Movie directors

[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]

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"