Character and Type

[JWC3]

Seeing as most characters who are a very very good example of a certain type also seem to share that type, or are very very similar in type, with the actor who plays them; What do you all think about the relationship between type and the ability to portray other types? Are certain types just really easy to play?

[Jarno]

Seeing as most characters who are a very very good example of a certain type also seem to share that type, or are very very similar in type, with the actor who plays them; What do you all think about the relationship between type and the ability to portray other types? Are certain types just really easy to play?

true, I've once noticed this too.

I guess most actors play their own type.

example the A-Team

Hannibal ENTJ the leader
Face ENFJ the charismatic
Murdock ENTP-Ne the mad man

[Rocket]

Seeing as most characters who are a very very good example of a certain type also seem to share that type, or are very very similar in type, with the actor who plays them; What do you all think about the relationship between type and the ability to portray other types? Are certain types just really easy to play?

I think that most actors will (wisely) go for the low hanging fruit and pick (or will be picked) for a character portrayal much like themselves. For this reason good directors (eg Woody Allen) will often allow actors make changes the script to suit their style adding to the overall feel of authenticity.

If i had to mention one really impressive actor with range, Robert DeNiro comes to mind. He seems to play a lot of ST type roles but i figure him for an INFP.

In answer to your question i guess Feeling types have the most range ... and within that the Beta NFs like DeNiro and just about every US president in the last 30 years ..... easier for a feeler to portray a thinker than a thinker to portray a feeler.

[Gilly]

We probably portray types from our own quadrs and club the best.

[krieger]

When an actor plays something other than their real type, the result is usually something awkward and fake-looking. Fortunately, most directors pick up on this and make small adjustments to the role to accomodate for the difference in type between actor and character.

Saw this movie a few days ago. It has an INTj in it that behaves extroverted. The behavior is not in any way impossible for an INTj to manifest, but one wonders how an INTj would keep up that kind of thing for long times on end.

[silverchris9]

I strongly disagree. Meryl Streep. No way the character she plays are all the same type, adjustments to the role or not. I mean, that's just one example, but you can cite bunches of character actors who are more than capable of "playing against type" (insert rimshot here). Acting (real acting) happens at a pretty deep level, and good actors are more than capable of imagining different states of being, whether that happens from the inside out or from the outside in. I guess what I'm saying is, if you can play Rainman, you can play an LII, no matter what your type is.

[JWC3]

I strongly disagree. Meryl Streep. No way the character she plays are all the same type, adjustments to the role or not. I mean, that's just one example, but you can cite bunches of character actors who are more than capable of "playing against type" (insert rimshot here). Acting (real acting) happens at a pretty deep level, and good actors are more than capable of imagining different states of being, whether that happens from the inside out or from the outside in. I guess what I'm saying is, if you can play Rainman, you can play an LII, no matter what your type is.

What type do you think Dustin Hoffman is? And do you think there is a connection between that type and LII?

[JWC3]

I think that most actors will (wisely) go for the low hanging fruit and pick (or will be picked) for a character portrayal much like themselves. For this reason good directors (eg Woody Allen) will often allow actors make changes the script to suit their style adding to the overall feel of authenticity.

If i had to mention one really impressive actor with range, Robert DeNiro comes to mind. He seems to play a lot of ST type roles but i figure him for an INFP.

In answer to your question i guess Feeling types have the most range ... and within that the Beta NFs like DeNiro and just about every US president in the last 30 years ..... easier for a feeler to portray a thinker than a thinker to portray a feeler.

What is it about ethicals do you think that makes them more adept at having a larger 'acting range' than logical types?

Why do you think DeNiro is INFP? (1. I mean what interviews/information/movies did you watch that led you to this conclusion, 2. Do you mean IEI?)

[JWC3]

We probably portray types from our own quadrs and club the best.

What about in the case of a conflictor? Wouldn't it be easy to just do every thing opposite of what you would normally do?

[silverchris9]

What type do you think Dustin Hoffman is? And do you think there is a connection between that type and LII?

No idea. I'm just saying that Rainman is probably as different from Dustin Hoffman as a given LII is from a given ESI or IEI or LSE or what have you.

