ESTP vs ENTP in Film: Tarantino vs. Aronofsky
Here's what I think is a good example from a field most can relate to, and using two very intelligent and creative people who are geniuses in their own rights. Let's put the immature typical people aside for now.
Tarantino's works include Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Django Unchained. His type is ESTP. Even if he isn't your cup of tea, this man is brilliant. He has devoured the principles of many genres and many films and produces new material that synthesizes, bends, and toys with those principles alongside his own creations to create works with their own style in a manner that can't be taught and replicated easily with some book instructions. I have a bachelor's in film and media studies. He would've been one of the kids who took a class on every genre, every mode of storytelling, every tool of the trade, and then developed his own versions — which is essentially what he did. He truly lives up to the name of his temperament, the Improvisers. His films are visceral, thrilling, and the dialog is direct, pointed, and yet clever. His mis-en-scene, the elements within the frames o his films, are carefully crafted to set an incredible moment that is to be taken in within the present. He expresses himself through his art, taking a lot from westerns and kung-fu films to create the kind of art that he loves.
Aranofsky is another brilliant film maker. He is ENTP and his films include Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and Black Swan. It film school he probably enjoyed the types of classes I really liked, that got into the cultural impacts on film, how film transforms culture and especially film theory. Film theory looks into how a symbol is created, with discussions by great theorists like Eisenstein who noticed that Symbol A and Symbol B together create Symbol C; more than its parts, and Commoli who discussed how history is non-linear, and Bazin who thought realism was necessary to fight the propaganda nature of film. It's the study of how Lacant's mirror theory works in film, how we relate to the person we're watching and how we project. It's Metz's model of communication and how the object infers the idea, which is then interpreted to our own idea and then formed back into a concrete notion. Aronfsky's mis-en-scene is to create a lasting environment to be studied, with the use of imagery like Coney Island with the assumption that you know or will know how Coney Island burned down with the people trapped on the rides. He's using the elements of film and the medium to create a psychological and philosophical experience to navigate you through yourself and your ideas of the world. His wrestler is perpetually out of breath, because life is a struggle, and he's not going to tell you that, he wants you to feel that on a deep level, and he's thinking of ways to get in your head and he is brilliant at bringing his explorations to you.
He also expresses his personality through his works, and they're a realm of abstract ideas, like what is our purpose, what are our weaknesses, what is beauty, what is strength, and what is the underlying nature of the world we live in? How do we fit into it, how are transcendental, and how are we puppets of our circumstances and what are our options? What makes us snap and why do we fear death? What is the other way to look at it? What is obsession? What is its cost? When is it good and when is it bad?
I enjoy Tarantino. I can watch his films a number of times. I think my technical knowledge of film adds to my appreciation but also, there's something there to learn from but at the same time my abstract mind wants to go deeper with ideas like what was in the briefcase than he does. I loved that monologue about Superman in Kill Bill far more than any fight scenes with katanas.
But it is Aronofsky that appeals more to my abstract nature. When sensates talk to me about his films they'll be like "that was crazy" or focus on how intense the final scenes of Requiem were or how wild the ending of Black Swan was. They felt it but I'd be surprised if they wanted to talk too long about the theories and ideas embedded in the film. It's almost a surprise to them when I might mention the power dynamics between the instructor and her, how the sex scene relates to her mother, about the edges of consciousness and how we swing far the other way, in reaction, or how ballerina shoes were perfect for setting up the scene and wondering if he had selected ballet for that purpose or realized that once he set into the story. I'll never forget when I went to see The Fountain on my own and as the film closed, I was sitting awe-struck by how incredibly he wrapped up these themes of belonging to an eternal Universe, of how life is perpetual transformation, of relating this to an awakening, and all the symbols and powerful imagery that he built up through the film coming together in masterpiece — and as I was ready to clap, the audience broke out in laughter, and I grinned to myself as I recognized that they didn't know how else to react, so I didn't clap, and as I made my way out I overheard people asking each other what happened there.
Aronofsky doesn't seem to even try and cater to the majority of the population, sensates, but I like that he doesn't, because he goes all the way with his vision and there's no fluff for us intuitives. They see things happening and may realize the symbols or have them explained to them, but we intuitives are on a ride while he takes all those inter-connections happening in our head, pushes them to the next level, and twists them up, because that's where the bulk of the action is happening.
Likewise there are many films that sensates find thrilling but fail to captivate me because they don't do anything funky to my head. Primer doesn't count — yes, putting together the sequence is super complex and there's issues of jealousy and betrayal and friendship — been there, done that — technically amazing and brilliant and science-candy, but the abstract is when you watch Moon and it makes you think about what makes you, you. Far less complicated, yet far more profound for an intuitive.
Memento, Primer, Brick, the Godfather trilogy, and so many more are examples of great films that appeal to everyone, intuitives and sensates alike. Films that appeal mostly to just sensates are not just dumb action flicks, there are a slew of well done and intelligent S-candy, I don't keep a record of those...but they're there, and yet there also some films that are primarily N-candy. Aronofsky is an example of someone who creates N-candy. Coppola's recent films, now that he isn't aiming for a large audience anymore, also tend to be N-Candy, like Youth without Youth; films which have very little concrete material or interests and likely to bore even an intelligent sensate as being too abstract.