Sign Up | Log in |

Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky'
Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky MBTI type

Television, Movie Industry and Mass Media


INFJ - 19
INFP - 10
INTP - 2
ISFP - 1

[Famous INFJs]

Log in to vote!


4W5 - 7
5W4 - 6
5W6 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 4]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Trytipe: 4-5-1 imo. 4-5-1 are a type of 4 that comes off as very serious and even cold like a 5, but despite the 5 like coldness and 1 rigidity apparent both from his movies and person, he's clearly interested in truths about the human heart and meaning of life relating to the human heart, and not some cold 5-like truth. Also, it's very unlike for IFPs to be 451 imo, it seems more like a INFJ thing.That sounds more like a lesson he learned in life; the authenticity INFJs strive for all their lives (do they ever get it?)"We cannot impose our experience on other people or force them to feel suggested emotions.

MBTI type of Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky

. Only through personal experience do we understand life." Say it with me: INFP.

Find out about Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky personality type

.I've re-tough the MBTI function order. From interviews he shows that a heavy inclination towards abstraction (N) and emotional truth (F), also clear introversion.Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky. So he INFx. In my version of MBTI, INFP shows traits of Fi, Ne and Ni; INFJ shows traits of Ni, Fe and Fi.Which of the 16 personality types is Andreï Tarkovski / Andrei Tarkovsky?. Tarkovsky's work, interviews and book shows generalized contemplative abstractions (Ni), need for emotional authenticity (Fi) and communal spirit (Fe). Meanwhile, his movies, interviews or book -Sculpting in Time, don't show Ne almost at all, Ne is practically absent. So in conclusion INFJ. There's something to clarify here, about the Fi in INFP and INFJ. While Tarkovsky shows concern for authenticity and strong personal conviction (like INFJ authors such as Mishima or Dostoyevski also show), he doesn't show the individualism of Fi-doms, the desire the take the individual over the archetype. His work is instead hollistic, it's about the individuals place in the world, in the great scheme of things, inside the absolute. While INFP can have traits like that, individualism is still the biggest concern, while for Tarkovsky is more about showing the individuals place in the absolute, the world etc. Take for example his movie Stalker. The characters are clear archetypes (Ni), not actual people, they represent the spiritual person (the stalker), the artist (the writer) and the scientist (the professor), they aren't true people. The reason he's not concerned with political allegory is probably because he's the spiritual rather than a social kind of INFJ (sp/sx with low social instinct) so for him spiritual truth is more important than political one, think Lao Tzi, Buddah etc. His visual indulgence is no defining traits against INFJ, since he wants to create contemplation towards spiritual truth, rather than stern analysis.I love Melancholia. But the visuals are archetypal (the introduction scene looks like tarot cards), everything is pure, condensed, simple (far from the way Von Trier indulged himself with inferior sensation with the near pornographic Nymphomaniac). I see it as very different kind of imagery from Tarkovski whom is always straying from the point. He seems very P in some ways. So I'm leaning on ISFP for now, but need to do some research on his modus operandi.Not seen Melancholia, but as a initial impression, that shot looks good in a ''takes 1000 likes on Deviant Art'' kind of way. Almost, as if photosohed. I didn't say INFJ can't be very good with visuals, specially in that hypnotic kind of way, but Stalker has a more earthy and very nuanced kind of beauty to it.Hold on a second, I just remembered how von Trier's Melancholia is somewhat renowned for its off-beat visual beauty. It's also, IIRC, dedicated to Tarkovsky and is partly a kind of homage. Look at It's maybe easier to copy something that pioneer it though, idk.Mohahaha, you went straight into my reverse psychology trap! Who is the next director I will make ISFP? James Cameron? No, I'm kidding.^^ Tarkovsky seriously seems to me INFJ for the reasons I put below. I hesitate though, because you've read his book and everything. Also I guess you have a point. I was going to whip up some impressive shots from Lars von Trier or something ... But eh, it's not really what his movies are about. I guess being a Soviet artist may have its demands as well, and there are perhaps more social expectations for Russian art in general to be socially responsible, with a heritage with so many important NFJs? Possible, possible.^^PS: I liked that highway scene in Solaris, thought was really cool and stuff!I can't see an S inferior making Stalker. Not to say an INFJ can't be very good with visuals, but the visuals in Stalker have a natural complexity that would demand one's S function being in a non-inferior position, as the lower the function, the less is nuanced. Or maybe that was the cinematographer's accomplishment and Tarkovsky simply gave him free reign, but I suspect it was mostly Tarkovsky who knew what he wanted. For now, I'm on ISFP who said INFJ things at times because he needed to justify his movies in a non-idulgent way (probably as an effect of having to explain himself to the Soviet authorities). Like in his book Sculpting in Time, there's a few xNFJ like quotes about the artist reflecting his times and things like that, but he never does explain those things more in depth, and just moves on. Instead, he talks on and on about the cinema's role of capturing ''life'' without imposed symbolism or allegory. Wow, if someone tolled me I will end up defending ISFP for Tarkovsky and Butterfly INFJ, I would have thought it's a crazy joke!Yeah, to me it seems like he has a big theory behind all his movies with similar abstract reasons for everything (INxJ). In an interview I read he was also obsessed with stuff like "the Russian artist" and their responsibilities, the difference between the art of different nations, etc., which sounds Fe-like to me!I don't know how to handle Tarkovski. I considered INFP, but ISFP makes sense too. I just can't see him as INFJ. There's too much unnecessary moments in his films. Take Solaris, the book is quite simple from a narrative standpoint, but Tarkovski adds lots of elements in the first part that could have been taken off. It's like he's slowing, expanding the void between important moments. I did see that as Ne, but could be wrong, could be Se self indulgence or Se hypnosis (like the highway scenes in Solaris, that are just there to "numb" the viewer).You really need to create a website like like leon tsao's to show us how brilliant you are in the MBTI field!!! omg!!Hi, I'm trying to develop my own personal system based on MBTI but not tied to the functions (except the dominant and the orientation of their main thinking/feeling functions). In my system, this guy is a great example of an Aesthete-Sage. Aesthetes I associate most with ISFPs, and Sages with INFJs, so this guy remains ISFP. The Aesthate-Sage tries to develop his own personal style for visuals/music (aesthete), in order to exemplify their ideal of spiritual harmony and wholenesse (sage). Compare to the Aesthete-Dreamer (Van Gogh) they