[JWC3]

No idea. I'm just saying that Rainman is probably as different from Dustin Hoffman as a given LII is from a given ESI or IEI or LSE or what have you.

So LII is equally different from every other type?

Essentially LII is as different from say ILE as from SEE?

You think if Hoffman was SEE it would be just as easy for him to portray a LII as if he was any alpha type?

[Rocket]

Why do you think DeNiro is INFP? (1. I mean what interviews/information/movies did you watch that led you to this conclusion, 2. Do you mean IEI?)

Yes IEI.
I'm old enough for DeNiro to have been part of my consciousness for ages. It's not one movie or interview.

But here's an interview thats reasonably representative



Maybe just me, but he gives me the impression of a man brimming with expression but somehow "restraining" it. The impression of a man who could express at will anything he wanted to, and with ease. The impression of a man who can and will turn it "off" and "on" as needed -Creative

He's eloquent. When i look at him, his basic patterns, mirco expressions match those of IEI's i know in person.

[Rocket]

With regard to why i believe feeling types make the most versatile actors ... its quite simple. Socionics has the focus of feelers in the human sphere. In short they're more likely to be better observers of human behaviour, more acutely aware of the true nature of relationships and more able to address unspoken emotional needs. Given these leanings they are more likely to have a broader repertoire to apply in their acting roles.

[Reuben]

I haven't watched the whole thing, but check out 1:55 to 2:07.

This part is where DeNiro is speaking out of his super ego. Notice how he takes a deep breath in and becomes a bit more tense when speaking? Also, he begins to touch his nose, and at the end when he says 'I know what's really important, and what's not', he touches his nose and covers his mouth. He was lying.

This supports the IEI theory, since his SLI personna isn't his real self.

[Reuben]

'and she acts mostly through subtle facial and body movements to express her emotions. Very credible.'

I'd like to ask about this SLI-thing on reading body language. Many type descriptions always seem to come with the line similar to this 'but the SLI is a master of reading body language. He does this to make up for his weak feeling function.'

How credible is this actually?

Also, if anyone knows, how does their method of reading body language differ from Fe-ego types? (Or perhaps its their method of acquiring that body language reading skill that differs?)

I am actually rather impressed with Kate's acting. Not so at first, it seemed a bit stilted. But the more I watch it, I realized that she was actually playing a character that was having some date anxiety of sorts that faded away during the kiss. I don't know the context so I'm just guessing here. If I guessed right, then she was awesome.

I'm intrigued by the idea of logical types having to rely on their own emotions. In other words, they must find a way to stimulate their emotions? I don't really catch what you're saying. Could you give examples?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'd like to ask about this SLI-thing on reading body language. Many type descriptions always seem to come with the line similar to this 'but the SLI is a master of reading body language. He does this to make up for his weak feeling function.'

For myself, I often find myself paying attention to peoples facial expressions, it gives me clues as to what they are about. Funny, I know an SLI who when driving always seems to have the need to look at the passenger when communicating if he's not sure of the person.

I'm not sure if I portray as much facial expressions as I look for in others, but I sometimes think i'm good at reading the minute details.

ENFp's often have a sort of astonished/thinking about it look when i'm talking to them, which soothes me as I think they are taking in what i'm saying.

Also, if anyone knows, how does their method of reading body language differ from Fe-ego types? (Or perhaps its their method of acquiring that body language reading skill that differs?)

I pay more attention to it than them from what I can tell, they seem to have other ways of reading, and more importantly, the Fe dominants are more concerned with influencing than reading, whereas I can't influence like that but I try to read.

Don't know if that helps.

[silverchris9]

So LII is equally different from every other type?

Essentially LII is as different from say ILE as from SEE?

You think if Hoffman was SEE it would be just as easy for him to portray a LII as if he was any alpha type?

Maybe not just as easy, just as the role in Toosie might've been easier (I guess) than the role in Rainman. So no, an LII isn't equally different from every other type, but the difference between an LII and any other type is not, in my opinion, greater than the difference between a person with a typical brain function and a person with atypical brain function. Or for that matter, at a fairly deep level, an SEE and an LII that both served in the Vietnam war, for instance, and had similar (bad) experiences in it, or an LSE and an IEI that both lived in London during the Black Plague could possibly be more similar (or at least one would have an easier time portraying the other in a film) than two LIIs who had perfectly identical historical circumstances. I'm saying that type, while an important factor, is not a greater factor than those which very good actors have consistently overcome in the past.

