Enneagram and Encaustic – Screenwriting, Lyrics, Art, and Investigation

AMY ADAMS’ LOIS LANE, THREE

Lois meets Clark as she pursues a journalism article. It’s not local to Metropolis, though; it’s an international mystery in the Arctic. (Or the Antarctic, someplace cold and remote. It doesn’t matter because the discovery isn’t connected to a neighborhood or a human location.)

Perhaps you can tell that I’m already disappointed in this Lane.

Worse, she quickly devolves from an independent reporter to a sidekick love interest. She’s brave and resourceful, of course, but her mission is to assist Clark. Kidder’s Lane chased the story; Adams’ Lane is written as a romantic support character.

She’s not a girlboss and she’s not an emotionally needy wreck like the previous Lanes. At least Kidder and Bosworth had identities to play. Adams, who is a great actress, is given nothing. She’s lucky she isn’t fridged.

This Lois is competent, caring, and efficient. Let’s call her a Three. She gets the job done as an admirable girlfriend without a lot of drama. Also, as a Nine, Clark would find his better self in a
Three, his Strength number. I’ve never thought of a Three as a character catchall before. She’s not a Null, but she has no outstanding traits that would move her into a different Enneagram number. She’s likable and dependable — Three traits — but she’s also unremarkable. A Three would normally pull focus. It’s a good choice for a dogged reporter, which is not her role in this film beyond the first twenty minutes.

I would prefer a more vibrant Lois Lane, but, as a girlfriend, this Three suffices.

HENRY CAVILL’S SUPERMAN, NINE

Man of Steel (2013), like the 1978 version, is also an origin story. The difference here is Jonathan Kent and his paranoia/caution. He tamps down Clark’s impulse to help and intervene, to show what he can do, so the government won’t come and take him away. It makes for a darker version than Richard Donner’s upbeat take. The world here is more suspicious, less trusting.

Because Cavill in real life is a dedicated gamer, I will always think well of him. Also, to be utterly superficial, Clark takes off his shirt now and then. I give this portrayal a thumb’s up.

His Superman is a good man with strong instincts, but Jonathan’s influence has made him more of a philosopher. He hesitates before jumping into action. I guess that indicates he, like Reeve’s portrayal, is a Nine concerned with justice. However, I don’t think this Clark would turn back the Earth’s rotation to save Lois. It was an impulsive act, something Jonathan’s son doesn’t do.

And he doesn’t get a Lex Luthor as his nemesis. The villain is General Zod, escaped from Krypton’s destruction. By choosing a space alien, this version is less charming or fantastical, fitting more into the science fiction genre.

No wigs, sadly.

I’m not a fan of Zod and his plotline. Hackman’s Luthor had a ridiculous goal: hit the San Andreas fault with nukes and cause California to drop into the sea, creating new property (owned by Lex) on the Pacific Ocean. Preposterous, but also easy to understand. Zod’s goal — kill humanity so that Krypton survivors could populate the Earth? — is much more complicated. Superman is stronger than them because he grew up here and absorbed the sun’s radiation. Again, so complicated. This density diminishes the Superman portrayal. Honestly, I don’t want to think this much for a comic book story. Keep it simple, please.

Clark’s internal struggle, a result of Jonathan’s parenting, is enough of a fresh twist. What if Superman doesn’t immediately help the human race? The government doesn’t trust him and possibly wants to harm him as a way of controlling him. It makes sense for him to hesitate. And yet, Clark is compelled by his own ethos to do good. Either way, we have a Nine, and successfully so. I just wish Zod hadn’t been the center of the conflict.

Van Helsing

Except for some overwrought CGI, this Halloween classic from 2004 stands up well to a rewatch.

LEFTOVER NINE

In black-&-white we see the end of a Frankenstein story. Transylvania 1887. The villagers come with torches and pitchforks (and a battering ram) to an elaborate castle. Inside, the exuberant doctor yells, “It’s alive!”

Here’s where the known backstory takes a turn: Dracula appears in the doctor’s laboratory. And another shift: Victor is a benevolent creator who wants to protect his monster. (Check my Enneagram reviews of Frankenstein characters to see why this is odd.) Dracula’s been financing this operation and now wants the monster for his own purposes. Victor refuses. While Dracula bites his neck, killing him, the monster escapes his bonds.

Villagers chase him as he carries Victor into a windmill. Fire, fueled by bottles of absinthe next to a copy of the Holy Bible, destroys the tower; the monster crashes into its pit. Dracula and his three brides, in bat form, scatter the villagers and lament that the monster is lost to them.

ONE

Cut to One Year Later in Paris.

Hooky

Because it’s almost Halloween and I’ve been working on a longer post for next week, I wanted something light for this week. It’s easy to enjoy a Spongebob episode. The fish hooks are vaguely threatening and maybe a little scary — yes? — so let’s call this a Halloween appetizer.

ONE

Briefly we see the ocean’s surface with the Three Palm Tree Island. Animated humans on boats fish.

TWO

Mr. Krabs bursts through the door of the Krusty Krab. “They’re back! The hooks!”

The customers are unimpressed.

Pink Lagoon

KATE BOSWORTH’S LOIS LANE, TWO

As I previously mentioned, I only watched the first half of Superman Returns because I found it boring and painful.