come of ass somewhat colder and more spiritual.Another great example of an Aesthete-Sage is the Romanian sculptor Constantin Brancuşi.He's not any kind of T type. His book Sculpting in Time makes it clear that for him that movies can only be understood emotionally, and that the highest knowledge is not attained in words or theory, but ''present people an image of life and they'll understand it''. His comments against self-absorbtion might mean he prefers to let the image talk for the artist, instead of the artist to talk himself.If he's ISFP, he's most likely 1w9, as enneagram 1 would explain best why he appears so J like. This quote seems most ISFPish: '' “My objective is to create my own world and these images which we create mean nothing more than the images which they are. We have forgotten how to relate emotionally to art: we treat it like editors, searching in it for that which the artist has supposedly hidden. It is actually much simpler than that, otherwise art would have no meaning. You have to be a child—incidentally children understand my pictures very well, and I haven’t met a serious critic who could stand knee-high to those children. We think that art demands special knowledge; we demand some higher meaning from an author, but the work must act directly on our hearts or it has no meaning at all.”@vandieu OMG were you trolling me when you typed Kieslowski?Then this interview muddles things up again: "Knowledge distracts us from our main purpose in life. The more we know, the less we know: getting deeper our horizon becomes narrower." This clearly goes against INTJ, possibly INFJ as well. "Art enriches man's own spiritual capabilities and then he can rise above himself to use what we call 'free will.'" More Fe evidence. As well, after reading some comments that I missed, I've come to see him as an individualistic and (in a different way) down-to-earth INFJ. ISFP 5w6 is still on the table, but he simply doesn't act like an ISFP at all.I've come to believe he is an INTJ. It's what makes the most sense, given his dislike for Fi-dom self-absorption and for symbolism, which can be interpreted as Te to-the-point-ness. INTJ 5w4 with ISFP 5w6 also being acceptableTarkosvky believed in learning from personal experience, He also intentionally made the first 15 minutes of Stalker “ slow and dull” as He Said, to alienate certain people and his movie were based in mood and personal ethic, i think his type is clear but some people just don’t want to see it.Are you people type him or your perception of his work?Tarkovsky doesn't rhyme with stylish; I used the wrong word. But what I meant there is how key and important visuals are for XNFJs.I wouldn't call Stalker stylish...That's why INFJ filmakers are shallower than INFP directors. INFJs are quite obsessed about things being stylish and whatnot.''That his style is essentialy Tarkovsky's own is confirmed by the fact that vritually any frame from Solaris, Mirror, Stalker, Nostalghia or The Sacrifice could be instantly indentified as being from one of his films, yet these films were shot by five different cinematohraphers. ... Alexander Knyazhinsky, who shot Stalker, felt that Tarkovsky was one of the very few Soviet directors who understood that cinema was essentialy a visual art and quoted him as saying that, if they got the images right, the film was sure to be a success.Sven Nykvist credited him with knowing a good deal about the technical side of filmmaking and with being very sensitive to light.''On his background: His father was a poet, and his mother a Literature Institute graduate. That could explain why he's such a complex individual, since he already inherited the literary aspect from his parents.Tarkovsky on the difference between him and Bergman: '' I: When did you get the idea for this film? T:How did I get the idea to make this or that film? I have never been able to give an interesting answer. The idea of a film always comes to me in a very ordinary, boring, manner, bit by bit, by rather banal phases. To recount it would only be a waste of time. There is really nothing fascinating, nothing poetic, about it. Ah, if only one could represent that moment like a sort of sudden illumination! In an interview Ingmar Bergman, if I remember correctly, told how the idea, or rather the image, of one of his films came to him suddenly, while observing a ray of light on the floor of a dark room. I don't know, evidently it happens. It has never happened to me.'' Sounds like Begman is higher on intuition than Tarkovsky.Of course, I can't claim I know what Bruce Lee, Camus and Tarkovsky it's all about, but it's possible that because Se it's so looked down on by other intellectuals, and found shallow, these ISP with stronger Ni took upon themselves to show that the simple observations of life and movement has more depth than these intellectuals who no longer look at life would believe.But to do so, they have to speak in other's language.Or it could be they needed somewhat to justify their grands project (2001, Andrei Rublev, Blade Runner, Eraserhead) that are masterfully crafted but may seem pointless to people that don't care about the uncompromising artisan, and would feel over-indulgent otherwise. Yet, what we got are this masterfully crafted movies, that make Hollywood blockbuster such a waste of resources cinematography wise.The arguments quotes for Fi and against Ni-dominance seem too strong to make a clear case for INFJ. Those last quotes seems very INFJ, but it seems that intellectual ISPs with strong tertiary Ni, have a thing for taking other's philosophies in big chuncks and putting them together in some kind of a more personal system like with cutting stuff from a book and sticking it with glue together -which equalls in them appearing more ''deep'' than INPs, who would rather use their own words. So in those cases it's important to separate what it's ''borrowed'' and what actually represents the actual intention of the person.For example: Bruce Lee (ISTP), many people think he must be INFJ because he uses these deep, abstract quotes. But it seem they tend to be rephrases of other thinkers, from Lao Tzi to german psychologists. But what is Bruce Lee trying to get at through these heavy philosophy? To something quite simple it seems: be adaptable in the moment! ( Se). Or Camus ( ISFP). He takes the basic premises from other philosophers whole, but with all its abstract talk about the ''absurd'', what he's trying to get at? -in my personal interpretation- Cherish the moment and the particular, nothing else is real but the moment and the particular (Se). So, for Tarkovsky we have to get at the bottom of what he's trying to say in Sculpting in Time, free of borrowed concepts. ''the cinematographic image'' seems to be his one obsession there.Everything else if filler, what it's of ultimate interest to him is the perfect ''cinematographic image'': the image that captures life with the utmost sincerity. This could be Ni-Se or could be Se-Ni. For Ni-Se he's too vehemently against any kind of symbolism or allegory, anything that tries to go beyond the image itself and tries to suggest something outside of it, because it ruins the perfection. The truth it's there in the image. Him saying the image suggest the absolute could be due to depth of feeling the image inspires in him (I personally feel like I get what's he's trying to say with his Fi. You catch some particular image and the feeling it associates makes it feel suspended in time and bigger than all