Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I was thinking more of the stereotypical 19th-century romantic writers, whose style his films do not exactly exemplify.
Yes, I thought you did. And INTps are not romantics in any normal sense of the word. I have some trouble finding examples that would illustrate what I have in mind in a way that you would understand. I could explain it with reference to famous chess players, for example, but most people are not familiar with them.

1. Bobby Fischer is a typical example of an analytic approach. His playing style is systematic, analytic, and not at all romantic.

2. Aron Nimzowitsch is an example of a synthetic approach. He formulated universal laws of chess in his "System" (which was not really a system), but he was not a good example of an analytic. Compared with Fischer, Nimzowitsch was in a sense a romantic.

Kaufman can be said to be a romantic in a sense if we compare him with more realistic writers, becuase a film like Being John Malkovich is so disconnected from any realistic frame of reference. It is more l'art pour l'art, whereas LII writers often have a political message in their works. (This is not very clear, I know. Maybe I can come up with better examples later.)