Martin Scorsese

[Roshan]

He's SiFe with fully developed Ne.

[e-ssam]

Te polr?

[Roshan]

I know...but Fi PolR? Si inferior?

Did you know he originally wanted to be a priest?



e-ssam

[Roshan]

In OP video, my original impression was TeNi but it quickly changed to SiFe. However this did not seem to make sense. So I looked at younger interviews (which I would have done anyway) and NeTi did seem to make sense. So I attributed the impression of SiFe to his developing and preferring those functions later on.

However, an interview with him about Kiarostami popped up and he really, really seemed too SiFe for that to be the case. In delving, first I realized he did not write the script for Taxi Driver and he was involved with like a clique of people since film school. So I think that clique determined a lot of the work he directed. SiFe also explains very well why he's the master curator and salvager of the 'film tradition'.

And especially with very healthy SiFe, Te PolR can be all but imperceptible. This is because Si overlaps with a lot of aspects of Te (whereas Ni does not). But I did start looking for signs of Te PolR and in one interview he responded to a question about whether he and DeNiro would work together again with they keep talking about it and it doesn't happen. It didn't seem to be an issue. He seemed comfortable in 'limbo'.

We could watch a film of his to discuss his use of film 'language'. Certainly the taxi driver goes around doing a LOT of nothing (until he doesn't), which might be part of what attracted him to the script. But the answers probably lie in his use of cinematic language--not to mention that we both had a very strong impression of SiFe when older.....

This impression isn't limited to energetics. He does have a way of appearing to be noncomittally slouching from idea to idea without concern for 'sharpening' the focus. The sharpening comes out imagistically in his films.

[e-ssam]

I know...but Fi PolR? Si inferior?

Did you know he originally wanted to be a priest?



e-ssam

Yes and that was the main issue I had with Fi polr


His filmmaking style is heavy on the impressions coming from the characters, that's essentially what he did to lift the Taxi Driver script from being only "Bresson"-esque.
He also vehemently storyboards almost everything, even though his later films are known for an "improv" feel to them, they were still heavily scripted.
https://boords.com/blog/martin-scorsese ... ies-behind

[Roshan]

I attributed the lack of sharp focus in his speaking, an almost superficiality to it, to NeTi careless idea-hopping but maybe it's just that he's just not as verbal as he seems. Like he talks a lot but doesn't really process linguistically.

[Roshan]

ps Those posts crossed.

Why so e-ssam?

Are you upset because you had a very strong feeling and didn't stick to your guns?

[e-ssam]

Yes,
also, a nice moment of synchronicity happened early this morning.
I stumbled across this article, I never read it before but I remember the whole "controversy" happening, and it kept striking me as NOT Fi blind, not even a very well developed workaround.
SiTe was also one of the types I had considered before.

[e-ssam]

I watched pretty much all of his major - and some minor - films including his early student films, and watched his masterclass and some of his film commentaries. He's one of the people I got 'familiar' with before I got into typology that much, and makes it harder to weed through the data.

[Roshan]

hmmm...well, I've just never done any sort of deep dive into him, not even like rewatching and rewatching some segment. When he first hit I was totally into foreign films and documentaries, when he established himself as like the godfather of film history, I wasn't really into film anymore. So I'm not really capable of situating him iykwim.

That said, 'The Last Temptation of Christ' should have been a clue (even though I didn't see it).

idk. If Tolkien can be SiTe maybe he could be SiFi. Choose a film for us to watch that you think would be the most helpful here.