practical truths of life ). Interestingly, he esteems haiku (which for me seems one of the most ISFP things there are) and compares the cinematographic image with haiku.Correction: ENTP fapping to INFJ.Anyway, he's definitely not Ne. Even the way Sculpting in Time is written, it doesn't go in all kinds of directions with ease, it's much more obsessive on a few points.And again, for him the image, the structural piece of movie making, it's something very convergent.Now let's see the ENTP butterfly fapping to your INTP analysis, bobnickmad.Hm, for him it was very important that movies were to be taken seriously as art, so I guess an interpretation, is that he knew if he linked movies to all these heavy philosophical concepts, they would be taken more seriously.Honestly, the big bulk of Sculpting in Time does feel kinda of an ISFP for whom filming had a religious aspect to it. Like the main motif for him, it seems that it's to capture the right images.Those kinda INFJ quotes are a few, but the obsession with ''pure image'' is nailed down over and over. INFJs also look for the ''pure image'', but one that's it's conceptual, while for him its those images that are already there in nature, almost like a reverse Plato. Than again, maybe he's more like a down to earth Plato rather than a reverse Plato. Btw: do you know an example of INFJ or INFP you could compare him to, and maybe to draw the right pararels.No, I understand what you're saying. I think calling him pretentious is more of a reflection on perception of the person saying it, not Tarkovsky. But on the point, I find an INFJ saying this strange aswell, "For me the most interesting characters are outwardly static, but inwardly charged with energy by an overriding passion". Maybe he likes Fi characters. But I don't find him particularly INFJ-like outside of those quotes.Whatever type, I dislike the notion that he's pretentious, because it's quite obvious movies were very important to him, I think there are few directors for which the medium of movies is as important as for Tarkovsky.I really can't see how an ISFP would dislike romanticism and Bethoven just because it's self centered (how is Bethoven self-centered even?). I also don't see an ISFP being so serious all the time, he seems stereotypically IxxJ.I think if we collect all these quotes we can point out how they can point to Ni and Fi, and also Fe in the last few quotes. We must take into consideration that he was also more of a philosophical aesthete than a serious philosopher and the fact that he himself said clearly that he doesn't intend to project a message in his work. All that doesn't sound terribly INFJ to me, well neither INFP aswell but rather an ISFP genius. I'll change vote to ISFP in that case.Anyway changing vote to INFJ for now.Those last two quotes sound so Ni-Fe but many others sound so Fi-like. I don't know, I am more confused than I was before. :/ He is either very complex (which can be both INFJ and INFP) or totally pretentious (again both INFs can appear that way :p)... But yeah those last quotes seem unequivocally Fe-like.Wow, after reading those quotes, why are we even doubting he is INFJ!! He wants to dissolve himself in his culture to reach the cosmos or something. Also, lol, even theoretically he is the opposite of everything I stand for. No wonder I don't like his movies.He really doesn't seem that bent on self-expression like some below think. 1)''Naturally my opinion is that before all else an artist expresses ideas ripening within the society he lives in. In brief, he appears a kind of medium, expressing ideas which society itself engenders. But society cannot be an artist. An artist after all is an individual, a personality; he is like a nation's personification precisely because he turns out to be the nation's voice, its product. ... And because of that an artist can never oppose his own culture, his own people, by no means he can oppose it; even when he expresses concepts containing ideas unacceptable to the contemporary society it doesn't mean these ideas did not originate inside, within that society.'' This seems very much the way INFJ see themselves in relation the society. A medium that represent the essence of that culture, and I think this causes them struggle: because their vision on what their culture is at its essence, and the ''public opinion'', doesn't coincide, yet they themselves don't feel they oppose that culture, but rather want to be a personification of it. 2)He also says he hates romanticism, and it seems for quite anti-Fi reasons: ''I believe that Romanticism — in a narrower sense — manifests itself when an artist is intoxicated with self-adoration, he creates himself in his art. That's a Romantic trait I find abhorrent. Also this self-confirmation, this unending self-presentation is not a result of his art, it is its goal. This is something I do not find very agreeable and in general. ... Take for example the music of Wagner or, I don't know, Beethoven — that's an unending monologue about oneself: look how poor I am, all in rags, how miserable, what Job I am, how unhappy, how I suffer — like nobody else — I suffer like the antique Prometheus... and here is how I love, and here is how I... You understand? I, I, I, I. — Not too long ago I deliberately listened to music from the 6th century B.C., it was classical Chinese ritual music. It offers absolute dissolution of individual in nothingness, in nature, in cosmos. That's the polar opposite in quality. Whenever an artist sort of dissolves himself in a work of art, when he himself disappears without a trace, this then is unbelievable poetry. '' 3) So despite the fact that he puts allot of emphasis on sincerity, it doesn't seem to be for Fi reasons.Disregard the contrarian quote I put up. The dude goes on and on about his rich inner world of emotions and bloated language. INFP.*he's not the kind of cryptical, analytical modern kind of INFJ*taking small scale projects and making something special out of itLike there is not just one form of INFP, there isn't just one form of INFJ. He's the the cryptic, analytical kind, rather he's more of a return to a more poetic form of INFJ, the kind of INFJ that is Lao Zi. Some very INFJ quotes: ''In the face of disaster on that global scale, the one issue that has to be raised, it seems to me, is the question of a man's personal responsibility, and his willingness for sacrifice, without which he ceases to be a spiritual being in any real sense. I mean that spirit of sacrifice which must constitute the essential and natural way of life of potentially every human being: not something to be regarded as a misfortune or punishment imposed from without. I mean the spirit of sacrifice which is expressed in the voluntary service of others, taken on naturally as the only viable form of existence.''; ''Compare Eastern and Western music. The West is forever shouting, 'This is me! Look at me! Listen to me suffering, loving! How unhappy I am! How happy! I! Mine! Me!' In the Eastern tradition they never utter a word about themselves. The person is totally absorbed into God, Nature, Time; finding himself in everything; discovering everything in himself.''