Category: Character Enneagrams

BLACK WIDOW, ONE

Poor Natasha. Even in her own movie she’s basically a sidekick. The closest we get to specific character traits is in Endgame when she tries to keep the team and the world post-Blip together. Her willingness to run a radio base and contact station in the midst of chaos is one of her most interesting moments.

Otherwise, Natasha is a competent assassin with a monstrous origin story. All credit to Johansson for giving humor and stoicism to a one-dimensional character.

So who is this Black Widow? All of the girls in the program are trained physically. Can she claim a Body Type, or is every Widow forced into excellence? Let’s say no, and see where that takes us. She longs for community, yet keeps herself apart as someone undeserving of friendship and intimacy. Child Natasha is written as an Eight, the way she fights for her sister against soldiers and authority. It never felt right, though, because adult Natasha isn’t an Eight. Wait, is she a One?

Ah, of course. Her wit, her fast-paced fighting style, and her moral code (“there’s red in my ledger”) all point to One. This is why her movie isn’t good. The showrunners went dark. With a One, the tone needs to go light. A One’s quickness, their cleverness and problem-solving optimism, would shine more in an Antman-style format. Natasha’s so focused I can see why they went in the direction they did, but it was a mistake. The beauty of a One is the surprise: they’re physically dedicated and morally serious, yet they’ll come up with the sharpest jokes and insights. Natasha is given these gifts in movies like Winter Soldier, yet they forgot about them during her own project. Oh, man, that’s sad.

HAWKEYE, NULL

The first time we meet him in the MCU he’s co-opted by Loki and brain-manipulated into a villainous henchman. Bad choice! He becomes likable in later movies, but he’ll always have the taint, our memory, of the evil version of him.

(Why do so many movies remove a character’s free will? I hate that kind of lazy writing, but that’s another topic, lol.)

Later we learn that Clint has a family. He ends up as the most normal superhero in the series. When we finally spend time with him in his own show we see he’s dogged, dutiful, and honorable. His family disappeared in the Blip and he lost it, turning rogue. He’s really just a dedicated dad and husband who can shoot arrows.

Actually, I think he’s written all over the place. Early on, he’s not a character at all, just a plot point. He’s the Avenger with no back story. Even his eponymous series is more about the young woman who will team with him than it is about him. I want to call him a Null, a character the writers didn’t develop with enough consistency to fit into an Enneagram identity. Does he pull it out at the end in Hawkeye? He has the trooper qualities of a Six, although he’s much too physically fearless for that. He has the recklessness of a Nine in trouble.

No. I refuse to examine a character who’s been in multiple properties yet only begins to develop at the end. He’s important enough to deserve a fully-fleshed personality, and I find it disrespectful to the character that they did not give him that. A Hawkeye written with integrity helps the showrunners craft a better story and gives Renner more foundation for a better performance. Someone this haphazard is a Null.

MANTIS, TWO

She’s an empath with the ability to calm minds. She’s also a bit of a slave, or someone too frightened to leave a powerful boss. We like her, especially after Drax calls her ugly. She isn’t, although her eyes are unsettling, and she’s so wounded by his casual honesty that we sympathize.

I jump immediately to Two. Her social concern for others, her ability to sense their feelings, is like a Heart Type superpower. I’m also led, though, by her pain. A Two in weakness will not stand up for themselves. Their gentleness can lead to them becoming victims, especially of bullies like Ego. She breaks my heart she’s so vulnerable and open. I hope Marvel gives her more than a cursory character treatment.

YONDU UDONTA, FOUR

Tough love! We don’t completely understand until the second Guardians how much Yondu loves Peter and looks on him as a son. It’s a great roll-out. Yondu doesn’t arc, but our understanding of his character does. He is quite consistent.

He’s not gentle, though. No coddling. The whole “the crew wanted to eat you at first” bit seems slightly villainous. Only after he repeats it do we understand that this is just a gag. Yondu’s sense of humor is dry and biting. He’s not a cuddly fellow. And why should he love Peter? He has a job to deliver a human kid to a godlike being. There’s something gentle and quiet in Yondu that makes him break from the job and raise Peter himself.

Again, all of this depth is only revealed over two movies.

So, who is this lovable ravager? He’s not a Body Type. His weapon asks no physical capabilities from him beyond the ability to whistle. He’s a thinker, but he doesn’t dwell there. What he enjoys is to mess with your mind. Think of the scene in the store where he mumbles gobbledy gook at the orb-buyer to manipulate him. Yondu gets a kick out of the show. Heart Type.

Hahaha! He collects little cute action figures for his dashboard. Does that indicate he’s a Two? Hilarious! No, I think he’s a Four because of his acerbic humor. He thrives on the battle of wits. When Peter replaces the infinity stone with a troll doll, Yondu loves it. His protege tricked him, and he thinks that’s wonderful. He’s a gamesman, and personality quirks are his playfield. And no one must ever know how tender he is under that rough blue exterior.

DRAX, EIGHT

I immediately want to say Eight. His reaction to everything is physical. He has a bluntness that I think goes beyond the literal thinking of his people. He’ll say anything, which is an Eight trait. The filmmakers use that, an Eight’s willingness to speak without a filter, and combine it with his innate lack of metaphor, to drive much of his comedy. He calls a sympathetic character, Mantis, ugly and we laugh. That’s a tough balance to hit.

