"Show, don't tell" is one of the most poisonous things to happen to film criticism. It's a fine guideline but should not be taken as gospel.
Especially when 'telling' is fundamental to everything the movie is exploring and expressing.
Perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics and actually agree. From my point of view "Show, don't tell" is a fundamental, widely recognized technique used in the art of story-telling that is a beautiful way of exploring and expressing theme in a story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don't_tell
I hate to be an elitist, but all three are you are wrong for very different reasons. "But Totoro, it's art! No one be wrong!" Well, sure, in a way, that is correct. However, film is a visual medium. If you want to be told a story, read a book? There's a vital scene in Panahi's masterpiece THIS IS NOT A FILM where he questions to the camera, "if you could tell a film, why make it?" And, yes, that's entirely important, because the medium isn't really one of dialogue. It's part of filmmaking, but it's not necessary. I find it quite strange for MartinTeller for saying it's a poisonous part of film criticism - looking at your top ten, they're all quite visually striking films. If you turned off the sound for THE BIG CITY or THE HOLE or even FANNY & ALEXANDER, I bet you could follow each film's plot just by the images alone. And that's not to say that the dialogue or sound is bad or that it doesn't add anything to the film - of course it does, it makes it a richer experience. But every film director and screenwriter knows, fundamentally, that the most powerful aspect of filmmaking are the images. Without strong imagery, your film will ultimately suffer and be forgotten in the grand scheme of cinema history. Just look at the TSPDT list. How many of those films tell more than they show?
TL; DR: If you can't find a way to show it, then you need a rewrite. Otherwise, write a book!