Kubrick

[Roshan]

I could certainly warm up to NiTe in a few of these photos key words Stanley Kubrick as a child now. Not that I didn't search 'childhood' before...

On the other hand -Sarah- gets that look, but no one is saying he would jump over Se; the notion is quite preposterous. I suppose it is not impossible the idea I have that I would have felt neutralized by him if we met professionally could be 'distance of identicals', but...he just seems too high Se.

I keep going back to FiSe creatjve every time I watch him on camera. Editing everything in sequence and never going back to change it once it's done (as in the editing Barry Lyndon video) also seems very Ji lead, like he really did start the editing with a picture in his mind (and did all the takes so he could ultimately fulfill it). I know, 'everyone' assumes he's T. There is a minority ST contingent out there...

[Roshan]

He starts off: "I'm not going to be asked any conceptualizing questions, right?" and then to the interviewer's exclamations says, "I'm good at generalized statements. I still can't tell someone what Paths of Glory is about without sounding like a bad synopsis", and then that he's felt "trapped, pinned down or harried" to make things up or just say what someone else said when asked these questions, but then he says the problem is putting the answer into just a few lines, capsule, when you're inside of or just finished something. He seems to admire E.M. Foster and Fellini for being able to deflect these questions with aphorisms or witticisms; he feels whatever he says will be wrong or steer people in the wrong direction. He says he uses the questions from previous interviews to answer other interviews and he is trying 'to help the film' but 'it's difficult'.

Making films is analysis and feelings, more like intuition, like writing music, he guesses. He starts to sound like Adolphe Reed, who we typed as TeNi.

You're always balancing time and resources against quality and ideas. It'snever like structuring a logical argument, 'which would then lead you to some very neat ways of coming in on your answer [to the interviewers' questions]. Do you play chess?'

He then compares film-making to a timed chess tournament, where a player may have ten minutes and spend nine minutes on two moves that are crucial, and leave one minute for all the rest. Stresses he is always balancing time and 'resources against the outcome', despite the mostly 'apocryphal' stories about him. He sounds like a withdrawn TeNi business owner by 15'47".

"Is it truthful? Is it interesting?" Adamantly the "mandatory" things he's supposed to do to be "ingratiating" to the audience are "bs", the audience is more intelligent than that. The world is not like a Frank Kapra movie, as good and as beautiful as they are. "Sentimentality" is "something that is not really true". He does not want to make people happy, he wants to present truth.

This is the aspect of his photography that I originally was saying was more Te with Se than Fi with Se. The unadulterated grittiness and rawness of it. Looking again, at the latest batch of photos, the high Ni really struck me, and struck me as not instrumental...which I then hesitated about, because why not creative subtype second slot?

Pretty sure by about 20 minutes in he is TeNi and that whatever doesn't seg with Si PolR will be due to 'evolutionary' aspect and/or our misconception of what Si is; orrrrr...

I am wrong.

But I'm voting. Though I will get through all 200 minutes plus the other interview, I would be very surprised if I change after these first twenty.

[Roshan]

Also there is this trove which the audio interview comes from that I haven't looked at at all yet.

https://www.moviegeeksunited.com/thekubrickseries

[Roshan]

We should probably take literally his explanation (in the doc) that he didn't do interviews because he was not good at them. Good at making movies, not at giving interviews. Not that they caused anxiety and dread, just that he was not good at them. And here he 'clearly lays out' why not.

[Anthony]

Mind you, he is also pretty universally considered to be 5w4 while we see him as an 8 with 5w4 fix and the odds are in our favor.

Did you mean to say 5w6 fix?

[Roshan]

Did you mean to say 5w6 fix?

sp/sx 8w9(7w8)-5w6(6w7)-3w4(4w5) from the old thread, sorry. That seems right and hasn't changed.

[Anthony]

I've watched ~40 minutes of that interview so far. Since it's 12:15 am and I need to sleep, I'll leave it at this for now—

Roshan I see exactly what you mean.