. Also, my favorite of his quotes: ''The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good.''4) It's hard to see much Fe to him in person, but you can always find in his movies: Andrey Rublev is supposed to be about this painter, but really it's more about the Russian people and it's history, and the way they made what Rublev is as a painter. Tarkovsky about Solaris: ''The film ends with what is most precious for a person, and at the same time the simplest thing of all, and the most available to everybody: ordinary human relationships, which are the starting-point of man's endless journey. ... ... For me, the finale is Kelvin's return to the cradle, to his source, which cannot ever be forgotten.'' Sounds pretty Fe. Tarkovsky about the main character in Stalker: ''The Stalker seems to be weak, but essentially it is he who is invincible because of his faith and his will to serve others.'' Seems a pretty Fe way of understanding morality, where it means self-abnegation and serving others.3) While he definitely has some ISFP characteristics to him, ISFPs in interviews come of as way more laid-back than that. Even if they take their art very seriously, they don't take themselves that seriously, or in the case they're pretentious (which I don't think Tarkovsky is) there would still be something casual about them. Nor tough I see an ISFPs wanting to adapt a certain material because it deals with the dictotomy between moral entropy and inspiration to a moral ideal, and the conflict it creates in society and the individual, or the realition between art and knowledge, the disharmonious nature of the world and man's aspiration to harmony, all other hollistic concerns. They're about telling stories in a way that fits some personal aesthetic taste, maybe with some vague spirituality on top but that's it.2) The idea of an INFP making a movie like Andrey Rublev and Solaris seemed very inspiring, but it ultimately seems like wish-fulfillment at its best. I can see a highly disciplined INFP making a movie like STALKER sure, but not Andrei Rublev or SOLARIS. The level of production that goes in such movies, the scale, managing such a large crew and most importantly, making it all fit together is just something beyond what INFPs are capable of, unfortunately. Taking larger scale projects and making something special out of it it's the most Ne-lower Te could aspire to. People point his individualism for making such movies that go against the Soviet regimes demands, but really, what's most telling is: it's incredible someone even managed to make such movies in The Soviet Union in the first place. Andrey Rublev breaks every rule of what you can get away with in USSR: ample references to Christianity, spiritual, nudity even today might raise some eyebrows (the witch bath anyone!). To make such a movie in such time requires either huge amount of determination or incredible power of persuasion, and likely both, that fits more an INFJ. An ISFP might have the determination but I think they would be too much of a contrarian and thus shoot themselves in the foot.Bobnickmad once again destroying what he argued for till then. Honestly, I was never sure of Tarkovsky as INFP, and probably never will. On a surface reading of him it would fit, but not on a more fundamental level. I can't make a successful case for INFJ, not now at least, but at least I'll show you my doubts and all. 1)While it's possible that aux Ne might look like Ni in cases of more focused INFPs, Tarkovsky is simply not Ne at all, not subdued Ne, not everything, he's just the antithesis of Ne. At no point in what he says or in his movies is there something Ne about him. ''The image makes palpable a unity in which manifold different elements are contiguous and reach over into each other.''; ''In a word, the image is not a certain meaning, expressed by the director, but an entire world reflected as a drop of water.'' For him, the 'image', that is the fundamental basis of his work, is something very convergent. Tarkovsky isn't convergent on the surface, he aims for convergence. For him, the image is an aproximation of the whole. There's nothing freely associative, but gathering as much meaning in the most simple expression. ''an entire world reflected as a drop of water'' might be one of the best descriptions of Ni there is. In fact that is what Ni ultimately tries: to abstract the whole world and meaning to the simplest of images. Stuff like 'symbolism' or 'allegory' are means for some Ni-doms to reach this, but I don't think 'symbolism' itself it's what's fundamentally Ni, but rather getting at the the simplest yet fundamental expressions of the world, whether they call it ''The Idea''; ''Tao''; ''Being'', all the theory and symbolism in more analytical INFJs is just a way to the direct one to some fundamental truth than can only be grasped ''through the eye of the soul''. This is itself is not an argument for Ni-dom itself, but it is for Ni and lack of Ne. Ne wants to go in all directions and not by confined by ultimate expressions.Oh well, at least you sound reasonable now.Reading through everything posted since last time, I'm starting to think INFJ. Bobnickmad mentioned the stuff with the bell, and then there's how his movies are conscious of his people and nation and very important to them, and for example making the intro very slow so people have time to find their right seat, etc. That sounds very Fe to me, actually. And hearing more of the stuff he is saying, it's starting to sound more like there is genuine deep thought to him and his movies. Honestly I haven't really liked his movies much, so I don't know him very well either, and Bobnickmad is probably better to consider him in the first place. I just spoke from memory/impression.^^My least favorite director of all time.For those interested in anime, I would like the pin-point just how similar he and Mamoru Oshii (INTP: clearly not ISP, clear not J) are: both make movies very serious in tone even for their genres, both have heavy-handed philosophical dialogue in their movies, both put a huge emphasis on the visual and their visuals have a richness (STALKER, Ghost in the Shell) that can't be found in most directors, both make very slow movies with slow shots that just makes one contemplate the scenery and create mood. Except that one is a Russian movie director and the other a anime one, they're strickingly similar. I think for an INP to make very ambitious movies like these guys did, it requires a very trained Si and this in turn explain why their movie end up being so serious in tone and heavy handed compared to your typical NP movies. Also, anyone would tell you that between INFP and ISFP, INFP are by far the more 'serious' type, specially when they're in touch with their Si. Also, tertiary Si can have quite a stricking aesthetic -melancholic but focused on the peculiarity of the detail, aesthetics it's not someone pertaining only to Se types (by comparison, many Se-dom directors make very aesthetically poor movies). I for one like to spend time just looking at nature, water and old buildings, just staying minutes and minutes, soacking it in, while contemplating all kinds of questions about life, art, meaning and the human psyche. A movie like STALKER feels spiritual for me, not just dialogue wise, but visually as well. It feels very much like how I am when I just let my Si contemplates scenery and let Ne ponder about life and meaning and all that stuff. It's very bobnickmad-core lol.Fascinating discussion, all, and I'm not officially entering it: just leaving this comment here. But in my opinion Bobnickmad is on the money. He has provided the most definitive evidence of Fi/Si being the primary cognitive processes at work in Tarkovsky's filmmaking. Fi-dominance seems especially clear once you move past his