Category: Character Enneagrams

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.

DANIEL CRAIG’S BOND, EIGHT

Is this our last Bond? He’s certainly our latest. Can a spy, a killer, a man who must be sexually magnetic but also emotionally available, ruthless while tiptoeing around cruelty — even be written successfully anymore?

Craig’s Casino Royale walked the line beautifully. His Bond was one of the harshest. As an origin story, it showed an early Bond. He loved. In a way, it showed everything a Bond could be and left little for later movies to use.

Do we have another Eight? This is a man with no polish and much potential. He’s incredibly physical, with a brawler fighting style and a flair for parkour. I can’t get beyond how aggressive he is. Poison won’t kill him, gambling can’t phase him, and he refuses to lose. Eight.

Unlike Dalton’s Bond, Craig’s is the right man at the right time. Also, when you get scenes going head to head with Judi Dench as your M, you’ve been blessed by the casting gods.

PIERCE BROSNAN’S BOND, FOUR

We’re definitely back to the Heart Type with this Bond. Another Four?

The era of social change has begun with Brosnan. His Bond can’t be so sexist. M is played by a woman. He feels really, really bad when he mistreats his Bond Girl, but he also works with Sidekick Women who are clever and complicated. It’s a balance.

I’m being sarcastic. Goldeneye was an instant classic and spawned one of the great video games. Bond actually feels things, has a friend who becomes the villain, and is sincere rather than flippant in his relationships. I would say that this is possible with a Four Bond. He can hit the spectrum of emotions without it seeming false if he digs down. Moore’s Bond kept it light and superficial, which doesn’t work for a Four. He can feel. Let him.

Also, I think it’s important that Brosnan is the only Bond that people asked for. When the role opened up Brosnan was under contract to Remington Steele and was unavailable. People wanted him, though, and he wanted Bond. When he was given the chance to play him later it felt like closure, like an expectation had been fulfilled. The actor had a connection to the audience as Bond before he ever became Bond. Did that shape his portrayal? Perhaps Brosnan as a Bond Four was inevitable.

TIMOTHY DALTON’S BOND, EIGHT

For me, Dalton’s Bond was always the closest to the written Bond. He’s much more of a machine. All the wit or flirtation is not how I remember Bond in the books. Raw, dangerous, and not movie-star handsome were my impressions. No woman would mistake him for a potential love interest. He was on the edge of society.

An Eight again? He has the anger but does he have the leadership? Dalton’s Bond also has another book quality: tenderness for the vulnerable. This Bond is a vengeful angel, smiting the wicked and stewarding the innocent. His Eight is very different from Connery’s. It’s a wired Eight, strung tight. In some ways he’s the most realistic of the Bonds. That slide to Two in strength, that gentle side in an otherwise stone cold personality, is well done.

He is the Bond with the fewest films, though. I wonder if his portrayal was ahead of its time.

ROGER MOORE’S BOND, FOUR

For this Bond I would’ve attended an opening in the movie theater. Moonraker may have been the first Bond movie I ever saw. The Moore years were very theatrical: wild ski jumps, a man with razor teeth, voodoo. You could call these the peak Bond years, although Moore was my least favorite Bond. His double entendre was so painful!

I immediately jump to Four. This Bond is very socially aware. He judges the room, works it. He’s on mission, make no mistake, but he notices people. He doesn’t just shoot and run, he manages the flow. Suave is a tool in his arsenal.

You have to see a Heart Type when you look at his mastery of emotion. His somewhat cold manipulation of it is very Man Four. He rules the ups and downs. They don’t rule him.

I’m sorry I can’t be impartial about this. I don’t remember much about the Moore films because I only watched them once. The other Bonds I’ve rewatched many times. The smile doesn’t reach the eyes with him, and I don’t find his Bond engaging.

SEAN CONNERY’S BOND, EIGHT

Our first movie portrayal of James Bond, Sean Connery’s is still my favorite. How did I see Dr. No or Goldfinger before an era of streaming and video services? I don’t remember. They were magical, though. Dynamic.

And brutal. Even for the time period, when violence would’ve been handled in a sanitized way, Connery’s Bond was ruthless. Shootings were still punctuated then with a music soundtrack. Bang bang was a double scrape across the violin strings while Connery barely blinks. The opening to Goldfinger has Connery manipulating Jill in order to get the angle on Auric. And then the angle on Jill. He’s so confident, so focused, and mostly lacking in regret.

I want to say Eight as this particular Bond’s Enneagram number. Emotions are very sparse. The mission is everything. He’s pleasant enough to people, charming if he wants, but does Bond really care about Moneypenny? It’s a part that he plays — flirt with the secretary — on his way to do business with M. It also annoys M. Two for one.

