Enneagram – Enneagram and Encaustic

LITTLE WOMEN (2019)

My breakdown of this version, Little Women (2019), is going to be very strange. If the filmmaker decides to take an extremely well-known story and change its ending, chaos can ensue. In this case facts about Louisa May Alcott are incorporated into the climax. I didn’t know any of these details and found the end confusing and infuriating.

It felt Author’s Message to me, and in a way it was. No matter how interesting real life information is, if you go against audience expectations, especially ones so deeply ingrained as they are for this story, you have to be crystalline. LW2019 doesn’t cross that bar.

It makes for a very interesting Enneagram pattern.

ONE

The girls are adults. The beginning of the movie starts near the end of the characters’ arcs. Okay, fresh and interesting. Jo sells a story, Amy is in Paris, Meg spends money recklessly, and Beth plays the piano. Professor Bhaer is introduced; he and Jo see each other at a pub and dance together.

I don’t understand why this scene exists. (The movie, at two and a half hours, needed trimming.) It’s Four-ish stuff put in the middle of the opening. That’s the danger of leading with your ending, it seems.

Jump to Seven Years Earlier. Meg’s hair is burnt by the curling iron and Jo’s dress is burnt by her carelessness. Classic scene. Laurie comes to the dance and the March family meets their neighbor. Meg twists her ankle, Laurie’s carriage takes them home, and here’s Marmee, Hannah, and the bustle of Orchard House.

You see the problem here, right? This is all Four stuff! Where is our anchor to begin the story? No scene is edited to stand out.

Except one.

LITTLE WOMEN (2017)

Every filmed version of a beloved story will have some things that are ho-hum and some that are the best of any of the movies. For Little Women (2017), a three-part miniseries, Emily Watson’s Marmee is a triumph. Top actresses are cast as Marmee, so the field is particularly strong. Watson’s work and the script she’s given to deliver are truthful, painful, and joyous. This is a must-watch.

Some of the other choices, however, are not as strong. Let’s look.

ONE

At three hours runtime, LW2017 can add details the others leave out. We get Father March at the war right away. Both parents are much more present throughout, giving a complete family in the storytelling.

The very first scene has the girls trimming a lock of hair to send to him for Christmas. It’s a very weird sequence, though. Close-ups, corset laces, shadows, scissor blades . . . why shoot this like soft-core thriller content?

TWO

As Marmee returns home she crosses paths in the road with Laurie in the carriage, coming to Grandfather’s house for the first time. Laurie is Trouble, of course. He disrupts the March life in many ways. It’s not the most visually descriptive or inventive Two, though.

THREE

I am utterly and totally making something up here. We see Father, still nursing the sick in the war, cover the body of a man who’s died. Again, this is a strange choice. It establishes Father, the war, and, most pertinent of all, death. We all know what happens later with Beth. Does this moment foreshadow or portend that? I don’t think so. We know nothing about this corpse and have no connection to it.

But here it is, sitting after the Two and before the Four, so it’s what we have to work with.

LITTLE WOMEN (1994)

(In honor of the month of December, I’ve pulled out a series that was written for my book but didn’t make the cut.)

For me, this version, Little Women (1994), is the gold standard.

ONE

Credits, beautiful music, snow, and a Christmas wreath. Time of year and era are established visually. Jo narrates. As you may know, I’m not generally a fan of narration. It’s more of a “tell” than a “show”. Because this story is a novel, Jo’s narration feels like she’s just reading to us. It’s not the worst use of narration.

Marmee comes home, chilled, and the family gathers to read father’s letter. Throughout, the film is beautifully framed, like a portrait. The arranging of the five women is evocative. You’re watching a time gone by. Perhaps you’re remembering illustrations from books you read as a child. This family is loving and close.

Also, this family is missing its father. The women are surviving and thriving, despite hardship. Whatever guidance a father would provide, whatever comfort or strength, is not weighed.

Appa’s Lost Days

This is a long episode. Appa doesn’t speak, so the entire story must be show rather than tell. No shortcuts with language.

LEFTOVER NINE

Four Weeks Ago. It’s a flashback to the dunes and the sinking library. Appa fights against the sandbenders tying him up. Toph, holding the turret, can’t properly defend him. When the benders anchor themselves in the sand, Appa isn’t strong enough to fly free of their ropes. They ride away on their sandsailers, towing Appa behind.

ONE

Dissolve from Appa’s eye to the sun in the sky. Time has passed. The benders, sending little dust devils into the sails, pause. The leader, the self-important son, tells his gang to raid Appa’s saddlebags for treasure. When they jump on him, sand swirls up into Appa’s nose. He sneezes, blowing one of the boats into a sand dune. Leader Boy doesn’t care, though, because it’s a boat they stole.

THREE

Goods from the saddlebags are tossed onto the sand, including Sokka’s club. The gang considers it all garbage and leaves it behind.

Tales of Ba Sing Se

Each tale, amazingly, has a mini-Enneagram. How charming!

The Tale of Toph and Katara

ONE

Aang shaves his head, Sokka shaves his meager mustache, and Katara arranges her hair loops.

TWO

Cut to Toph in bed, her hair like a wild animal pelt.

THREE

Katara suggests a girl’s day out.

FOUR

At the Fancy Lady’s Day Spa, the girls are pampered. (A pedicure for Toph, whose feet are her connection to seeing the world, does not go well.)

GHOSTBUSTERS

This review was originally written for my second book, but I didn’t consider the piece good enough to include. I still think about it, though. The franchise has continued to add more content, and I can see myself diving into the extended stories and characters. In honor of Halloween, I post this rejected child.

This is my first time watching Ghostbusters (2016), and it is an astonishingly bad film. I thought maybe people were hating on it because it remade a beloved franchise, but no, it’s genuinely not good. I’ll go over its Enneagram, and then I’ll tell you where it really went off the rails.

