Movie directors

[Expat]

I have already typed them elsewhere, but I've made some observations about movie directors and their types - by that I mean those that are famous enough to have a certain recognizable style.

In particular, I think ISFp and INFp are quite common.

In my opinion:

ISFp directors:

Orson Welles
George Lucas
Alfred Hitchcock
Federico Fellini
Sofia Coppola


INFp directors:

Oliver Stone
Ingmar Bergman
Francis Ford Coppola
Michael Cimino
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*added: Bernardo Bertolucci*

INTp directors

Stanley Kubrick
Brian de Palma (perhaps)
Martin Scorcese
John Carpenter (or perhaps ESFp - I actually attended a lecture by him once, and I think Gamma was clear, but strangely I'm not sure between INTp and ESFp

ENTj directors

George Romero
Richard Donner (or ESTj - one of the two).
Quentin Tarantino

ENTp directors

I can only think of Steven Spielberg

I think a common feature is strong and/or valued ; the exception are the ISFp directors, but I think it makes sense if one looks at their approach to filmmaking.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Expat]

On John Carpenter, I think he may be ILI and have a dual relationship with Kurt Russell as SEE. They like doing together the running commentaries of the DVDs of the films they did together; their interaction is quite remarkable.

[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]

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]

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]

And that's Oliver Stone talking about Alexander:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dC2rsyc-6sc

And I must confess, seeing this video I am now inclined to think EIE rather than IEI. So my "I'm most convinced of" reply to thehotelambush was silly -- anyway, Beta NF and rather than .

Also, compare Hitchcock's extremely relaxed and easy-going ways to Stone's.

[Jonathan]

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.

I see your point; Hitchcock seems clearly Ip temperament, and the obvious detail-orientation may suggest Si. But from that clip, I'm much less convinced that he's SEI. Although his goal in the scenes is to create an "emotional effect," his whole approach seems much more to be what one might call a "Te approach to Fe" as opposed to an "Fe approach to Fe."

He does not create the impression of wanting to express anything; rather, he is using a very analytical, calculating approach to create his effects.

Because his genre is scary films, rather than building bridges, the goal of his scientific, engineering mind is to affect emotions. Were he, instead, describing how to build violins, he would no doubt use the same matter-of-fact, calculating, craftsman-like approach to achieve his clearly-defined goals.

I also see nothing in his rapport with the interviewer to suggest ego-block-Fe. He seems totally focused on the objective aspect of his craft (rather than interacting socially with the interviewer, the way Stone and Orson Welles do), and interested mainly in imparting knowledge about techniques, which he explains very articulately, reflecting a firm grasp of methods and "how-to" approaches. And that appears to be his most comfortable mode; there is nothing of the "talky" quality I've seen in interviews of Fe-ego-block types, including SEIs.

Have you considered SLI?

[Expat]

I see your point; Hitchcock seems clearly Ip temperament, and the obvious detail-orientation may suggest Si. But from that clip, I'm much less convinced that he's SEI. Although his goal in the scenes is to create an "emotional effect," his whole approach seems much more to be what one might call a "Te approach to Fe" as opposed to an "Fe approach to Fe."

He does not create the impression of wanting to express anything; rather, he is using a very analytical, calculating approach to create his effects.

Because his genre is scary films, rather than building bridges, the goal of his scientific, engineering mind is to affect emotions. Were he, instead, describing how to build violins, he would no doubt use the same matter-of-fact, calculating, craftsman-like approach to achieve his clearly-defined goals.

But the thing is, his genre are films. And he knows very well how to convey lots of emotions, as in this clip in Vertigo:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOGfO9vBBCE

I also see nothing in his rapport with the interviewer to suggest ego-block-Fe. He seems totally focused on the objective aspect of his craft (rather than interacting socially with the interviewer, the way Stone and Orson Welles do), and interested mainly in imparting knowledge about techniques, which he explains very articulately, reflecting a firm grasp of methods and "how-to" approaches. And that appears to be his most comfortable mode; there is nothing of the "talky" quality I've seen in interviews of Fe-ego-block types, including SEIs.

This bit of your argument is very very weak, sorry -- it's two kinds of interviews, very different. Hitchcock's is more like a lecture, allowing - or even expecting - to go into detail at length. It may be part of a very lengthy interview, I'm not sure, where the interaction might be more visible.

Stone's is a more give-and-take, quick-question and quick-answer kind of interviews, very brief, which gives more room for that kind of interaction.

Have you considered SLI?

I confess I had not, but I have to admit it would be the second possibility. I will give it some thought.

[Jonathan]

But the thing is, his genre are films. And he knows very well how to convey lots of emotions, as in this clip in Vertigo:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOGfO9vBBCE

[I took the tags out because it didn't work for me from your post.]

Here, one can make the old point about different personalities being involved...there are the actors...Jimmy Stewart strikes me as an Fe type perhaps...and of course there's the composer. In any case, I'm not sure that a big vocabulary of emotions necessarily indicates ego-block-F, or that the emotions conveyed in Hitchcock films are necessarily primarily Fe.

