Movie directors

[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.

[Expat]

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.

That's the essence of our disagreement. I don't think it's accurate to think of "his" characters at all. He did not write the vast majority of his scripts, and I haven't seen evidence that he cared about character development much. Rather than "his characters", I think it's much more accurate to think of "his scenes". He seemed much more interested - not only in those clips - to discuss how to construct a scene, rather than how to develop a character. Of course, his films are "concrete" in terms of plot rather than "vague" or "abstract" like Fellini's or, say, Godard's, but I think it's just wrong to attribute to Hitchcock's type traits observed in the characters of his movies.