filmography (mental contents) and examine the underlying processes at work and motivating him (see also: Scotty/Impeccable below). Though I'd be willing to consider ISFP, that argument thus far seems subjectively justified. Butterfly's defense of tertiary Ni rests partly on the "pretentiousness" and poetic, convergent surface beauty of Tarkovsky's work. But these are not objectively verifiable traits of Tarkovsky, they are Butterfly's own opinions of him. Additionally, "sculpting in time" is not nonsense, it's a poetic way of describing filmmaking itself. David Fincher said something virtually identical, and he's an INTJ - a Ni-dominant. But even if it were beautiful nonsense, the notion that N-type filmmakers would never sacrifice intellectual clarity for poetic beauty in a field in which the latter is more important than the former makes little sense. Finally, if Tarkovsky is a Fi/Si INFP that would explain the lack of "Ne-wackiness" in his films. But regardless of all this, the definitive evidence regarding his type lies not in the nature of his films, but in the how-and-why he made them. And that (thus far) seems to point to Fi + Si.Excerpts from an interview to nail the hammer down on what a clear NF he is, not a mysterious for its own sake SP: ''I: What is the central Idea in your film? T:What is central is the inner problem, which preoccupied me and which coloured the whole production in a very specific way: namely the fact that in the course of its development humanity is constantly struggling between spiritual, moral entropy, the dissipation of ethical principles, on the one hand, and on the other — the aspiration towards a moral ideal. The endless inner struggle of man, who wants to be freed from all moral restraint, but at the same time seeks a meaning for his own movement, in the form of an ideal — that is the dichotomy that constantly produces intense inner conflict in the life of the individual and of society.'' Clear moral and intuitive concerns, worthy of any self respecting NF. Contrast this with someone like Lynch in interviews, and it's a clear difference in intellectual heaviness. One of them (Lynch) is just about how his movies feel to him without any outside concerns: the other (Tarkovsky) see movies as a medium to deal with the moral conflicts inside the individual and society, and the yearning for a moral ideal. And then we have someone like Refn who's just about his fetishes: note that Refn and Lynch are much more alike that Tarkovsky is with either of them. Whether this means Lynch is ISFP and Tarkovsky INFP, or Lynch is INFP and Tarkovsky INFJ, it's pretty clear they're not the same type, and Tarkovsky is much more concerned with the relation between the individuals deeper self and a harmonious society. If there's a thing about his movies and interviews that feels very INFJ is the theme of sacrifice for some purpose outside of oneself. Like in Andrei Rublev, the disilusioned painter sees a young man building a church bell and making his community happy and this makes Rublev realizes he has a higher, unselfish calling; or the STALKER sees in the Zone an opportunity to serve others rather than himself. This could be aux Fe, or could be enneagram 1, but one thing for sure, INFJ and INFP are the only types that fit. Also, note that his last two movies are called Nostalgia and Sacrifice and this two seem to be the main poles around which Tarkovsky's artistic creation are to be understood.I honestly don't see Tarkovsky movies that mysterious even, they're nothing like Lynch or Jodorowsky or anyone like that. Persona is more vague or mysterious than Stalker or Andrei Rublev could ever be. STALKER for example is a pretty obvious soul-journey, and the main point is that even we ourselves aren't aware of our deepest desires and most inner motivation. Rublev has this very INFx theme of going from being very idealistic about the human condition to being very pessimistic about it all, all done in a very human way. SOLARIS doesn't have the vague mysteriousness of 2001:A Space Odyssesy either. All the philosophical musing in his movies are pretty general connections between the meaning of art, knowledge, truth and human emotions. Like with STALKER, whether or not the apparent lack of practical of art purpose makes it the most un-egoistical of human endeavours, and thus the superior human pursuit. Or how unlike science where there's one truth to everything, in art the truth is multi-faced, flexible, in a continuous creation. There is no reason to make thing more explicit, because making it more explicit than that would just mean to explain stuff word for word. If there's a mysterious aspect to his movie, it's the religious feeling, and maybe that's what you struggle with, like this feeling of connection with the world. The questions and point being made in his movies are as profound and relevant to the history of philosophy or art as it gets for any filmmaker, I don't see what more would you want? I also don't see why an ISFP would need to philosophize on those aspect in the first place, for them what art it means for them would feel very simple and instinctive and wouldn't need to philosophize it like that, like with Lynch philosopising doesn't go much beyond meditation, there aren't this connection made between art, knowledge, the inherit goodness or not of the human condition, the human psyche and religious meaning in Lynch like there are Tarkovsky. Tarkovsky is very in control of philosophising, it never feels ''woo, what does this mean?'' like with Lynch, looking at his movies I feel like there's a back-and-forth conversation made between the author and the viewer, provided the viewer shares his concerns. The only way I would explain people find his movies mysterious for their own sake, it's because of the long shots and peculiar film-making, but that's just more feeling based than symbolic from what he often stated. There also isn't any interview I found where he's remotely particular like any real S type would be, he's always like in his movies, very vague, always about the meaning of films, the meaning of art, the meaning of this or that, the meaning of things not things itself. He's like the definition of an Intuitive personality. Also, you bastardize what I said about his connection to the past, he said that the past is more reliable than the present, while SP types trust the present much more than the past. He's also not pretentious at all, everything that he claims movies have to be, is what hid movies are. His words on creation and his creation coincide. Nothing more, nothing else, he doesn't pretend to be anything that he's not. I also don't think any INFP have to be subversive with themes like you seem to believe, in fact, unless it serves a purpose, being subversive for its own sake it's what's often pretentious. Pretentious are people like Refn or VonTrier, who try to act edgy all the time, but they never actually say anything of value on anything.ISFP? You can't type a troll like butterfly, troll.Butterfly You're just a ISFP who wants everyone to be like you ISFP. ISFP's would never be better than INFP's. Fuck you, your fucking primitive sensorI'll just throw my hat in the ring and say that he was probably a very philosophically-minded, One-influenced INFP. A lot of his movies are Fi-Si themed (Ivan's Childhood, Mirror), and self-expression is more of a 4 thing.