Movie directors

[Exodus]

Oliver Stone? Interesting.

[Expat]

Oliver Stone? Interesting.

He's one of whose type I'm pretty convinced of -- from interviews, from his movies, from comments by those who've dealt with him.

[Ms. Kensington]

yeah i thought that too, Expat. I sort of thought an ENFj is the quintessential director type.. but you don't have any here.

I also think that ISxp have a different style of filmmaking. and, I thought of sophia as INFp but maybe not.

[Ezra]

I get a different feel of De Palma's films to those of Kubrick and Scorcese. He seems more interested in generating theatrical atmosphere than Kubrick, and his style differs greatly to Scorcese, whose sets always have lots going on in the background and in the foreground (most prominent in Gangs of New York and The Aviator; the production values are normally better IMO (that's not to say that De Palma's are shit).

I'd also include Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil) in the list of ILIs.

[aestrivex]

i don't know all that many film directors, but one who i saw a lot of in my spanish literature class (which was taught by an SEI ftr) is pedro almodóvar, who is another SEI.

[Jonathan]

I don't watch too many films or know too many directors, but I find this thread fascinating.

The most interesting thing on this list is the SEI film directors. Besides the fact that the ones you have as SEI are mostly the very best directors (in my personal opinion), this list also requires one to stretch one's conception of SEI a bit.

I do have some sense of why Hitchcock and Fellini might be on the list as SEIs. They are, after all consummate artists, who have a feel for how to make the presentation medium itself effective for an artistic purpose, and they're good at keeping things concrete and concise, and highlighting the moment.

But, if you were to look at some of the thoughts, say, on wikisocion, about how might be expressed through music, architecture, and other forms, one might get the idea that and SEI in particular would dwell on comforting or decorative images, and perhaps give us mainly "feel good" films about dogs, documentaries about mountain-climbing or other nice scenery, light comedies, romances, and so forth.

I once saw a Fellini film, and it was all about wild imagination and surreal images. He plays a film director who doesn't know what his film is going to be about. All the stars are arriving, and they want the script. Finally, the time comes for him to announce the script, and there's a table on a stage where he sits, as if at a conference. When it's time for him to speak, he crawls under the table. It's like one of those dreams where you find yourself onstage in your pajamas and you don't know what you're supposed to do.

Anyhow, all the weird imagery might suggest to some people.

Hitchcock is another case where the main elements expressed do not seem to be ...although, again, I know why they might be. Surely, there is a concreteness and artistry to his films. But there is so much emphasis on anticipation, suspense, and thinking of what's going on people's minds that, again, one might think of .

I wonder, if these were part of this group, if they and others would correctly identify themselves as "S" types or if they would consider themselves "N" types simply because their emphasis was so much on the imagination. (I must say, I don't know that much about their lives...just their work.) This also makes one wonder about two completely different kinds of "SEIs"...the impractical, hyper-imaginative artist (who does not resemble ESE and rather resembles ILI more in some ways) vs. the kind of SEI who's great at taking care of people's physical needs. Sometimes it's hard to see how they can be the same type.

Also, I find it interesting that so many great directors are Ip temperament according to the list, with so few extraverts on it so far. While intuitively, Ips would make the best decisions about any medium for a sitting, observing audience, nevertheless the facts about what it takes to actually make a film would seem to create something of a roadblock for Ips seeking to make films.

It seems that to be a director, your main task is organizing people (at least until you're famous enough to delegate that). You have to know lots of people, call lots of people up, convince them to do stuff, and overall really be a jack-of-all-trades. It's not like being a script writer or film editor. A person has to be on-the-go all the time and a good people-organizer. That's why I would have expected more Ejs. Perhaps if this were a list of "average" directors (as opposed to great ones), it would be mostly Ejs, since Ej skills are more of what it takes to get started? (Just guessing.)

[aestrivex]

it has far more to do with Fe and managing the emotional feel of a situation than EJ temperament.

[Expat]

The most interesting thing on this list is the SEI film directors. Besides the fact that the ones you have as SEI are mostly the very best directors (in my personal opinion), this list also requires one to stretch one's conception of SEI a bit.

I do have some sense of why Hitchcock and Fellini might be on the list as SEIs. They are, after all consummate artists, who have a feel for how to make the presentation medium itself effective for an artistic purpose, and they're good at keeping things concrete and concise, and highlighting the moment.

I have typed Fellini according to descriptions of those who knew him; Gore Vidal (ILI) describes Fellini at some length in his memoirs, Point to Point Navigation, and I have read the memoirs of another author who dealt with him, George MacDonald Fraser. The only type I can see making sense is SEI. I think it fits his approach to filmmaking; for instance, it's all about how it all looks; that's also his criterion for choosing actors, especially for minor roles.

On Hitchcock, I read once a book-length interview of him by Francois Truffaut; the two discuss Hitchcock's films at length. Hitchock was remarkably casual about changing the script, or even the whole point of the story; he himself admitted that the details of the screenplay - on a scene-by-scene basis - of North by Northwest make no sense. For him, it was all about using image to cause an emotional response.

