Enneagram – Page 49 – Enneagram and Encaustic

VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN, SIX

It’s funny to me that when I think of Frankenstein and its characters I go first to Mel Brooks’ comedic take, Young Frankenstein. The novel, the Boris Karloff movie, even later versions such as Kenneth Branagh’s, are secondary in my memory.

And so, in this post, I will try to isolate the original character, Victor. His hubris is one of the main themes. The advances of science mattered more than moral considerations. He is the protagonist, his is the arc, and he falls hard along the way.

What Enneagram number does that make him? First, I would say not a Heart Type. The story is particularly cruel regarding his treatment of the Monster. God the Father loves us, no matter what. Victor the Father cannot love his creation, even though he should. This is a heartless act.

He pursues the Monster to the ends of the earth, dying in an ice-bound ship. What number has the dedication, the fanaticism, to go to these limits? Ah. What about a Six? Their sense of right and wrong, white and black, will carry them through many trials. It’s also what got Victor in trouble in the first place. Once he’d convinced himself he had an obligation to dig up dead bodies and stitch them together, moral qualms were ignored. His sense of duty carries him all the way to the end and requires he tell his story to the narrator, no matter how embarrassing or ugly for himself.

LOTSO, THREE

Like Prospector, Lotso is a villain because his toy life was thwarted. Remind me. He was accidentally left behind, right? And then replaced by the parents.

Ah, the cruelty of toy life. You’re one of a million versions of yourself, and yet you are supposed to be special and unique to your child. If you haven’t suffered enough wear and tear that identifies you, how will anybody know you’re their one of a kind?

Lotso is truly mean. He lies to Big Baby in order to deny him a reunion and keep him from having what Lotso can’t have. He runs the daycare like a tyrant, including using new arrivals as fodder. He’s portrayed like a sweet-smelling mafia don. And he’s an accomplished liar.

Again, let’s pretend that the creators had some subconscious sense of the Enneagram physique. Lotso, therefore, can’t be a One, Four, Five, or Six. He’s too burly. I refuse to call him a Two. Prospector has cornered the market on that portrayal. He’s too sedentary to be an Eight or Nine. Three or Seven?

Three. The evil kind. That touch of envy, of not having the toy life he deserved, is the key.

Also, no Seven would ever sit still long enough to be named Lots-O’-Huggin’.

UPDATE 7/8/2021:

After watching this again, I really must complain about Lotso. He’s the downfall, the reason Toy Story 3 is not as great as the first two. What is Lotso’s motivation, what does he want? The Prospector is such a wonderful villain. He wants a family, he wants the love and camaraderie he was denied as a toy. Tokyo is that chance for him, and he fights for it.

Lotso, though, wants . . . power? Domination? He was lost, and then replaced. What emotion does that history motivate? Envy of toys who had owners for years, yes. A place from which he can never be abandoned again, yes. How does that all translate into his actions in the daycare, though? The first question any actor asks, and any writer needs to ask about a character, is: What do I/they want? The answer must be playable, and it must be a strong foundation for the plot. Woody and the gang are crystal clear, which is why this is still a very good movie. But it’s not great, and that failure lies with Lotso.

PROSPECTOR, TWO

Heart Type, hands down, one hundred percent! His speech at the end, the fact that no child wanted to buy or play with the Prospector doll, is just so perfect. It’s been eating him alive. Oh, the irony of being the sidekick toy that no one wants is magnificent.

Which number? If we give the creators credit for instinctually understanding Enneagram physiques (as we did with Woody), then he is no Four.

I’m totally cracking up. He’s a Two! It’s the pickaxe. He has accessories! Also, it’s quite heartbreaking that a doll with so much love to give, as a Two would, is ignored. His bitterness is justified. What a lovely choice.

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.

JESSIE, FOUR

She’s so emotional, so vulnerable with such a heart. Four?

You just love her, don’t you? Her passion for the Roundup Gang and her companions is endearing. Her enthusiasm for life outside of the packing box. Her love of Emily, although not remarkable for the world of toys, still can make you cry. That song!

As broken as she is, hurt by her abandonment, she’ll still jump in and hope. She’ll be part of the Gang, she’ll be part of Andy’s room, she’ll be in the daycare center. She’s so game!

When Woody rescues her in the airplane, she goes from lost and devastated to thrilled and enthusiastic so quickly. Her resilience!

Pixar has created a three-dimensional Four, someone with the warts and the triumphs, and Jessie is given all the time to show the depth of her character. She is an example of the true breadth of this Enneagram number.

It’s also why she and Woody are not a romantic item. Two people of the same number will be more like siblings.

BUZZ LIGHTYEAR, ONE

He’s so helpful! He never tires, either. Patient. Remember when he’s taping back together his cardboard spaceship and the other toys help? And when he works with Etch-a-Sketch to discover the chicken man? Buzz is indefatigable.

He’s such a rule-follower that it takes half a movie for him to realize he’s not who he thinks.

Brave. Athletic. He sees himself as heroic and he behaves that way. Even after his ego has taken a hit, he still shines through as that wing-popping, save-the-day guy.

When he finally realizes he’s part of a team, he’s happy to be a team player.

I keep coming up with an Enneagram One. Rules, obviously. Athleticism. That Energizer Bunny quality. He’s a leader. Once he understands the true mission — be Andy’s toy — he’s willing to co-lead. A One will share authority with someone who’s proven to be competent. When Buzz understands the entire Andy’s Room situation, he also realizes that Woody has done a good job. As long as business is conducted efficiently, a One will put aside any personal disagreements.

Also, don’t forget the flamenco dancing. I’m cracking up right now remembering all the great Buzz moments. Ones are funny. Part of the greatness of their humor is it bubbles up from their core. It’s honest. That’s definitely Buzz.

WOODY, FOUR

Envy. Woody’s envy of Buzz drives the first Toy Story. He can only be a Heart Type.

Woody’s a great leader. He’s got the whole room organized. The recon soldiers and the walkie talkies, the moving buddies, the meetings — this is a smooth-running team. A lot of this is due to writers and creators wanting to showcase toys from their youth. The movie is fun! It works, though, because Woody’s character traits are so integrated into the gimmick.

Is he a Three? He’s so beloved, in Andy’s room but also as a collectible. The cowboy doll is a cool toy. What happens when all the success and ease of a Three’s world is upended by chance? Buzz wishes him no harm and is not the villain. He’s just a random event that wrecks Woody’s comfort.

I want to say, though, that Woody’s a Four. His emotional intensity, his dependence on the love from the room, his connection to Andy. His battle with Sid seems particularly Four-ish. He’s able to gain the sympathy of Sid’s toys, even when Andy’s toys have rejected him. The journey through emotion Woody makes seems like a Four path.

Also, and this is funny, Woody moves like a Four. He’s tall, gangly, with long arms and legs. Remember his run? Doesn’t it make you laugh when you imagine him as a Four? Woody was drawn/modeled by people who knew his character. This isn’t just a process of casting an actor who may or may not match the Enneagram of their role. Something made the creators design a Woody that fits certain physical parameters. I like this mysterious sense of synergy!

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.