At the end of the first Guardians, he comforts Rocket by petting him. It’s such a beautiful, honest moment that feels perfect. That is the Eight coming through. Physical, tender, and the absolute right thing to do when a heart is broken.

DUDLEY (1947), FOUR

A real angel would have no Enneagram, I suppose. Dudley, however, has many human traits. He feels romantic love for Julia. He takes a perverse pleasure in wrapping Henry around the axle. Even with the Professor, whose alcohol bottle Dudley magically replenishes, he likes confounding him and playing with his expectations. Dudley is an imp as a character archetype and, possibly, as a religious one. Henry has doubts, calling him a demon. I have doubts, too! 

So, what Enneagram is the Mischief Maker? Dudley can ice skate beautifully, although I credit that with magic rather than a physical proclivity. Not a Body Type. He’s not particularly intellectual. His purpose on Earth, ultimately, is to save Henry’s soul. A different Enneagram, a Head Type, would argue with Henry and engage him in philosophy in order to guide him. Dudley, instead, goes right for the social levers.

In general, a Four is quite impish. It’s one of the things we love about them, that mischievous sense of finding buttons and pushing them, even their own. Dudley isn’t very self-reflective, though. It’s everybody else’s weaknesses he likes to manipulate.

I’m going to say that the writer purposely subverted the angel trope in order to create humor. It must’ve been funny in 1947, or it wouldn’t have become a beloved Christmas movie. In my lifetime, though, it’s gone from charming to drudgery. For me, The Bishop’s Wife is now unwatchable, and a lot of that centers around Dudley.

HENRY (1947), THREE

How can David Niven be unlikable, lol? A bishop, a revered community and religious figure, is played as a git. Bold choice.

He’s determined to build his cathedral. We all see the irony immediately: he thinks he’s glorifying God, but by ignoring his family and his flock he’s doing the opposite. Because of that tension he’s stressed all the time. What he’s feeling is unsustainable.

I want to say he’s a Three. His charm and success, the ease of his vocation, are all things that happened before this story began. All we see is his crisis. Still, though, a man in his position is gifted at the social skills. He’s greatly admired in the community, even now. Only his wife sees the first signs of fraying.

And one of the things that upsets him the most is his failure. He looks bad as a bishop when he can’t get the cathedral funding, and Dudley makes him look bad with his wife, which he hates. Threes, who succeed at so much of what they touch, really dislike the rare moment when they don’t.

JULIA (1947), NINE

The title’s subject, the Bishop’s wife, Julia is universally loved. Like Mary Bailey, is she an everywoman? Or is she a real person with flaws?

She’s pretty and she’s gentle. She’s socially naive, though. When Dudley takes her to lunch, and the other ladies start to gossip about her, she is unaware. Social damage, to herself and to her prominent husband, is dangerous, yet because her intentions are pure she doesn’t see it.

She’s not particularly useful as a bishop’s wife. The community can look up to her kindness and gentility, but she’s not a saleswoman. Henry carries the whole weight of organizing his fundraiser. She longs for simpler times and a quieter home life. She’s not ambitious, which is a strength, but she’s also not in sync with her husband. She’s lovely, someone who attends functions at Henry’s side, but she’s not the manager.

She’s a Nine. She knows what’s right and she knows what she likes, but she won’t argue with anyone to make it happen. Avoid conflict, smooth the waters, and carry on. A Nine is an asset to an ambitious partner, but only in a background role. No leading, no fighting, and no pushing. It’s a perfect choice for Julia’s character.

NEBULA, FOUR

Angry and jealous. Oh, is Nebula a Four! All of the hurt she’s suffered, physically and emotionally, have left her wide open to more pain. She doesn’t armor up like most people would. She attacks, yes, but deep inside she hopes for love. The more vulnerable she feels, the harder she hits. 

She’s portrayed so beautifully, so accurately, that I really have nothing more to say. Gillan leaves it all on the screen for everyone to see. 

GAMORA, NULL

Ah, the Front Row Kid! She’s obedient as a child, which wounds Nebula, and she’s obedient as an adult, working for the betterment of the universe against her father’s wishes. Every other teammate should and does drive her crazy with their disorder.

I quite dislike Gamora, possibly because she strikes too close to home! Here’s where I think the portrayal goes wrong, though: the dilemma of a Front Row Kid is that they’re only organized on the outside. On the inside they’re terrified of failure. I don’t see that tension in Gamora. She’s too physically competent. It gives her a confidence that her personality shouldn’t have.

I would’ve liked to see the portrayal go either into One, as a physical and orderly being, or into Six, as a cerebral and orderly being. As a One she would’ve been less uncomfortable with the other teammates, and she would’ve had a playful, biting wit that nailed their disorder. As a Six she would’ve been less confident, less physically capable, but her moral certitude would’ve persuaded and comforted the other teammates.

Is it fair to call this Gamora a Null? I could probably call her a Four as a kind of catch-all, but Nebula owns that Enneagram number so thoroughly that anyone else feels false. I could call her a Nine based on her physical competence and her stoic personality, but she doesn’t have the generous sweetness of a Nine. Possibly a Three, based on her get-’er-done competence, but she’s too uncertain to be a Three. I think they miswrote her. I’m sticking with Null.