Character Stories – Enneagram and Encaustic

JO MARCH, FOUR AND EIGHT

Speaking from memory, I’d say that most of the Little Women movies keep Jo’s sisters fairly consistent. Amy, whether played by Elizabeth Taylor or Kirsten Dunst or Florence Pugh, is bold and confident. She knows her mind and pursues her future, probably making her a Three. Beth, besides being physically vulnerable, is consistently shy and reticent. She might be a Five or a Two, although ultimately it doesn’t matter. The effect of her death on Jo is what moves the story forward. Meg, who is deeply embarrassed when she’s caught breaking a rule, is probably a Nine. She’s solid and average, very much the eldest child.

However, Jo swings between portrayals. Katharine Hepburn and June Allyson both give Jo a physical, Body Type character. Winona Ryder’s Jo goes in a different direction. Her love of the family’s theater troupe is more intellectual than physical. We don’t see Jo sword fight with Laurie, for instance. She prefers the costuming and the exploration of authentic feelings. This Jo is possibly a Four. Her sisters are a social team she can’t bear to disband. She nears despair after Beth’s death, which leads Marmee to arrange the New York trip for her. When Professor Bhaer takes her on the opera date, the stimulation of music and spectacle overwhelm Jo. Much of Ryder’s Jo can be understood by emotion. The production itself leans into bright and cheerful horn music, the Victorian Christmas theme, and a May garden bursting with blooms. The visuals reinforce Jo’s relationship to her time and place.

Maya Hawke’s Jo lives in a different world. Father at war, which is shown during the opening moments, sets a darker tone. The family itself is less idealized and more realistic, with the sisters avoiding chores and responsibility. This Jo is often angry and probably an Eight. A Jo who’s a Body Type is what we expect, so this is a strong choice for the character. It’s only when she softens her shell and digs into her sorrow that she becomes the writer we know.

Saoirse Ronan’s Jo is the most difficult for me to Enneagram because, as I’ve made clear, I didn’t like the structure of her version. Her character development is difficult to follow because the section with Beth’s illness jumps back and forth in time. Also, the two endings — one expected, one surprising — make it hard to evaluate who she is. Before this movie I didn’t know that, although Alcott’s story about Beth and her sisters is based on real events, the boys’ home and Professor Bhaer are imaginary. It’s a fascinating theme to contrast our expectation of the classic Jo as a false front for a more complicated, realistic Jo. It’s only at the end at the publisher’s that we see the scope of who Jo is. The book and the real events of Alcott’s life can support this wonderful dichotomy. The tension in Jo — will she live a conventional, married life, or will she defy expectations and follow a professional career only — is the unique element in this version. Don’t introduce it at the Nine! The last shot on Jo’s face is mysterious. This was your movie. Start here and work backwards, building the shots and the beats that make this moment impactful rather than an end-of-story throwaway. Because this Jo has the potential for great highs and lows — because of the suffering in the tension between the two versions of Jo — I would guess she’s a Four.

If you look at my Enneagram reviews for the different iterations of James Bond, you’ll see they swing between Fours and Eights. It’s the same thing with Jo March. (Isn’t that interesting?) Am I saying that Jo and James — ruthless and unconventional in their lifestyles — are similarly constructed characters, or am I saying that Fours and Eights share so much common ground, as unbelievable as that seems, that a singular character can be either number? I don’t know. Maybe it’s only that writers are predictable, and Fours and Eights make for good storytelling.

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.

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.

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.

COLIN AND PENELOPE, FIVE AND TWO

Penelope Featherington, a friend of the Bridgerton family, has had a crush on Colin since the beginning of Season One of Bridgerton. It was inevitable that their romance story become the focus of Season Three. Will Colin, who has returned husky and handsome from his travels, finally realize that his neighbor across the street is the love of his life? And will Penelope’s secret break them apart?

We definitely have a Heart Type with Penelope. She thrives on watching social interactions. A wallflower, Penelope has learned to listen and observe. She’s deeply connected to the stories and intrigues she uncovers. And Colin’s three-season ignorance of her feelings has been wrenching for her. Her distance within her own family is also painful. She takes command, though, of her dowdy image and reinvents herself as an interesting and attractive marriage prospect.