@crafton: I'm actually not sure if Malick is really INFP. I think starting out as a professional philosopher, then dropping out in your 30-40s to make conservative stories with a certain mysteriousness to them (Badlands, Days of Heaven), and then slowly ending up making improvised (Se?) movies in your 70s sounds more like the development of an INFJ. Even going along with Malick being INFP though, I still feel he is more down to earth than Tarkovsky. Both Tree of Life and The Mirror are biographical, but The Mirror is far, far less accessible and much more open to interpretation. Tree of Life actually has a lot of coherent, good old storytelling. It's been a while since I watched The Mirror though, and I might simply not be proficient enough in these kinds of old Russian movies to really understand everything they have to offer, which might be leading me to underestimate/misunderstand what they are about. :P@butterfly INFPs definitely do vague as hell movies. Think Malick. That's not a great argument, but eh.@bobnickmad: Maybe I'm mistaken about this, but generally I don't think INFPs do that cold, super open-to-interpretation, "take it or leave it" mysteriousness which is so predominant in Tarkovsky so consistently. That is Ni art, as far as I know. I don't think Si users are the only ones who can be obsessed with the past either. INFJs are often very nostalgic for some reason (based on people I know), and all Se users talk about, almost, is stuff that happened to them some or another time. Reading about The Mirror again though, the way he mixes in history and everything, and how it means a lot to Russians, that sounds more coherently intuitive than I remember it being, and the national thing is very Fe ofc. In other words, I think he might be an INFJ after all. His coldness compared to Bergman yet Bergman loving him might be explained by Tarkovsky being INFJ and Bergman being ENFJ. On the other hand, I might be wrong, and Bergman might be INFJ after all and Tarkovsky ISFP - INFJs, after all, are known to have a big weak spot for ISFPs, similar to INFPs with INTJs. Idk, lol.#butterfly You still haven't responded how someone who think the past has more weight than the present is SP. I also don't remember any quote in Stalker, or any Rublev movies that doesn't sense, they are pretty obvious musing on the relationship between art and knowledge, there's nothing empty.@Martian: On the other hand, I think someone handling entire movie productions would have to be quite a well-balanced person, no matter which type, so it seems more likely that what we are seeing in that quote is an ISFP straining himself rather than an INFP/INFJ on a bad day. I think what I'm finding is pretty consistent overall with his movies too. Stalker, for example, is a long, visual, sensory journey where if I recall correctly his characters start speaking the same way as in that quote occasionally; things that don't really make sense but are beautiful. It's probably capable of arousing very powerful emotions and deep associations for an INFP like bobnickmad if you have "chemistry", so to speak, with the presentation, but I would expect an INFP creator to try to pull the mystery down to earth themselves (Si/Te) or at least play around with it more (Ne), gaining a certain wacky quality, whereas I would expect an INFJ to be deeper and more elaborate and clear about his abstractions (Ni+Ti), like you see in Bergman.@crafton I think I'm the only one free of Aspergers in here.#Butterfly, basically it seems that he's a very nostalgic sort of person, like in that quote about the past being more real than the present, so he probably tries to recreate that sensation. For example, his movie The Mirror switches between flashback/memories. Don't you feel that is very Si? Compare it with the ''the only real thing is the present'' attitude of SP types. I agree that Ne is not very clear with him, but like we have ISP were Se is so fused with Ni it's almost unrecognizable, couldn't we also have an INFP where the Ni and Si are so fused that the Ne is almost unrecognizable? Don't you think his serious nature resembles SJ types more than SP types, and thus an effect of overtly developed Si? I don't see David Lynch which we both typed ISFP as serious as Tarkovsky, Lynch is somewhat unleashed. PS.: Bergman, who you think is so much more meaningful than Tarkovsky, thought Tarkovsky was the greatest movie director of all times. Surely that must mean something.@Bonita Are you a shit posting account or do you have aspergers?@Martian Maybe you feel in disadvantage, that's why you like to call other people pretentious. I never find myself calling other people pretentious, never.Butterfly your argument is valid but I disagree that an INFP or INFJ necessarily has to be deep. Both types can appear pretentious as well, almost always more so than ISFPs.I think no one's a holy cow. If someone dislikes Tarkovsky, it's in their right to do so. Even though I think it's not very helpful in typology discussion. Have you ever seen me get angry over people criticizing my favorite film maker Michael Bay? :DHe could have been 1w9 rather 5w4 which would explain the self-discipline.@thomas jung. Sweeping statements never help. Very disciplined and logical? in comparison to what? I think the kind of work Tarkovsky produced is more telling of an INFP than INFJ. Just adding discipline and logic in a checklist is no argument. Unless you clearly show Tarkovsky's Ti coming in play (I see none).You just don't understand punk rock!!!!! But yeah, my basic problem is that I don't see the practical significance of calling movie-making "sculpting in time". You go, "What?" And then you think about it for a while and you say, "Yeah, yeah, that kind of makes sense." And it's beautiful because it's basically poetry, making you stop like that but still makes sense in its own interesting way. But I don't see someone showing up on a set saying, "I'm going to sculpt in time!!!!" or this being part of some complex theory in which this makes perfect sense. Which makes me think it's too shallow to be an INFJ and too stubbornly "out there" in a non-playful way to be INFP. It sounds like a slogan. Like it doesn't go past the surface beauty of the abstract claim itself. So it makes me grab for Tertiary Ni. WITH THAT SAID, I'm extremely biased against difficult "establishment" art. To me art should be playful, human and warm - and I feel like Tarkovsky raises his nose on me whenever I try to watch his movies. So I'm probably not the most temperate evaluator of him. Secondly, I don't actually know him that well, so there might be a lot, lot more to "filmmaking as sculpting in time" than I'm giving it credit for!!!! I mean, you say he wrote an entire book called that.INFP 5w4? Hell no. He is very disciplined and logical to be an INFP. Clearly INFJ.INFP 5w4? Hell no. He is very disciplined and logical to be an INFP. Clearly INFJ.Honestly, the fact that someone finds meaning in the histrionic bullshit Refn says, but not in movies like Andrei Rublev or Stalker is just puzzling me."Ni spookiness" hahahaaaaaaaaa@martian Good point. Tbqh I only used that quote to see if anyone else would say it was weighty nonsense because the line between Ni spookiness and Fi passion barfing can get blurry. I wanted someone to challenge it. Other things he's said like "Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world." take a very Fi tone. @Bonita I'm going to keep hearing Martian out so long as he makes good arguments and doesn't write people off on some arbitrary basis.