Category: Character Nulls

MAID MARIAN (1991), NULL

In my memory this Marian was pushy and dominating. Funny. In the first half of the movie she’s completely reasonable. As cousin to King Richard, she keeps her head down and provides for her tenants. She’s politically savvy and a good landlord. Robin, apparently, was a lightfoot lad before crusade, and she formed her opinion of him accordingly. He’s not a serious person to her.

Her practicality and efficiency are very Seven.

However, in the second half she changes her character. When Nottingham insists she marry him, she reacts much too emotionally for the era and for a Seven. A noblewoman of this time would’ve expected to marry for expedience, not love. Now, the Sheriff is repugnant and she should object, but not with such surprise and outrage. His request is logical and she would’ve expected it.

And how am I to properly judge her Enneagram when she’s given scenes utterly unreasonable? A woman with her property holdings would certainly know how to birth animals, let alone handle a woman’s breach delivery. That she’s sidelined by the guy is laughable and insulting.

I think I always expect Mastrantonio to be her character from The Abyss. She was so excellent in that part. Surprisingly, I would welcome that style for this Marian. Anything would be better than this hopscotch person we end up with. She’s a Null.

BIFF TANNEN, NULL

He’s our villain, or some version of his ancestral line is, throughout the trilogy. It’s only Old Biff in the second movie, the time traveler, who has any brains. Every other version of him is mean or subservient. Does he even have an Enneagram, or is he just a generic antagonist?

Actually, I think that’s our answer. Old Biff has a motivation: I want to change my destiny. He’s the only one who isn’t a cartoon. He has a fatherly patience with his younger self. Obviously he’s pretty smart. In just a few seconds he understands all the ramifications of time travel, as well as the motivations of Marty and Doc. That’s why he warns himself to look out for them in the future. A little too convenient? Do we believe that bully Biff can really become this wiser Biff? But then he leaves the almanac bag and his broken cane handle behind in the car, so how clever is he?

Nope, he’s still just a plot device. No Enneagram.

KHAL DROGO (TV), NULL

He’s a product of his culture. When Dany teaches him to make love differently, he’s fine with that. He’d just never done it that way before.

Mostly Drogo is a placeholder: husband, warlord, savage. When Dany is threatened by the wine merchant’s assasination attempt, though, he comes through with a career-making (for Momoa) moment. This scene where he proclaims he’ll fight for the Iron Throne is astonishing and powerful. Don’t cross Drogo. Something he cared little about will now drive him completely. Family, tribe, love. This is his hierarchy, his core. Threaten them and you’ve called forth the fire. 

And then he’s dead. Whatever hint of character we got is now over. He’s big, he’s a leader, and he’s decisive. The Enneagram options are numerous, and we have no more information to glean. I could assign a number to him on the assumption that he’s drawn from choices made in the novel, but I don’t like that. The show must stand on its own feet.

BATMAN (2008), NULL

The second movie in Nolan’s trilogy is The Dark Knight, again with Bale. In the first story Batman is very traditional, very canon. Any changes here?

Well, for the first half of the movie Batman is nothing. He either only reacts or is characterless, just a warm body in the story. We have Heath Ledger’s performance as Joker, which steals all the oxygen, and we have Eckhart’s Harvey Dent/Two Face, which is quite good. Even Rachel, now played by Gyllenhaal, is mesmerizing. The limelight has no room for our titular hero. At this point I give him a Null Enneagram.

He has a bit of a run-in with Fox, who’s offended by Wayne’s use of the R&D department to develop an invasive sonic-based spyware. Batman flirts with a moral line in this movie, eventually landing on the side of honor. That’s his quandary, his conflict. Does the Joker — his nihilism and his malevolent genius — warrant breaking the code, taking human life, in order to defeat him? The answer is eventually no.

Any number can confront this problem. We’ve learned nothing new about Batman’s Enneagram here.

Ultimately, the story settles on sacrifice as its moral answer. Batman will take the blame, become the city’s scapegoat, in order to keep the memory of Dent clean and inspiring. It’s a very classical solution, and it’s Batman’s idea. Batman will assume the role of villain so that Dent can be a martyr.

Nope, I can’t get there. I can’t find a character in this version of the Bat. It’s hinted that he wants to be free of his alter ego, free of the responsibility of saving the city, and that he wants a chance with Rachel, but I don’t see him pursuing that desire. He’s not even really thwarted. Rachel is fridged. 

The movie is a mish-mosh and the hero is bland. The supporting work is outstanding and worth the time. And that’s that.

MARY HATCH, NULL

She’s determined. She wants George and she pursues any opening he gives her. She’s organized. Very. Ridiculously so. She leads the local USO while refinishing an old house and raising her children.

All of the community facets –such as parties for Savings and Loan customers — are a joy to her. When George needs help she calls so many people, local and further away, because she’s established those social connections over the years. Everyone loves Mary.

What Enneagram is she? Her effortless ability to juggle so much suggests a Three. Her belovedness suggests a Two. Her organizational skills could also suggest a One.

Is Mary more of a perfect-wife archetype than an actual character? Does she have any flaws? The honeymoon dinner with the chicken rotisserie that uses the turntable is wonderful, but possibly too clever.

Is Mary so Not Me that I have trouble accepting her as believable? Haha, maybe. This is George’s story, though, through and through. He arcs, he faces a true crisis. Mary is a set piece. All of George’s woes belong solely to him because what man could complain about this wife? She’s designed to be perfect.

Hmph. I’m disappointed.

I’m also relieved, because she’s a high bar to face every Christmas season. If she’s not an actual character I don’t need to measure myself against her. Whew.

