.490 hidden within beauty or wealth. Which brings 00:23:41.490 --> 00:23:44.049 us back to that early trauma and maybe a final 00:23:44.049 --> 00:23:46.349 thought for you, the listener, to mull over. 00:23:46.650 --> 00:23:50.710 Go ahead. How did that initial very public failure 00:23:50.710 --> 00:23:53.630 as an actress being watched, judged, when she 00:23:53.630 --> 00:23:55.940 didn't even want to be performing? How did that 00:23:55.940 --> 00:23:58.440 experience ultimately sharpen her ability, years 00:23:58.440 --> 00:24:01.359 later, to portray that exact feeling of trapped 00:24:01.359 --> 00:24:05.039 isolation in her characters? Hmm. Like, understanding 00:24:05.039 --> 00:24:07.140 the feeling of being watched unwillingly gave 00:24:07.140 --> 00:24:10.160 her a unique insight. Maybe. Did the pain of 00:24:10.160 --> 00:24:12.119 being the object on display enhance her skill 00:24:12.119 --> 00:24:14.720 at observing other objects on display, all from 00:24:14.720 --> 00:24:16.720 the safety and control of being behind the camera? 00:24:16.880 --> 00:24:19.359 She became an expert in the feeling of the cage. 00:24:19.539 --> 00:24:21.440 And maybe that's the key to her whole artist's 00:24:21.440 --> 00:24:21.740 approach.