Bosworth seems to be giving her Lane the same crusty personality Kidder gave. The production design undermines this portrayal, though. Lois’ hair is fluffy and styled rather than stringy and simple; her suit is tidy and professional rather than frumpy and thrown-together. Kidder’s Lois was razor sharp on the inside, while her physical presentation was slightly sloppy. Bosworth’s Lois is the opposite. Her interior life is a conflicted mess.

Honestly, I don’t want to remember or detail her personal disasters. Suffice to say she has problems, and this is no Eight. Kidder’s Lane has a breezy way of attacking life. Bosworth’s Lane cringes and sidesteps.

I feel bad for sounding so harsh. I like Bosworth as an actor. (Blue Crush, anyone?) I blame the showrunners more than I do her for upending Lois Lane’s strengths. Like Spacey’s Luthor, Bosworth’s Lane is unclear as an Enneagram number. My first guess is a wounded Two. It’s a terrible choice for a hard-bitten reporter. We have no sign of the girlboss Lane.

You know, I could delve deeper into her character, but I won’t. I didn’t finish the movie and now I won’t spend more time with Lois. Let’s forget this film exists, which seems to be the trend.

BRANDON ROUTH’S SUPERMAN, FOUR

Superman Returns is a continuation, plotwise, of the Reeve stories. Superman, when astronomers locate the empty space that used to be Krypton, leaves Metropolis for five years to go home and see his broken world for himself.

It’s an awkward story decision. Clark Kent and Superman, gone for the same amount of time, return and no one seriously connects the dots. A throwaway joke that Clark is too nerdy to be the cool Superman doesn’t work. It’s a bandaid for a plot wound.

Routh does a fine job, even imitating Reeve’s speech patterns. He isn’t playing a Nine, though, which is very interesting to me. He’s less of a stereotypical hero and more of a guy who lost his girl. He’s heartbroken. And he has the twinkle that Spacey’s Luthor is missing. This might be our Four.

I didn’t watch the entire movie, so I could have missed some Enneagram clues. Unlike Spacey, though, Routh conveys a lot of character in the first half. Superman tells Lois that he hears all the Earth’s cries for help. It seems to pain him that he, a being who suffers with each human individual, can’t rescue everyone. This movie makes obvious references to Superman as Christ, which is another weight dragging down the story. For all the beauty of the original Superman, it’s a fairly simple story. The choice to make this Superman a continuation rather than an origin story gives the film a lot of baggage it can’t handle.

It’s a shame, because I think Routh’s Four Superman has possibilities.

Gage and Wrigley: Chapter Five

Back on the road out of Saddleback, Rachel, Gage, and Wrigley turned onto the fork that leads to the Southern Monastery. It didn’t take long for the road to wind into the canyon, walls rising above them.

Wrigley fidgeted on Gage’s shoulder.

“What is it?” Gage asked.

“What do you mean?”

“Cut it out, pal. You’re walking all over my shoulder and I can feel your anxiety in my head.”

“You’re very good at this,” Wrigley said with astonishment. “I can’t read you at all yet.”

“I’m not feeling anything you should read. We’re walking. It’s boring.”

“Good company makes a lighter burden,” Rachel said with dripping sarcasm. Gage and Wrigley both turned their heads simultaneously to give her a “butt-out” look. Lifting her hands, Rachel picked up her pace to walk ahead of them.

KEVIN SPACEY’S LEX LUTHOR, FIVE

I know I said that the Luthor portrayal had a lot of wiggle room. I underestimated the brilliance of Hackman, though. His humor is so important for an enjoyable Superman story. Spacey’s Luthor is cruel. He doesn’t twinkle. Clearly, Superman Returns intends to be grittier than the original, but this version isn’t fun. I stopped rewatching halfway through.

Spacey’s Luthor is no Four as Hackman’s was. The lack of impish wit changes the Enneagram number. The villainous plan is equally bold and destructive, and Superman is poisoned by kryptonite in both versions. Each Luthor has a sympathetic female sidekick. However, one difference is Luthor’s living conditions. Hackman has an almost-silly underground lair. Spacey, who tricked a dying lady into marrying him and willing him her money, has a yacht. Hackman’s house is ridiculous; humor is required. Spacey’s house is luxurious. He’s free to be malevolent.

I feel confident saying that this Luthor is no Heart Type. On the one hand, I may guess his Enneagram number wrong because I didn’t watch the whole film. On the other hand, if you can’t present your character clearly in half a movie, then you’ve failed.

Shall I call him a Null? That seems unfair. He’s Head or Body, and the only defining characteristic I noticed is his wig collection. The shot of the mannequin heads in his closet is creepy. Hackman’s Luthor, who wears wigs that amuse him, is different. This Luthor chooses a hairpiece that will sell his heist identity. The wigs are tools.

I’m going to say he’s a Five, although it’s a stab on my part. This Luthor is so different from Hackman’s, and a Five is almost opposite from a Four. In the Enneagram diagram they are unconnected numbers with a chasm in between. A villainous Five would be emotionally cold. This Luthor is a sociopath, as any Luthor could be, but there’s something numb and blank about him. A Five is the closest guess I can make.

Gage and Wrigley: Chapter Four

(Story reminder here.)

And here you are again at the crossroads. Now is your chance to pop home in Saddleback and use your crafting station. You’ll find that your Owl Skills include Rend, a power that allows you to pick apart and deconstruct materials that would normally require specialized tools. At this point you may not have all the patterns you need, but you’re about to get the chance to rummage through sacks and chests.

You’re on your way to the Southern Monastery. Watch the misty parts of the map reveal themselves.