I’m tempted to call Penelope a Three because she’s successful at navigating the Regency milieu. However, I keep getting pulled back towards a Two. Partly that’s because of the casting: Coughlan’s voluptuous beauty is more Two than Three. Also, though, wallflower Pen is so ignored. I don’t know if a Three would be overlooked. And a Three might not maintain a secret — she would be too proud and confident to hide her accomplishments. It is very Two to think of others and give energy to them while denying her own self. She must learn how to balance her own needs while remaining a caring person, and that’s basically the character arc they give her.

Let’s look at Colin, though. He might also be a Two. In romance, a couple shouldn’t be the same number. It’s like dating a sibling. Colin was not my favorite Bridgerton protagonist — he bounces around in his traits — so I’m trying mightily to be fair to him. In what ways has Colin been consistent over the seasons?

His treatment of Marina in Season One is very courteous and generous. Nothing requires him to behave like that; it’s his true character to be kind. He’s also naive and young. In Season Two, when he considers investing in the ruby mine scheme, he still seems naive. However, he twists it around and exposes the fraud. (Apparently, travel has made him wiser.) It’s also made him more haughty. He tells his friends that he’d never consider Penelope romantically. When he enters Season Three looking like an Errol Flynn archetype, the gentleness of his early character is gone.

My God, please, he can’t also be a Null.

Okay, let’s do the math. He’s not a Four — not witty enough. Not a Three — not determined enough. Not a Body Type — do we ever see him engage in physical activity?

Ah. This is a Five. World traveler, learning his own mind and studying the workings of society. It is so Five to miss seeing the beauty next door who has loved you for years. He’s kind of a social basket case while really trying to be a good man, which is proper Five-ness. Think of Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. A Five can be stilted or brusque at first glance. The Colin of Season Three is a bit full of himself.

However, in his secret heart he’s a writer. Setting thoughts to paper is his ambition. How Head Type of him! I do think the showrunners cheated Colin by sending him overseas in lieu of actually showing his growth arc, and I think they could’ve measured his changes at home so that his character feels less erratic. I’m happy to call him a Five, though. His almost stodgy nature, evident across all the seasons, makes sense now.

ANTHONY AND KATE, ONE AND FOUR

Of the three Bridgerton seasons, this was my favorite. Our romantic leads are interesting people played sympathetically by beautiful actors wearing gorgeous clothes.

Anthony is this season’s Bridgerton protagonist. The eldest son, he’s a Viscount who has been competently running the family estate since his father’s early death. The pressure and weight of his position, laid on his shoulders when he was a teen, are his main conflict. He must marry and produce an heir, regardless of love. When the Queen favors Edwina, Anthony decides that she’s the one.

Edwina’s older sister and staunch defender Kate decides Anthony is not the one. Their antagonism is Kate’s conflict. (They are obviously destined to be the love interest, which is classic romance novel stuff.) Kate will do anything for her sister’s happiness, even deny her own feelings.

So who are these two and what are their Character Enneagrams?

The easy answer for Anthony is a One. His financial acumen in managing the family property is a clue. He rides his horse daily and seems rejuvenated by physical exercise, as a Body Type would. And he’s a terrible stickler for rules and order. He knows in his heart that he loves Kate, yet he proposes to Edwina anyway because she is the woman who meets his criteria for a wife.

The tricky character is Kate. She also loves horseback riding, but it’s more of an emotional outlet than a physical one. She also denies her feelings so that Edwina can marry her choice of Anthony. In many ways she’s a good match for Anthony because they share similar traits. However, her impulses come from a different place. Her love for her sister is central to her character. When Edwina learns that Kate has been lying to her and distances herself, Kate is devastated by her sister’s cold shoulder. Proper and ladylike on the outside, Kate is volatile on the inside. I want to say she’s a Four. Because Ones and Fours are strength/weakness numbers to each other, it feels like a good guess. I like Kate as a Four; her highs and lows are mostly contained inside, only bursting out occasionally. It makes her an appealing character for a Regency story. She’s the anti-Marianne of Sense and Sensibility, someone who keeps from wearing her passions on her sleeve. Mostly.