What is common about Orson Welles, Hitchock, Fellini, and Lucas, is the higher care given to things like background music, cinematographic effects, colors, etc, than to anything they might want to convey in the plot, which they approach in a more casual way. According to Vidal, Fellini did not even have a problem about changing dialogues totally between the filming and the post-filming dubbing.

But, if you were to look at some of the thoughts, say, on wikisocion, about how might be expressed through music, architecture, and other forms, one might get the idea that and SEI in particular would dwell on comforting or decorative images, and perhaps give us mainly "feel good" films about dogs, documentaries about mountain-climbing or other nice scenery, light comedies, romances, and so forth.

I'm not sure at all that SEIs would just want to convey "feel-good" and conforting images when making a film. I think that's a limited view of SEIs. I mean -- if we agree that Lucas is SEI. Are all scenes, even all movies, by him "feel good"? What about THX-1138?

I once saw a Fellini film, and it was all about wild imagination and surreal images. He plays a film director who doesn't know what his film is going to be about. All the stars are arriving, and they want the script. Finally, the time comes for him to announce the script, and there's a table on a stage where he sits, as if at a conference. When it's time for him to speak, he crawls under the table. It's like one of those dreams where you find yourself onstage in your pajamas and you don't know what you're supposed to do.

Anyhow, all the weird imagery might suggest to some people.

I think that kind of "disconnected" imagery is more than . He's focusing on the effect on a moment-by-moment basis, not on the overal connection.

Hitchcock is another case where the main elements expressed do not seem to be ...although, again, I know why they might be. Surely, there is a concreteness and artistry to his films. But there is so much emphasis on anticipation, suspense, and thinking of what's going on people's minds that, again, one might think of .

If he has at least as much as , I think that doesn't speak against SEI. Have you seen how many takes he did for the shower scene in Psycho? 37 or seomething? In painful detail, wanting the precise effect? That's more a than person imo.

Also, again, Hitchcock himself did not care about what he was telling, in terms of the story -- which is unlike imo.

I wonder, if these were part of this group, if they and others would correctly identify themselves as "S" types or if they would consider themselves "N" types simply because their emphasis was so much on the imagination. (I must say, I don't know that much about their lives...just their work.) This also makes one wonder about two completely different kinds of "SEIs"...the impractical, hyper-imaginative artist (who does not resemble ESE and rather resembles ILI more in some ways) vs. the kind of SEI who's great at taking care of people's physical needs. Sometimes it's hard to see how they can be the same type.

Why wouldn't the "first kind" be actually IEIs?

Also, I find it interesting that so many great directors are Ip temperament according to the list, with so few extraverts on it so far. While intuitively, Ips would make the best decisions about any medium for a sitting, observing audience, nevertheless the facts about what it takes to actually make a film would seem to create something of a roadblock for Ips seeking to make films.

It seems that to be a director, your main task is organizing people (at least until you're famous enough to delegate that). You have to know lots of people, call lots of people up, convince them to do stuff, and overall really be a jack-of-all-trades. It's not like being a script writer or film editor. A person has to be on-the-go all the time and a good people-organizer. That's why I would have expected more Ejs. Perhaps if this were a list of "average" directors (as opposed to great ones), it would be mostly Ejs, since Ej skills are more of what it takes to get started? (Just guessing.)

I think you are correct to a large extent; the EJ directors are more like the "craftsman" kind of director, the guy who's good at making pretty much any kind of film efficiently, but doesn't have any distinctive "mark". I think Richard Donner - who I'm convinced is a Te dominant, from interviews and videos - is one example. He put together the original Superman film, The Omen, as well as the Lethal Weapon series. A competent director, but not a really memorable one.

I think the IP directors are those who, due to their or , and - in the case of the ego types - an awareness of how to cause an emotional response, are those who are the most "author" directors.

[Jonathan]

Oh yes. I have a dream that I may one day make a documentary about dogs engaging in witty conversation with eachother while mountain climbing. They'll eventually fall in love, of course, but not without some pitfalls along the way! -sweet tinkling adorable little laugh-

(I think it would be a good idea to give the dogs British accents as well, it make the audience "feel good". Or maybe Australian accents would be even better. OH THE JOY I CAN HARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF. <3 <3 <3)

After I wrote it, I realized that the "feel good movies about dogs" wording was probably more Fi than Si, but I left it in because of the overall point that there is a conception, perhaps a misconception, that Si in art is expressed in terms of comfort and harmony.

Which leaves the question...how is Si expressed in art? How would you recognize that the information aspect Si is being stimulated in a movie? And if Si is expressed through some sort of violent, discordant, aggressive action, how might one characterized the difference between the Si approach to that vs. an Si type's shift to Se?

[Expat]

I get a different feel of De Palma's films to those of Kubrick and Scorcese. He seems more interested in generating theatrical atmosphere than Kubrick, and his style differs greatly to Scorcese, whose sets always have lots going on in the background and in the foreground (most prominent in Gangs of New York and The Aviator; the production values are normally better IMO (that's not to say that De Palma's are shit).

Well yes, but that may be simply due to Scorcese getting bigger budgets than De Palma.

As for Bryan Singer, I think he must be a Gamma or Delta, not sure about ILI.