This bit of your argument is very very weak, sorry -- it's two kinds of interviews, very different.

Sure...I was just reacting to the information posted. I don't purport to be a Hitchcock expert. Indeed, I could see the genial host-like personality he conveys when he narrates as being possibly SEI-like, perhaps. But can you find any interviews where he clearly showed Fe or SEI behaviors in the interview?

Here are two really good clips I found:




While, towards the end, he becomes a bit more informal and tells a funny story, overall he conveys the very same predominantly analytical tendency that I noticed in the one you posted.

Incidentally, this interview really gets to the heart of what I like in his movies. He talks about how he wants to get away from purely sensory stimulation and instead focus on the the more inner, psychological issues. This is a common thread in his movies; I'm not sure how it fits with what has been said up to this point about his approach or being SEI. It almost seems to be an emphasis of N over S. On the other hand, it could also be argued that this emphasis on the "psychological" over the "physical" is a Delta tendency....and that would fit with the interpretation of him as SLI.

Another thing he talks about is his focus on "technique" over "content." This seems to relate to what you said about him not caring about the story, which you saw as de-valuing Ni. However, I think it may be a little more complex than that. Stressing "craft" in itself does seem to be perhaps Si>Ni, but I also see something else, perhaps crea-Te, in this obsession with methods as opposed "what actually happens."

[Expat]

or that the emotions conveyed in Hitchcock films are necessarily primarily Fe.

What would they then be?

Also, it's less about "emotions" being Fe, than about him knowing very well "how to push buttons" - which is a characteristic of strong Fe.

can you find any interviews where he clearly showed Fe or SEI behaviors in the interview?

You see, in my opinion, the second clip you posted already qualifies. If you don't see that as being SEI, then we disagree on what SEIs are like or can be like.

He does not show Fe as, say, a ESE or EIE would. Yes, because I think he's SEI, not ESE.

I am not just being stubborn. I am seriously thinking about the SLI possibility. But those two clips just reinforced my SEI opinion.

While, towards the end, he becomes a bit more informal and tells a funny story, overall he conveys the very same predominantly analytical tendency that I noticed in the one you posted.

I don't see that as really "analytical tendency"; he's explaining in detail the tricks of a trade he's worked in for decades. Imagine a SEI car mechanic - I suppose you can imagine that such exist? Would a SEI car mechanic be unable to talk at length about cars in the same fashion? Or your image of SEIs is that, even when in a serious interview, they have to be joking all the time?

On the other hand, it could also be argued that this emphasis on the "psychological" over the "physical" is a Delta tendency....and that would fit with the interpretation of him as SLI.

Why should it be a sign of Delta over Alpha? How would you argue it?

Another thing he talks about is his focus on "technique" over "content." This seems to relate to what you said about him not caring about the story, which you saw as de-valuing Ni. However, I think it may be a little more complex than that. Stressing "craft" in itself does seem to be perhaps Si>Ni, but I also see something else, perhaps crea-Te, in this obsession with methods as opposed "what actually happens."

No. I totally disagree with you there. What he actually said, very clearly, is that he does not care about the details of the plot, as to why something happens or not. He just said he didn't care about that; he cared about the emotional response of the audience. That was the "technique" he was talking about. He saw his movies as a collection of images aiming at creating specific emotional responses, on a moment-by-moment basis, without caring about whether the plot, the content. He even compared Psycho to an amusement park thrill ride - now that is an indication of Alpha>Delta.

[Jonathan]

Imagine a SEI car mechanic - I suppose you can imagine that such exist? Would a SEI car mechanic be unable to talk at length about cars in the same fashion? Or your image of SEIs is that, even when in a serious interview, they have to be joking all the time?

Certainly an SEI may get into technical details and doesn't have to be joking all the time, but it's a perfectly reversible argument. Suppose a person you considered a Te-ego-block type were joking most of the time in an interview, but then for a moment started analyzing methods, techniques, and debate positions in a more typical Te way. In such a situation, you might say "would that person be unable to joke once in awhile? Or your image of Te types is that, even in an informal interview, they have to be serious, formal, and intellectual all the time?

The issue is that in the limited amount of material we have, we need to form a perception of the way the person prefers to be most of the time, vs. how that person may act in certain situations. I'm not fully convinced that he isn't SEI, but it seemed to me that from the footage I saw, he seemed most comfortable with the "shop talk" and then for a brief moment went into a more relaxed, informal mode.

Why should it be a sign of Delta over Alpha? How would you argue it?

Because he associates the psychological, interpersonal dimensions with a greater level of abstraction; this seems to pair F with N. He was apparently particularly drawn to exploring psychological problems...suspicion, neurosis, madness, etc. I'm not saying that an Alpha couldn't be interested in those things....it's just that this is a focus I've seen from NF types more than NT. So taking the hypothesis that he's SLI, it would fit in terms of dual-block values.

No. I totally disagree with you there. What he actually said, very clearly, is that he does not care about the details of the plot, as to why something happens or not. He just said he didn't care about that; he cared about the emotional response of the audience. That was the "technique" he was talking about. He saw his movies as a collection of images aiming at creating specific emotional responses, on a moment-by-moment basis, without caring about whether the plot, the content.

