Character Stories – Enneagram and Encaustic

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.

DAPHNE AND SIMON, THREE AND NULL

As an Austen stalwart, I was reluctant to watch the playful take on the Regency era that is Bridgerton, but I was persuaded to try it and I enjoyed myself. Since the show focuses on a particular romantic couple each season, I’ll begin with the Duke and Duchess of Hastings.

Daphne is the Bridgerton we follow in Season One. (Think of the Bridgertons as a homeschool family, lol. They’re a quirky bunch.) The eldest daughter, Daphne enters society and the marriage market with the Queen’s favor. Meanwhile Simon is a recent and reluctant Duke. These two, through twists and turns, end up married.

The plots for Bridgerton are heavy on the romance novel tropes. (This season includes an episode that is almost entirely sex scenes, although they do have relevance to character development.) Simon has sworn an oath to his odious father on his deathbed that he won’t procreate and further the line. Daphne, an innocent, eventually understands that Simon is pulling out before orgasm so that he won’t get her pregnant. This is the main conflict.

So what do we have for Character Enneagrams?

Like Elinor in Sense and Sensibility, Simon has made a promise with details he won’t share or break, even to those he loves. Elinor can’t reveal Lucy Steele’s secret and painful engagement to her beloved Edward because she swore to tell no one. Not even Marianne can know. In that vein, Simon won’t tell his wife that, although he is physically capable of fathering children, he is morally restricted by his oath. (It’s a tough sell for a modern audience. For us, his resolve borders on stubbornness.)

In Austen world, someone who keeps an oath is honorable and heroic. It’s an ideal that not everyone can achieve. Let’s decide that, for Simon, the rules are the same. This is a man of impeccable character. And he loves Daphne.

Holy cow. He might be a Null. Everything about him is trope. I can’t even remember what finally persuades him to change his mind and agree to become a father! He’s beautifully acted, but his character is void of specific traits. He isn’t particularly Body, Heart, or Head Type. Simon is a generic, handsome romantic lead with nothing to distinguish him as an individual. He doesn’t appear in any future seasons, which is probably a contract issue with the actor, but it also sends up red flags. They didn’t know how to write him once his plot conflict was finished.

As for Daphne, she’s probably a Three. Beautiful, confident, successful in the realm of Regency dating, Daphne is the Bridgerton who shines. She takes charge of her own future by entering into a pact with Simon to fool society. There’s just no way that Daphne will fail. The plot deals her with setbacks, but Daphne has an indomitable quality. She ends up happily married, pregnant with an acknowledged heir, and a wise advisor to her family in future episodes.

The first season is so heavily locked into romance novel expectations it narrows the Enneagram choices. Future seasons do a better job of expanding the characters.

MARTIN FREEMAN’S DR. WATSON

Why would this Watson stay with this Holmes? The traditional relationship has him chronicle their adventures, but this is only hinted at for a future project. His expertise as a doctor is glancingly mentioned.

It’s his return from the military. Watson misses the action and doesn’t know how to transition back to civilian life. At least, that’s what I see from the acting and very subtle writing clues. Watson is an adrenaline junkie, and Holmes provides the fix. It’s an interesting (and lonely) take on the doctor. He’s a man hanging by a thread. Integrating with society, finding a purpose — this is good storytelling. Freeman brings much subtext that is enticing. I’m more interested in his sidekick story than I am in the protagonist’s.

Well, that’s regretful.

So, who is a man that lets Holmes walk all over him in order to get a taste of the life he left?

Because Holmes is a Four, the obvious choice for Watson is a Nine. (They are incredibly codependent.) Neither of these numbers is a Head Type, which is fresh but also puzzling for a brainy detective genre. Watson likes conflict too much in this version to be a Nine. Unless . . . he’s an anti-Nine as Sherlock is an anti-Four.

Ah. I think this might be the case. They’re both true to their numbers by exhibiting the worst variations of their Enneagram. An anti-Nine seeks conflict in a self-destructive, uncontrolled way. He’s burning down the house by going against everything in which a Nine finds comfort and security. Normally a Nine likes when a Four expresses all the emotions they want to ignore. Except that this Four expresses no emotions at all, leaving the Nine to carry the load. It’s totally ill. These men are toxic for each other. Because the production is of a high quality, and because the acting is some of the best, the show has a hook. Everyone loves to watch Holmes mystify with his abilities. This version has a dark underbelly, though. It’s my least favorite so far.