Movie directors

[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.

[Jonathan]

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

That makes sense. People with Fe in the ego block might be good at handling actors with big egos and also getting everybody to believe in the mission of the project and to feel that their contributions are being recognized.

Still, I would think Ejs would have an edge over Ips at least in the beginning stages of becoming a director...in terms of knowing the right people, and the significant coordination effort. But Ips may have a greater desire to realize a certain "vision" which may help them.

[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]

Hitchock was remarkably casual about changing the script, or even the whole point of the story

... 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.

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

Well this is an interesting point. If the emphasis is away from the storyline and more on how it looks, then I agree that's >. However, I'm not sure that flexibility regarding the storyline is necessarily >. I liken it to my own approach in compositions and whatever other small creative trifles I've done myself: The most important thing to me is that what comes next is whatever is the most inevitable or effective choice based on what has come before. Therefore, I wouldn't think twice about changing the ending of something completely or making big cuts, etc., if it would make the structure better.

I think perhaps the flexible approach of "I'm willing to make even radical changes if a better product results" may possibly be more indicative of irrational type than >.

[Jonathan]

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?

Sure...I'm just saying that we have to extend our view of them. In some previous discussions, I think Rick suggested , at least in music, would be associated mainly with comforting and harmonious sounds. That may be too limited a view.

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.

Good point. However, sometimes this can be a gray area, as disconnected imagery may also evoke symbolic connections. It might be interesting to compare Kubrick's imagery in the shining, which similarly seems "disconnected," but (in my opinion) connects the film to the Greek myths of the minotaur and Oedipus Rex.

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

Probably. I'm guessing though that if Fellini's films emphasize to a large degree, perhaps he might not come off as the typical SEI. Obviously, though, you know much more about him than I do.

[Expat]

Sure...I'm just saying that we have to extend our view of them. In some previous discussions, I think Rick suggested , at least in music, would be associated mainly with comforting and harmonious sounds. That may be too limited a view.

I think Orson Welles can be easily typed as SEI also from his many video interviews. Yet one of his early movies, The Magnificent Andersons, was anything but feel-good, in fact, it's rather depressing.

Good point. However, sometimes this can be a gray area, as disconnected imagery may also evoke symbolic connections. It might be interesting to compare Kubrick's imagery in the shining, which similarly seems "disconnected," but (in my opinion) connects the film to the Greek myths of the minotaur and Oedipus Rex.

As an ILI, Kubrick would easily shift between and , preferring overall.

Probably. I'm guessing though that if Fellini's films emphasize to a large degree, perhaps he might not come off as the typical SEI. Obviously, though, you know much more about him than I do.

Doesn't Bionicgoat also emphasize in his imagery?

I think it's your concept of what a "typical SEI" is that needs revising.

[Exodus]

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.

? I have heard that Hitchcock was quite demanding and rigid when it came to his films.

[Expat]

? I have heard that Hitchcock was quite demanding and rigid when it came to his films.

And he even said, reportedly, "actors are cattle". And he used 37 (or whatever) different shots in the Psycho shower scene, over two weeks of shooting. That's very demanding. But that does not mean that he wasn't casual about the script, in terms of the plot. One actress (I think Kim Novak in Vertigo) asked him about her character's motivation; he shrugged and said, "Kim, it's only a movie". That's the kind of thing I mean.

[Phaedrus]

Clint Eastwood is an example of an SLI director. In his film The Bridges of Madison County we see the HA theme clearly manifested.

Another related theme can be seen in Mystic River, where a comment by one of the characters is very similar to a comment that Eastwood (playing the character Robert Kincaid) makes in The Bridges of Madison County. It is a comment that expresses the theme of the importance chance and "fate". Some minor incident, some totally unforseen and seemingly insignificant event, turns out to have vast consequences, often of the tragic kind.

The world outlook is IP; we often don't get what we desire and long for, and there is not much we can do about it.

[Expat]

I think of Hitchcock as ILE but SEI works too... it is one and the same in a way after all. The bolded part would work for a ILE artist as well as it is their hidden agenda if not more so.

I think more of him as a ILE mainly because of his work relationship with who I consider ISTp women such as Grace Kelly and Kim Novak.

thehotelambush has suggested LII. I think Alpha is clear. But as for those women, he had a fascination for some kinds of women; whether he actually got along with them socionically is another story. Perhaps the types of James Stewart and Cary Grant - two of his favorite actors - would be more useful.

[Jonathan]

it is one and the same in a way after all.

A view commonly expressed on this forum.... I just can't agree. I think it actually rises to one of the big misconceptions on this forum.

What I think is true is that if we know someone only from his/her work, we could easily get confused between types within a certain quadra.

But duals are not almost the same. They're both really confident at what the other is not confident (or is even downright terrible) at. That's a big difference.

[Expat]

i'm not certain about pasolini being an infp.

his work and life seem to me very much that of a humanist (i don't use it as the equivalent of infj ). his work is grave instead of merry. dwelling on the human condition and psychology running the gamut from myth to politics to Freudian theory . his film aesthetics are difficult to assess since his shtick was to go against the predominant aesthetics in art. his films were also philosophical and political at the expense of plot and aesthetics.

Precisely. Little interest in and .

he was also a journalist and a communist amidst other things. i can't ascertain that this little i'm writing here (due to lack of time for the moment) speaks against infp, but here and there i pick Fi dominance and at other times i just think he might as well have been an enfj.

I couldn't argue strongly against ENFj.

[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?

[Wittmont]

I think Ridley Scott may be IEI.

[Expat]

I think Ridley Scott may be IEI.

Maybe. I think he's almost certainly a ego type.

[Jonathan]

I don't think you can simply isolate actions or themes and say "that's Si."

True, I agree. Maybe Expat's idea that Si is expressed as a focus on looks/style/execution (if I understand him correctly) is a good place to start....although maybe there's more to it, since supposedly IEIs sometimes focus on those things at least in terms of dress.

It seems that perhaps the most un-Si films would be ones where the idea is clear but the execution is so obviously low budget that it shows? (Not that the money matters to Si, but rather the result)

It makes me think of the Dr. Who T.V. series, where they use aluminum foil for a prop. Perhaps that would be very un-Si?

It seems to me too that keeping things tight, simple, and not overly reliant on words (or especially, on too many words) may also have something to do with Si.

[Expat]

It makes me think of the Dr. Who T.V. series, where they use aluminum foil for a prop. Perhaps that would be very un-Si?

No, that means simply, "working on a very tight budget".

[Expat]

True, I agree. Maybe Expat's idea that Si is expressed as a focus on looks/style/execution (if I understand him correctly) is a good place to start....although maybe there's more to it, since supposedly IEIs sometimes focus on those things at least in terms of dress.

No, it's more complicated and difficult to explain than that. Both IEI and SEI directors masterfully use images to convey the emotions they want; I have just included Bernardo Bertolucci as IEI, and obviously he can be a master of detail in a Si way, as per The Last Emperor, and, obviously, Oliver Stone in Alexander and JFK.

The way I see it, the Ni directors use individual images to convey, together, a continuum of an idea; where the Si directors look at the images more individually.

For instance, a clip with Alfred Hitchcock. That's a SEI. He's concerned with the effect of each individual scene.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lmRdOYsib2A

[Expat]

I have added Bernardo Bertolucci to the list of INFp directors, I think he's a good example.

His films include, The Last Tango in Paris, The Last Emperor, Stealing Beauty.

It may be significant that he got out of Marlon Brando, for Last Tango, what many call his best ever acting, even as the script was disjointed and the lines, improvised.

Brando always maintained, "I still don't know what that film is about."

[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.