To me, his movies don't seem as fragmentary as that approach might suggest. There tends to be a very coherent thread, often involving a character asking pretty intelligent questions and figuring out something step by step. Also, a lot of the "fun" of his movies comes from the very bold, strategic use of various dramatic devices; it's hard to describe this, but basically he lets you "see" his methods for achieving his effects. I don't have time to explain this fully right now, but this is what I mean by possibly "a Te approach to Fe"

[aestrivex]

also woody allen as ILI.

[Dioklecian]

I have already typed them elsewhere, but I've made some observations about movie directors and their types - by that I mean those that are famous enough to have a certain recognizable style.

In particular, I think ISFp and INFp are quite common.

In my opinion:

ISFp directors:

Orson Welles
George Lucas
Alfred Hitchcock
Federico Fellini
Sofia Coppola


INFp directors:

Oliver Stone
Ingmar Bergman
Francis Ford Coppola
Michael Cimino
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*added: Bernardo Bertolucci*

INTp directors

Stanley Kubrick
Brian de Palma (perhaps)
Martin Scorcese
John Carpenter (or perhaps ESFp - I actually attended a lecture by him once, and I think Gamma was clear, but strangely I'm not sure between INTp and ESFp

ENTj directors

George Romero
Richard Donner (or ESTj - one of the two).
Quentin Tarantino

ENTp directors

I can only think of Steven Spielberg

I think a common feature is strong and/or valued ; the exception are the ISFp directors, but I think it makes sense if one looks at their approach to filmmaking.

Welles ISFP? I would very respectfully disagree. I just got Citizen Kane and watched it several times. It confirmed what I suspected throughtout the years as I listened to his radio dramas for hours every week: Mr Welles is the quintessentail American ENTJ. Almost certainly his real mother was ISFP and quite possibly his real father was ESFP.

From the movie the actors were as follows: One Mrs. Kane was ESTP and one ISFJ (the "singer"). His best friend ENFP. His secretary/friend/chairman of the board was ESTP. Mother wa ENFP I think. (all these from the movie of course,

[Jonathan]

Welles ISFP? I would very respectfully disagree. I just got Citizen Kane and watched it several times. It confirmed what I suspected throughtout the years as I listened to his radio dramas for hours every week: Mr Welles is the quintessentail American ENTJ. Almost certainly his real mother was ISFP and quite possibly his real father was ESFP.

From the movie the actors were as follows: One Mrs. Kane was ESTP and one ISFJ (the "singer"). His best friend ENFP. His secretary/friend/chairman of the board was ESTP. Mother wa ENFP I think. (all these from the movie of course,

It makes sense that the Kane character may have been ENTj. But in his interviews, Welles plays a little more the role of the "jolly ole fellow" who likes to tell stories, and perhaps that fits better with ISFp. I haven't studied his type in depth, but I would say that he was better than most actors at playing characters who are very different from himself.

[meatburger]

I would have to say that those clips of Hitchock do scream SEI to me. I only watched the first few seconds but was easily enough to reminds me a great deal of my friend. Who's also into claymation and films.

[Expat]

Because he associates the psychological, interpersonal dimensions with a greater level of abstraction; this seems to pair F with N. He was apparently particularly drawn to exploring psychological problems...suspicion, neurosis, madness, etc. I'm not saying that an Alpha couldn't be interested in those things....it's just that this is a focus I've seen from NF types more than NT. So taking the hypothesis that he's SLI, it would fit in terms of dual-block values.

That line of reasoning leads nowhere.

If you go to Delta via "NF" -- then why not the Beta NFs? If what you say is characteristic of NFs generally, then it is also of EIEs - the conflictors of the SLIs. And anything that is as valid for EIEs as for SLIs, according to your reasoning, is either not type related or counter-productive to your case.

And if applies to Delta NFs but not to Beta NFs, you haven't explained why. And in that case, there is no point to referring to the NF thing in the first place. Just say why it is a Beta and not a Delta thing. But I don't think you can - how could you even begin to argue that "psychological, interpersonal dimensions with a greater level of abstraction" is not a Beta NF thing?

That is the problem of using the clubs in socionics; they are split into opposing quadras.

To me, his movies don't seem as fragmentary as that approach might suggest. There tends to be a very coherent thread, often involving a character asking pretty intelligent questions and figuring out something step by step. Also, a lot of the "fun" of his movies comes from the very bold, strategic use of various dramatic devices; it's hard to describe this, but basically he lets you "see" his methods for achieving his effects. I don't have time to explain this fully right now, but this is what I mean by possibly "a Te approach to Fe"

I think you are mixing Si with Te.

[munenori2]

What do you think of Akira Kurosawa or Hayao Miyazaki, if you've seen their work? Or even Guillermo del Toro?

Possible resources (probably not the best, but they at least address common themes in their presentation of their material).

Kurosawa:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000041/bio

Miyazaki:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594503/bio

Gui:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0868219/bio

[liveandletlive]

what about wes anderson?


btw, i always thought woody was IEI