And then of course, there is the fact that an SEE need not portray the paragon of LIIness in a movie in order to make a convincing portrayal of a human being who could be typed as LII.

EDIT: Also, Kate Winslet was also VERY good in Revolutionary Road (she was good in the reader too, but I lost interest in that movie. I do agree with the SLE typing for Hannah though), and there's NO WAY that character was SLE (or the one in titanic). Granted, probably still beta (possibly alpha), but not SLE.

[shakealittle]

Also, if anyone knows, how does their method of reading body language differ from Fe-ego types? (Or perhaps its their method of acquiring that body language reading skill that differs?)

Yeah I have been wondering this too. As an LSI I feel like I'm really good at reading body language and feeling energy??

[JWC3]

More or less.



I just meant that people will have different areas of strenght, depending on personality type and life experiences, etc. and that I think an actor will look better if he lets his own personality shine through in areas of weakness, but that he can rely more on "imagination" in areas of strenght. That's just my idea, though. You should ask JWC3 what theory says.

Your actually pretty spot on. I'm inclined to ask if you've read any acting text books. Basically imagination, while not really being the right word, is simply replacing things in your own life with objects the character finds important. Not the creating of an entire fake world or person. What I mean by this is instead of just pretending you fucking love cheese pie and then portraying that. (Which would prolly come off as over the top and a bit awkward on stage) It's generally more helpful for an actor to replace something in their life that they do actually love with cheese pie and then acting accordingly, because this gives an actor a much better idea of what is real and further more a idea or starting place for the emotional attraction to cheese pie.

Basically imagination is sort of the right word but not really because it implies the creation of something that is fake or not real which of course is never what you want to play on-stage.

[JWC3]

Yeah I have been wondering this too. As an LSI I feel like I'm really good at reading body language and feeling energy??

Probably not terribly type related, I mean sure maybe certain types are more likely to pay attention but honestly most people are so easy to read that all you have to do is just look at them and it's not terribly hard to get an idea of what's going on underneath.

Personally I am great at reading body language that expresses interest or disinterest in a topic and can adjust conversation accordingly however, I almost always second guess myself when it comes to identifying actual sexual attraction.

[JWC3]

Sounds like the recipe for "how to succeed as a con man". I'd say a good actor is a good liar after this lesson.

In a different world, I would already be in possession of all your money.

[silverchris9]

Your actually pretty spot on. I'm inclined to ask if you've read any acting text books. Basically imagination, while not really being the right word, is simply replacing things in your own life with objects the character finds important. Not the creating of an entire fake world or person. What I mean by this is instead of just pretending you fucking love cheese pie and then portraying that. (Which would prolly come off as over the top and a bit awkward on stage) It's generally more helpful for an actor to replace something in their life that they do actually love with cheese pie and then acting accordingly, because this gives an actor a much better idea of what is real and further more a idea or starting place for the emotional attraction to cheese pie.

Which book is that from? I read most of Respect for Acting once, and that reminds me a lot of substitution.

[JWC3]

Which book is that from? I read most of Respect for Acting once, and that reminds me a lot of substitution.

It's Michael Shurtleff filtered through Joe Cox. I'm not sure how much of Shurtleff was actually left but, hey I understand it so whateves.

[JWC3]

But in this world, I would soon be in possession of yours.

All my base are belong to you?


... Sadface

[silverchris9]

It's Michael Shurtleff filtered through Joe Cox. I'm not sure how much of Shurtleff was actually left but, hey I understand it so whateves.

Huh. I don't know about Joe Cox. I seriously need to read Audition though. I've heard it's amazing.

[JWC3]

Huh. I don't know about Joe Cox. I seriously need to read Audition though. I've heard it's amazing.

lol I'm Joe Cox. And yes, every one needs to read Audition.

[silverchris9]

lol I'm Joe Cox. And yes, every one needs to read Audition.

Oh! Got it.