The first thing I thought when listening to him was "gosh, he really sounds like DG," and I also recalled that Kasparov is a TeNi chess grandmaster.
To shorten and paraphrase your characterization of him on EF: he is incredibly blasé, even throwaway. He comes off as almost totally insouciant and his speech is markedly imprecise; he should not be a Ti/Fe valuer.

I watched "The hidden depths of 2001: A Space Odyssey - a film analysis." I agree, it was indeed a fascinating confirmation of T, and imo also a confirmation of strong (even if unvalued) Ti. The extreme attention to detail (wrt say, the chair blouse) and the visionary worldbuilding bespeaks of valued Ni, TiNe shadow (I THINK), and especially that he has all 8 functions developed. His FILMS tend to make Si PoLR seem impossible, but then, I think to myself, "Okay, but he kind of seems 'nothing PoLR.'"

tbcd.

[Roshan]

(Posts crossed)

I just reread the thread from EF and it's already all there from what I had listened to of him back then: he's not precious, he's pragmatic, grounded and raw. My vehement argument against 5w64w5 and for '5 all the way in 6' for him was also pretty much an argument against the Ji leads. Kubrick was just too too elemental and brass tacks.

I reiterate that Akhromant, typing him as ESTJ, considers that to be Te Se Ni Fi, and he is right about the functions (and almost the order), just wrong about the name of the type.

That he puts Darwin in the same boat is his problem, I guess, despite them both being interested in ape men.

[Vincent]

He starts off: "I'm not going to be asked any conceptualizing questions, right?" and then to the interviewer's exclamations says, "I'm good at generalized statements. I still can't tell someone what Paths of Glory is about without sounding like a bad synopsis", and then that he's felt "trapped, pinned down or harried" to make things up or just say what someone else said when asked these questions, but then he says the problem is putting the answer into just a few lines, capsule, when you're inside of or just finished something. He seems to admire E.M. Foster and Fellini for being able to deflect these questions with aphorisms or witticisms; he feels whatever he says will be wrong or steer people in the wrong direction. He says he uses the questions from previous interviews to answer other interviews and he is trying 'to help the film' but 'it's difficult'.

Making films is analysis and feelings, more like intuition, like writing music, he guesses. He starts to sound like Adolphe Reed, who we typed as TeNi.

You're always balancing time and resources against quality and ideas. It'snever like structuring a logical argument, 'which would then lead you to some very neat ways of coming in on your answer [to the interviewers' questions]. Do you play chess?'

He then compares film-making to a timed chess tournament, where a player may have ten minutes and spend nine minutes on two moves that are crucial, and leave one minute for all the rest. Stresses he is always balancing time and 'resources against the outcome', despite the mostly 'apocryphal' stories about him. He sounds like a withdrawn TeNi business owner by 15'47".

He really really does, yes.
And there are indeed a LOT of similarities with Adolphe Reed.
He really doesn't sound Ne polr either here.

I was quite perplexed after i watched the documentary last night. My impression was that something didn't quite add up in the way pretty much everybody was insisting about how gregarious, agreeable, funny, caring and loving that sp/sx 853 guy was.As if they were the ones "cooking the books".
But the thing is... that's probably how the employees of those TeNi business owners talks about them too. The ones that didn't get fired at least.

I'll listen to the rest of the interview soon but at this point,i'm pretty sure you're right about him being TeNi.

tbcd.

[Vincent]

We should probably take literally his explanation (in the doc) that he didn't do interviews because he was not good at them. Good at making movies, not at giving interviews. Not that they caused anxiety and dread, just that he was not good at them. And here he 'clearly lays out' why not.

Yes, and it kind of sounds like for him all synopsis would be bad synopsis.
I mean, he doesn't want him and his work to be "pinned down" and that sounds like an issue with Si "entomology" rather than an issue with Ne.