What is it that you're wanting me to submit/surrender to? The reason I'm asking this...the reason I'm saying you're merely challenging to challenge is because you're taking an argumentative stance...and yet not entirely disagreeing with me either...which may in fact be because you sense it would be foolish to do so.
You indicate that your main point is "who we relate to in the movies doesn't necessarily indicate our type." Which good to know and thank you for that. Now, as would be expected, this particular comment would probably have more of an impact on me if what I was expressing was the opposite...as in "If you relate to a movie character...find out what that movie character's type is... because their type will be your type"...but that's not what I'm saying. And while I can certainly appreciate your input...I'm left with nothing that accounts for your critical tone. Like I just said...I think something may have irritated you on some level and this is the sole reason you are countering me...and in this way it feels unnecessary to restate this all for the sake of "understanding" but let's have at it...
My statements here are 100% Clementine specific. They begin and end with Clementine. There's absolutely no need to bring up Amelie...or any other character that is complex, multi-faceted and/or mute (which in my mind opens the door to far more subjective type interpretation and identification) because they don't apply here. There's absolutely no need to bring up other characters that are generally understood to be e7 either. Why? Because most characters on the "silver screen"...even the "commonly understood as e7" ones...are actually characters and not caricatures… which allows for doubt and again, a good deal of subjective interpretation.
Now here's the crazy thing I'm doing... I'm taking the 2-dimensional, personification of the general e7 description known as the character 'Clementine'...and using her to make what was for me an amusing statement on the fact that so many e7s mistype as e4s (<-the fact you're challenging this is made more confusing when I consider how I've heard you allude to this same phenomenon many times. I thought you of all members would be in agreement.) So in an effort to summarize: I believe ExFPs can be 4w3s. I also believe ExFPs can identify with the character of Clementine and still be 4w3s. Now here's where things start to fall apart for me... Once an individual insists that the character of Clementine is an e4...right then and there I will have lost a substantial amount of faith in that individual's grasp of enneagram theory. Based solely on the nature of Clementine...I now no longer trust the person's skillz outright. But if in addition to the previous claim that same individual states that they are an ENFP 4w3...and proceeds to use as their primary evidence their significant identification with the character for why she's obviously enneagram 4... well, now everything changes as the odds of who's "right and wrong" ("understanding and not understanding enneagram theory") have shifted to the other side.
Enneagram is not a science...but keeping track of probability...as new variables are introduced...is. ^When I put together everything I know about Clementine and common ENFP e7 mistypes...I believe the odds are on the side of "this individual is a mistyped e7."