ONE

First caveat: I’ve seen Ghostbusters (1984) many times, but I couldn’t recite the specifics of its Enneagram to you without watching it again. I suspect, though, that this movie hits the same highlights as the original. Certainly, its One is similar.

A museum, the Aldridge Mansion, has a ghost appear to the tour guide. We all remember that the original movie begins at the library with an apparition. Introduce the supernatural: check.

Then we go to campus and meet Erin (Kristen Wiig). She links up with Abby (Melissa McCarthy), with whom she’s been estranged for years, and Abby’s associate Jillian (Kate McKinnon). The three of them go into the Aldridge to investigate the apparition. In the original we meet Bill Murray scamming psychology students; Dan Aykroyd reels him in for the library investigation. Again, we have the character we’re supposed to like best (Wiig/Murray) who’s the voice of skepticism and the long-time friend (McCarthy/Aykroyd) who is the enthusiast. They team up and away we go.

It’s strange. Murray’s Venkman practically begs you to find him repulsive, and yet we’re captured. Wiig’s Erin is much nicer and more sympathetic, but the whole opening is flat.

City of Walls and Secrets

ONE

Our group rides the train from the outer wall into Ba Sing Se. Sokka jokes about their bad luck, and Katara reassures Aang that they’ll find Appa. As the train passes through the inner wall, the city stretches before them for miles in each direction. Even a giant bison might be hard to find in such a dense metropolis.

They disembark at the train depot. Aang blows his bison whistle with no result.

TWO

An overly-smiling woman approaches. It’s Joo Dee, come to show the Avatar the city. She knows all their names. When Sokka interrupts, insisting they tell the Earth King about the coming invasion, Joo Dee ignores him. He tries again. The camera goes close on Joo Dee’s smiling face: the city is perfectly safe.

THREE

They tour the city in a carriage. Joo Dee explains that the city has many walls to help maintain order. Katara asks why all the poor people are blocked off into this part of the city?

MABEL MORA, NINE

If you’ve read my other two reviews of the Only Murders in the Building Enneagrams, you’ll know that I’m dissatisfied with the character details. Too much of the continuity of the show relies on great acting to paste over awkward writing.

However, Mabel is the most clear cut. She’s a Nine. We don’t see Mabel perform great physical feats or generally exhibit Body Type traits. We do see her sense of justice, of sticking to the murder mystery and her podcast partners because it’s the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, she also has the Nine’s emotional disconnect. Oliver can carry all the feelings for the group, and Charles can hold down the curmudgeon corner, and that leaves Mabel free to drift. In some ways she’s a blank. She’s a Nine who only engages on the margins.

Selena Gomez plays a solid part of the trio, yet she can’t match the generational experience of Martin and Short. Those two will upstage every scene. I can’t say how much of Mabel’s blandness is due to the writing or to Gomez. However, it’s a perfect fit for a certain kind of Nine.

OLIVER PUTNAM, TWO

The second character in Only Murders in the Building’s mystery-solving podcast trio is Martin Short’s Oliver, who is most definitely a Heart Type. He wants to connect so desperately with everyone he meets, from apartment residents to his theatrical partners. He thrives and shines when he’s around others.

Interestingly, he’s kind of a successful failure. At this point he’s broke and with no job. He’s been a movie mogul in the past, seemingly. Can someone this disjointed be a Three? He makes their silly podcast flourish somehow, which is something a Three would accomplish. Like Charles, Oliver’s not quite his Enneagram number. He bleeds over into a Four’s emotional turmoil and a Two’s vulnerability. Again, the actor makes us want to watch a character that may not mesh on paper.

He’s a romantic mess with Loretta. He bungles his connection to Teddy Dimas. A Three is much more sure-footed. His character design is slippery, and I’m leaning closer to Two than Three. And if he’s a Two, what is his collection? Movie memorabilia?

I’m tempted to call this a Null. I won’t, though, because Martin Short is too good to play multiple seasons of a Null. I do think his Two-ness could’ve been sharper in the writing. I don’t like that this show seems to put too much weight on the casting, which is brilliant, and less weight on the character details that underpin the actors. However, Oliver’s tender heart overcomes these missteps.

CHARLES-HADEN SAVAGE, FIVE

I’m considering whether I should look at the Character Enneagrams of the three leads in Only Murders In The Building. They’re each very strong personalities who are the backbone of the series. The plots are a MacGuffin. We watch because of the characters, and the cast is dynamic. (Also, the opening credits and theme music are unskippable.)

However, I’m reluctant. None of their Enneagrams pop out at me. Steve Martin’s Charles seems like he’d probably be a Head Type and a Six. He has that worry and reluctance to engage socially. Every Hollywood actor has a stunt double for action work, yet Sazz is almost Charles’ physical alter ego, as if he has no body presence. The other two sides of the trio drag Charles along at times. All of these traits reinforce the notion of a Head Type.

He doesn’t have the dry wit of a Six, though. He doesn’t have the facial hair and questionable sartorial sense, either, lol. He does have a Five’s romantic sense with Jan. (Her unpredictability and danger help open up a Five’s emotional reserves; a Six would avoid these qualities.) His cluelessness about his own feelings is also very Five-ish. And he’s kind of a boring fellow. Only Steve Martin keeps him watchable.

I don’t blend Enneagram numbers, especially for fictional characters. You either act a Six or you act a Five.

I think he’s closer to Five. I only lean toward a Six because of his relationship with Sazz and their “tap in”. Ah. Like the murder plots, Sazz is a MacGuffin. She isn’t changing Charles’ Character Enneagram. She’s a feint. Jane Lynch is so magnificent that she prepares you to see a real person, but she’s a plot device.