@martian Good point. Tbqh I only used that quote to see if anyone else would say it was weighty nonsense because the line between Ni spookiness and Fi passion barfing can get blurry. I wanted someone to challenge it. Other things he's said like "Let everything that's been planned come true. Let them believe. And let them have a laugh at their passions. Because what they call passion actually is not some emotional energy, but just the friction between their souls and the outside world." take a very Fi tone. @Bonita I'm going to keep hearing Martian out so long as he makes good arguments and doesn't write people off on some arbitrary basis.Bob: I suspect Butterfly loves Refn... :DIt's definitely not nonsense. Also, he's my favorite movie maker, so you win many points you won with me Butterfly. You want to know a beautiful but totally meaningless movie? Drive. Or a pretentious director that has nothing to express? Refn.I read in his book about movie making ''Sculpting in Time'' that his mother read him daily (or made him read) from War on Peace of Lev Tolstoy, and since I'm quite inclined to think Tolstoy was INFJ, it would explain his INFJ like characteristics. His father was a poet also. But anyway, the way he talks about his processs seems Fi-Si: a movie must express the way its creator sees the world without an attempt at winning over the viewer (Fi) and it must create the sensation of time (Si) .Reading his quotes like that "film is sculpting in time", it's just beautiful nonsense. And honestly I don't find much depth in his movies. It's usually pretty visuals and pretty words, but whatever depth you deride from it, about the human condition or whatever, is all in your head as far as I can tell. I'm a parody of myself, but he seems to like a more pretentious and less interesting David Lynch (ISFP) who gets a lot of hipster points for being rather obscure and difficult, basically. The little detail that kills it: Tarkovsky made a 3 hour+ biography about a religious, sensitive painter (ISFP?). When someone like Tarkovsky makes a biography they probably connect very strongly and personally to them. Yes, I'm an uncultured monster with no appreciation for fine art!@crafton: That still misses the Ni factor though. It does sound more Fe if that quote is taken in a vacuum. That could just be an NF need to give weight to their work. Tarkovksy suggesting that his self expression should create spiritual bond is just a way of giving weight to his work. I don't know. Need to look more into him.#52, have you not seen my comments? ''In a certain sense the past is far more real, or at any rate more stable, more resilient than the present. The present slips and vanishes like sand between the fingers, acquiring material weight, only in its recollection.” Attitude towards past and present opposite of SP types. If he's Fi-dom, he's definitely Si not Se. INFPs find safety in the past due to tertiary Si, ISFPs lend themselves to the present moment and find thinking about the past overrated. Also, he's always conceptual/philosophical over particular in interviews. He could be a case of Fi-Si process in INFPs rather than Fi-Ne, similar with Proust or Virginia Woolf. But he's not SP. Anyway, if he was INFP, he was a very auto-disciplined one.@Martian Too much work. I think I said something on Bergman's page. And @crafton should not listen to you because you're not a connoisseur.@Martian The Tarkovsky quote I used was about him self expression was meaningless on its own terms. It needed rapport and created a "spiritual bond" with others. @Bonita Both types still up for debate. Let's take a step back. You're also making some sort of diluted non sequitur and mistaking what I mean by INFP bullshit. Your non sequitur is saying I can't criticize (though I'm not doing that) something because someone likes what I criticize. See how there's no point being made? And as for the INFP bullshit, I'm just saying most things they say sound pretty but are very hollow and just decoration for nonsense. It's like taking acid and finding the world very bright and very beautiful, but then coming down and finding out you were just dry humping a raccoon corpse in a pile of vomit.I would take your "100% INFJ" claim seriously if you had a flawless argument for that.LOL Bonita. why should crafton not listen?@crafton Don't listen to Martian, Tarkovsky is 100% INFJ.I think both of them are most concerned with self expression regardless of how they choose to do so which I believe is an attribute of Fi. Ni types express their insights and vision to convey a message, lay out an agenda to change minds. However both of these want people to fill in their own subjective insights, something which Ni type wouldn't like much But to be honest, attributes that people attribute to both INFPs and INFJs can be found in either types easily, so INFJ isn't completely off the table. I think with given info INFP makes better sense.@crafton In case you don't know, INFJ Tarkovsky idolized INFP Bergman, so don't talk shit about INFPs. He loved Bergman so much that Tarkovsky tried to imitate Bergman's style, without success of course, in "Offret".I went through the whole Tarkovsky and Bergman argument. I think they're both INFPs to be honest."Art is a meta-language, with the help of which people try to communicate with one another; to impart information about themselves and assimilate the experience of others. Again, this has not to do with practical advantage but with realising the idea of love, the meaning of which is in sacrifice: the very antithesis of pragmatism. I simply cannot believe that an artist can ever work only for the sake of 'self-expression.' Self-expression is meaningless unless it meets with a response. For the sake of creating a spiritual bond with others it can only be an agonising process, one that involves no practical gain: ultimately it is an act of sacrifice. But surely it cannot be worth the effort merely for the sake of hearing one's own echo?" Sounds more Ni-Fe, don't you think? Considering INFPs usually jerk off all over the prospect of self expression as an end in itself, it's a departure from your typical Fi bullshit. I'll admit I'm still not sold on INFJ because Tarkovsky has a way of taking poeticism too seriously, but I'm leaning towards the crowd's opinion here.ISFP. He liked to evoke feelings and was very important for him that each person had a different experience. A common misconception it's that he like and use symbolism, when actually he disliked them, because he felt that it gives his movies a decesive meaning, and he didn't want it meanings but emotions, the viewer should determine the meaning based in his own experiences.I don't see this as being incompatible with INFP. If anything, it shows the preference for Intuition: not looking at the thing, but seeing the general in it.His process of creating scenes in movies seems Fi-Si like I explained below (looking for the affective component in a scene and linking it to personal memories), and not Ni. I mean, it would be good if you'd also formulate arguments and not just post quotes."What is poetry? It's a highly original manner of expressing and thinking about the world. A typical person is not able to express a universal view of the world. It's impossible for him to do so, his vision will always remain fragmentary. A poet is someone who can use a single image to send a universal message. A man passes another man by, he looks at him but he cannot see him. Another man will look at the same person and he will smile unexpectedly. The stranger