OX AND MIDGE, NULL

I don’t know if these two have enough screentime to rate Enneagram numbers, but I so wanted to write their names! So great!

Also, if Ox and Midge don’t have separate numbers, do they combine to form one number as a storytelling shortcut?

Their invitation of Lucy is so cooperative. Midge extends the plan and Ox sells it. As of yet I haven’t looked at the Storytelling Enneagram of this film. I’m going to guess, though, that since the Eight is the thwarted wedding — Lucy’s relationship with Ox and Midge reaches a cumulative point — that the Two would be the introduction of them. They are a team: Peter’s Family. We see more of Ox because he and Jack must resolve their work relationship. Midge has a small presence but she kills it during the time she’s given.

Midge. Small. Ack — sorry. Also, here’s an eternal question: why does ANYONE need to inspect Peter’s testicles? Not the question I thought I’d write when I woke this morning.

I don’t think these two characters had Enneagrams in the script. I think the director cast these two and said, “Work your magic.” And they did. I will argue, though, that the success of the Two/Eight in the story is due to choices this team made. They knew their job, the weight on their shoulders, and delivered the beats.

COUNT VLADISLAUS DRACULA, NULL

Stoker’s Dracula is just evil. You fight him with the crucifix. This Dracula is a character with a backstory so convoluted I can’t remember it all. He’s got the whole “breeding with the brides” thing that’s quite disgusting, though. 

I would say that the closer Dracula is to archetype, the better. This Dracula is not that. So, what is he?

He can do things: fly, shape shift, dissolve. Magical powers are expected. I don’t see Body Type, though. He doesn’t really revel in his abilities.

He’s a scientist. Sort of.

Although he has brides, they’re the ones who pine, sort of, for children. Offspring. He wants world domination, maybe. He’s not sentimental, though. I’m not getting Heart Type.

Head? Yes, he’s an intellectual vampire. Beyond that, he has no definition.

He is nothing. The Rules of the Magic for him are so complicated that he doesn’t even register as a satisfying trope. He’s the weak link in this movie. The good guys are character driven. This Dracula needed to be more specific to work as their antagonist.

SID, NULL

The human next-door neighbor, Sid, is Toy Story’s villain. What’s hilarious, is that in real life many of us were Sids. He’s admirable! Inventive, tool-handy, an outside-the-box thinker — it’s what we all want to be. And the story creators knew this! By looking from the toys’ perspective they make fun of themselves and their own childhood.

As the villain, what does Sid bring? Do we judge him by human standards or toy? Is he creative or cruel?

He likes to blow things up. When he blows things up he makes up a story as to why the toys go boom. Like Andy, he has an imaginative relationship with his toys. Again, in real life, Sid is an amazing kid. The undermined trope is just so wonderful. He could really be any Enneagram number.

To be fair, though, we have to consider him only as the villain. He enjoys mutilating. He terrorizes. Toys tremble in fear underneath his bed. He seeks out new and nice toys in order to abuse them.

Nope, it’s not working. I can’t pinpoint him. He’s too generic, in either role. He’s a collection of tropes without a specific character build. The same is true of Andy. They are the yin and yang of each other, and neither is given anything beyond a general archetype.

THE UNKNOWN BOND, NULL

There will be another Bond. There always is. What shall it be?

If Bond is a man, judging by the Enneagram numbers we’ve seen, he should be a Four. It’s his turn! Also, if society has room for another Bond at this time, a Four might fit better with the zeitgeist. I don’t think Hollywood is ready for a gay Bond, but if they were, a Four is the perfect choice. The dripping, acerbic wit of a Man Four hasn’t really been deployed yet. The innuendo Moore used was a nicey-nice imitation of the razor humor a Four can bring. Craig was physically brutal. What if the next Bond were emotionally brutal?

And what if, as the chatter goes, Bond is a woman? Hollywood would choose Eight. It’s one of their default Enneagram numbers for superheroes in general, but particularly women. They would never write a Four Bond, thankfully, because she’d be too complex to get right in a two hour action block. I predict that an Eight woman Bond would fail, though. It’s too expected, too rigid, too boring. You can’t just swap sexes into the same old story and succeed.

Imagine, since we’re playing this game, that Woman Bond were a Seven. Women Sevens don’t really lose their head in a crisis. Calm, considered, steady. They’re not Heart Types; emotions are checked and a coldness is your first impression. Physically, they tend to be voluptuous. Be real, this is Bond. Sexy is required. A bombshell with a bland face that hides a calculating mind would make a great spy character.

I don’t really believe that any reboot of Bond will succeed at this time, but the genius of Craig’s Bond surprised me. Stick a pin in this one and come back later.

BISHOP, NULL

Is Bishop kind because his robot model is no longer “twitchy”, or is that a key character trait? He is programmed to do no harm. My first instinct is that, unlike Ash, Bishop may have no Enneagram.

He’s played very deadpan, very bland. When he does the knife trick on Hudson, he seems disengaged from emotion. Even the little smile he gives is more of a robot’s reaction to human cues.

In the lab he’s as blank-faced as he can be. Now, obviously, this is to create tension for the audience. We know what the last robot did. Nothing seems to be happening behind that stare, though. Later we see how mild he is, how helpful. He follows Company rules as Ash did, but only up to a certain point when his robot protocol takes over. He cannot harm humans, and that’s that.

It’s his helpfulness that leads me to say he has no Enneagram. Every number can be helpful but the intentions behind it vary. I see no intention in Bishop. Only programming.

This is no way diminishes the performance or the writing. Bishop is a valid character choice told well. I would guess that playing no Enneagram is actually quite challenging. Good job there.

The more I think about it, the more impressed I am. A tour de force.