Why an Eight and not a Four? Connery is too even keel for a Four. Wit is secondary to force. Close call, though.

He’s a socially aware Eight. He’s deadly serious, literally, but the veneer is a pleasure to be around. This light touch that Connery brings helped define future portrayals that stray from the book’s Bond. How much of our understanding of Bond is established by Connery’s choices? Interesting.

JIMMY DUGAN, EIGHT

A drunk. An athlete. A stubborn jerk. Jimmy’s a hard case.

He’s also beautifully written and portrayed. Jimmy has one of the strongest arcs in the movie. But what’s his Enneagram number?

He loves conflict. Oh, he totally knows he’s aggravating that umpire. Not a Nine. 

He’s not an Envy person. Dottie’s talent is no problem for him. He wants her to excel and to recognize her gifts. The loss of his career makes him bitter against himself, but he doesn’t measure himself against others.

Possibly an Eight. His “no crying in baseball” line is honest and brutal. (That’s part of what makes it so funny and beloved.) Eights are not ashamed to hurt other people’s feelings. They rip off the band-aid.

Not a One. The mechanics of coaching hold little interest for Jimmy. Not a Seven. An alcoholic Seven would be having much more fun.

Eight it is. When he stops drinking his natural leadership shines through and he becomes a great coach.

KIT KELLER, FOUR

Total Envy Person, right? Her jealousy over her sister Dottie is eating her alive. Credit to the actors for nailing their characters so perfectly that narrowing the Enneagram choices is easy.

Two, Three, or Four? Obviously I jump right to Four because Kit seems consumed with emotion, but let’s dig deeper.

Kit is athletic, yet not a Body Type. Next to Dottie Kit is average, but compared to everyone not Dottie, Kit is cream of the crop. She excels. Possibly a Three.

She second guesses herself, though, and lets Dottie live in her head. Her doubt seems very un-Three.

She’s open with the other players. Everyone likes her. I’m going to say no to a Two, though. Evelyn, mother of Stillwell Angel and instigator of one of the greatest lines in film — “There’s no crying in baseball” — seems like the team’s Two.

So, we’re back to Four. Kit is up and down. Her determination to battle, even though she feels defeated, is Four-like. And the Four/Nine dynamic, with Dottie as the partner Nine, is on steroids here. Everything one number refuses to feel, the other number displays. That mix of deep connection and painful codependency makes for a very compelling sister story.

DOTTIE HINSON, NINE

Oh, she’s a Nine all the way. Her avoidance of conflict, her superior athletic ability, her calm dependability — so much Enneagram Nine.

I’ve complained before about having Nine protagonists at every turn. It’s so predictable. Here’s a good one, though. Dottie’s Nine traits, her placid nature, are used to play off the other characters’ more exuberant traits. Although Dottie is our heroine, this is an ensemble cast. Actors play their individual beats and Dottie sits right at the center, reacting. It’s a very good use of a Nine character. Everything that we see happen to her, from signing up for the team to going to the team reunion, is instigated by someone other than Dottie. Even leaving the team because Bob came home is a passive reaction rather than a decisive action. It makes for an interesting and sometimes frustrating character arc.

Also, her astonishing athleticism is important to the story. She’s almost physically superhuman, which leads to a lot of conflict. Her mild personality is a great contrast because she doesn’t really know how good she is. Someone like this, one of the greatest athletes of all time in the world of this story, should have more strut. She’s a bit of a mystery.

In the end, though, she returns to the playoffs of her own accord. The Nine can’t resist the battle when all’s said and done.

ERIK KILLMONGER, EIGHT

Of course he’s an Eight. His anger, his vengeance, his brook-no-arguments leadership are all evidence of his Enneagram number.

What’s truly interesting is that Killmonger is the hero archetype while T’Challa, the actual superhero, isn’t. I believe the filmmakers played this dichotomy on purpose. What does it say when you reverse the superhero trope?

Some people wanted Killmonger to be the protagonist. He’s the corrupted version of a superhero — his methods and goals will cause great harm and he is unrepentant about that — but his core is attractive. That decisiveness and commitment, an unwavering drive, are what we expect in a hero. His origin story is compelling. T’Challa’s just a prince-in-waiting. Part of us wants Killmonger, the underdog warrior, to win.

And yet he is defeated by someone more conflicted, more diplomatic, more democratic. King T”Challa wants to hear from everybody and weigh all sides, as a true leader would. Killmonger dictates and destroys.

In real life humans are more complicated than Killmonger. In stories someone as predictable as Killmonger is a comfort. The catharsis, the sharing of his journey even if it’s a tragedy, is what we crave.