has provoked an explosion of associations in him. It's similar with art. A poet takes a small fragment as a starting point and turns it into a coherent whole. Some consider this process boring. These are people who want to know about everything in minutest detail, like accountants or lawyers. But show a toe sticking out of a hole in a sock to a poet and it is enough to produce image of the whole world in him. "I'm currently reading through his book Sculpting in Time.While he does say some things that seem INFJ, when he describes his actual creative process, there's no actual Ni and Fe, but Fi and Si. He basically says that the world can only be experienced through each persons subjective and emotional experience, and the role of the director is to remain faithful to his own experience (Fi) . He also mentions in an interview that one of the messages of Andrei Rublev is that ''you can't make people feel simulated emotions''. Talking about Ivan's Childhood, he tried to shape the scenes in the movie to resemble his personal memories,''All four dreams, too, arc based on quite specific associations. The first, for instance, from start to finish, right up to the words, 'Mum, there's a cuckoo!' is one of my earliest childhood recollections. It was at the time when I was just beginning to know the world. I was four.''(Si)For him, to purpose of film over other art forms, is to make feel the experience of time.He's also way too anti-symbolism and anti-parable to be Ni-dom."i wish to be truer to the inner world we are trying to recreate on screen, but not merely the inner world of the artist, but what is within the world itself, essential and independent from us."( nice documentary on the master: )CelebrityTypes seems to have the best understanding of Jung and his students. They can however sometimes lack in research of individuals. Why not challenge them when you feel they are wrong. I've had quite a few discussions with their admins.I guess not. it's become such an automatic reflex to assume that.CelebrityTypes have typed Tarkovski?13 celebritytypes admins :)Why the INFJ votes though. Please I'd request one of INFJ voters to make a case.Actually, I would have to concur. While INFP isn't a definite answer, given the scarcity of any personality related information and some use of generalisation INFP seems to be the best fit.I guess it's a rushed argument so I'll try to clarify a bit. I'm not saying Se is incapable but the way I'm actually looking at it is more of a continuum of direct vs. intuitive/indirect. Everyone's capable of everything at certain levels but an ISFP's focus is sharing that sensory detail and reaching the senses. An INFP will do that to some degree as well, but their balance is tilted the other way. Tarkovsky is one of the least Se directors ever though, in that he places nearly zero value on direct sensation.P.S and off topic, ISTJ's inferior Ne can never develop to impact as much. It will always be their Achilles heel, at most a mature ISTJ would offset negative aspects of inferior Ne. However there are iSTJs with better developed Fi.Fair argument. But since typology isn't falsifiable you can argue for any non sense. It's however pretty evident that he is an Fi-Dom. The issue is either he is Ne-Si or Se-Ni. The problem with your argument however is that it implies that Ne is everything Se can be however it's more since it provides fresh perspectives. That also implies that ISFPs are not original. I see both INFPs and ISFPs as original and artistic. Both have non imposing personas and both can be symbolic, INFPs being more idiosyncratic while ISFPs more aesthetic. However still your argument for INFP is valid. I'm just objecting to why ISFP is being rejected on strange reasoning.The problem with that reasoning is that you can find an S,N,T,F function in everyone despite their type. Like I can say Tarkovsky is an ISTJ with developed Fi and Ne. anyway, in the context of auxiliary functions of an IxFP, it's basically new meaning versus direct meaning. Tarkovsky films breath new life and meaning into sensory stimuli like nothing else really. It's not about what's there; it's about what's there in what's there.But ISFPs do use visual art and craft to elaborate their individuality...While I don't necessarily believe he is an ISFP, I think that ISFP's tertiary Ni can be significant to make them seek symbolism in some sense.Well, I am not sure still given that nothing clarifies his personality yet. A few points that I'd like to make though: 1) Philosophical dialogue isn't necessarily a requisite of being an N type. e.g: Woody Allen (ISTP) has quite a few philosophically driven movies despite being an S type. Fincher's (INFJ) dialogues are nothing seriously philosophical despite his movies being symbolic as a whole. I assert that while Tarkovski's movies have symbolic use of language, the plot itself is at best symbolic aesthetically without a message behind them as he has confessed.well i think that INFJ and ISFP are pretty equally ridiculous, and INFJ cause he was so uncompromising on what he wanted to get out. His attitude was basically, "this is exactly what I feel, I hope that you will be able to feel the same". His focus is on the self, and the spirituality was all conveyed in trying to accurately replicate his personal feelings/beliefs.Well, would have to look into him more. Sadly there not much available about his personality exactly. All I could gather with surety is that he is an Fi type and probably an Fi-dom. I'd hope someone would expand more on the topic...Agreed, definitely not INFJ.For the record I had written the first comment before seeing the quotes you added.And I'm not discounting INFP. I am just sure he isn't INFJ.@Impeccable - hmm what you share is indeed more identifiable with ISFP. I'm not sure here, actually.But on a few occasions he explicitly mentions that he doesn't intend to put any message or idea across through his films.Like an INFP he seems very abstract and association/meaning-focused in his quotes. I couldn't find definitive Ne evidence either, but I did find what may be Si evidence: "I’ve noticed, from my experience, if the external, emotional construction of images in a film are based on the filmmaker’s own memory, on the kinship of one’s personal experience with the fabric of the film, then the film will have the power to affect those who see it."" I had the greatest difficulty in explaining to people that there is no hidden, coded meaning in the film, nothing beyond the desire to tell the truth. Often my assurances provoked incredulity and even disappointment. Some people evidently wanted more: they needed arcane symbols, secret meanings.""Art is realistic when it strives to express an ethical ideal. Realism is striving for truth, and truth is always beautiful. Here the aesthetic coincides with the ethical."Typing someone based solely on the content of their work is erroneous. (We can however argue why someone is inclined towards specific topics/ideas and how they approach them). This error shows on quite a few occasions here. That said I'm pretty sure he is an Fi type, just not so sure about Ne and so I'm considering ISFP... But then someone would argue why an ISFP would make films like him and then all that.Good argument, scotty. I find that the more cerebral INFP filmmakers (Lynch, Malick, Tarkovsky) for whatever reason end up making films that can seem like Ni even though if you examine them as people they are not Ni types.

Read Sculpting in Time. INFJ.