Movie directors

[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"

[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

[munenori2]

what about wes anderson?


btw, i always thought woody was IEI

He's certainly got an incredible bit of nuance to him. I could quote his movies ('Crimes and Misdemeanors' comes immediately to mind), but I should probably go sleepy-bye.

[Creepy-bg]

Wes Anderson makes amazingly good movies

[Jonathan]

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.

....

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

Well not exactly. Both Betas and Deltas are "aristocratic," which is supposed to mean something. I'm not saying that I see any case for Hitchcock having qualities associated with the words "aristocratic" as opposed to "democratic," but just that the fact that "opposing" quadras are opposed in some ways doesn't mean that they don't have similarities based on club. Anyhow, we were comparing whether he was Alpha or Delta, so the possibility that he could be Beta didn't even enter into it.

I think you are mixing Si with Te.

Could be. Is solving things step by step, figuring out how best to come at answers, seeking the heart of the matter in a mystery by using logic an indication primarily of Si? If so, that would explain my confusion.

[Expat]

Anyhow, we were comparing whether he was Alpha or Delta, so the possibility that he could be Beta didn't even enter into it.

But it must, if you go via the NF route -- I don't think he was Beta; I just think that your "psychology" argument for Delta, the way it was put, is not very persuasive.

Could be. Is solving things step by step, figuring out how best to come at answers, seeking the heart of the matter in a mystery by using logic an indication primarily of Si? If so, that would explain my confusion.

Again, I don't see what he did in that way at all. I don't think he "sought the heart of the mystery by using logic"; his approach to movies, in my opinion, and according to what he said, not only in those clips, was to see them as a scary amusement park ride -- what matters is the emotions in a moment-by-moment basis (and that is indeed Si), not so much the plot. Now, of course a movie must have a script, and they will have the "mystery", but that aspect of filmmaking did not seem to interest Hitchcock at all; in fact, I think he always discussed his movies from the point of view of how to construct particular scenes, not really from the point of view of the plot.

Again, why do you think that "figuring out how best to come at answers, seeking the heart of the matter in a mystery by using logic" particularly interested him? He did not seem ever to discuss his movies from that point of view - rather, again, on how to construct individual scenes. And that is related to Si.

[Jonathan]

But it must, if you go via the NF route -- I don't think he was Beta; I just think that your "psychology" argument for Delta, the way it was put, is not very persuasive.

Well, maybe I didn't articulate as well as I could have, but I think the argument is valid that this interest in the "inner psychology" of people is more associated with Delta and Alpha. But I'm not going to belabor the point because I'm not that passionately convinced of his type....I just see some evidence for SLI, that's all.

Again, I don't see what he did in that way at all. I don't think he "sought the heart of the mystery by using logic"; his approach to movies, in my opinion, and according to what he said, not only in those clips, was to see them as a scary amusement park ride -- what matters is the emotions in a moment-by-moment basis (and that is indeed Si), not so much the plot. Now, of course a movie must have a script, and they will have the "mystery", but that aspect of filmmaking did not seem to interest Hitchcock at all; in fact, I think he always discussed his movies from the point of view of how to construct particular scenes, not really from the point of view of the plot.

Again, why do you think that "figuring out how best to come at answers, seeking the heart of the matter in a mystery by using logic" particularly interested him? He did not seem ever to discuss his movies from that point of view - rather, again, on how to construct individual scenes. And that is related to Si.

It's his characters who are like that. And in my opinion, he does the mystery thing better than most people. His characters ask reasonable questions, and the plots make sense much more than those of lesser directors.

In any event, I've never perceived his movies to be weak on plot. There are films where the plot is a just a device to have special effects, humor, and so forth. The Rambo films are a good example of movies where the plot doesn't matter much. On the high-art end, the film by Fellini I referred to before (8 1/2) is a good example of a film which purposely has minimal plot.

But Hitchcock films tend to have great stories. And I don't think that his comments implied he doesn't think plot is important. What he doesn't think is important is details that aren't related to the psychological or artistic dimension. As he said, if people are looking for the plans to the fort, who cares what the plans to the fort say? It's the fact that they're looking for them, or fighting over them. Good storytelling is more about overall paradigms than getting into details that have nothing to the drama, the pacing, keeping the audience's attention.

Of course none of that argues against SEI. SEIs are supposed to be good storytellers, aren't they? It's just that Si-based storytelling is different from Ni-based storytelling.