Character Fours – Page 2 – Enneagram and Encaustic

URSULA, FOUR

We lost another great this week. RIP to Pat Carroll, the fabulous pipes of The Little Mermaid’s villain. I vaguely remember her, with that contralto voice, as a guest on different TV shows. She was tiny! Nothing about her looked anything like Ursula. Carroll resembled someone who was here to prepare your taxes.

So, what Enneagram is that audacious and larger-than-life? Well, lol, I’ve got to start with an Eight. Oh, no, wait! Hahaha! She’s an Envy Person. Ursula’s a Four.

We don’t see her ride a low wave of depression. It seems like she probably did a lot of that when she was younger, and she’s over it. She battles the defeats, the failures, the sadnesses. As a mature being (mer-squid?) she’s learned much, including where she wants to invest her energy. By now, the marks are easy to spot.

I’m just guessing at her mindset, judging by the performance Carroll delivered. She packed a lot of backstory and subtext into her one showstopper. That’s what happens when a studio casts a master to inhabit a cartoon.

THOMAS BARROW, FOUR

Hello, Envy person, lol! What’s funny is that he’s very good at his job when he isn’t scheming. He should have every expectation of rising in the service ranks. No one likes him, though, so no one wants to work with him. Lord Grantham and Mr. Carson try to get rid of him over multiple seasons.

Of course, underneath the villainous “evil smoker” (as I called him and O’Brien in my breakdown reviews) is a tender heart that wants to be loved. Because he’s gay in a social era of illegality and punishment, he can’t love. He tries and fails, risking freedom and his job. Prejudice against him, and the extreme caution he must exercise, explains some of his envy and separateness.

However, he’s also someone who likes yanking people’s chains. He and O’Brien love the downstairs game they play. They both like access to the upstairs and hearing the gossip. Thomas isn’t looking to break from his role in service, unlike other characters. He just wants to get to the top and become butler for a great house.

He must be a Four. It’s the self-wounding in the war. A Three wouldn’t choose that path. And he can’t be a Two, lol, because he has no collection. Also, Barrow feels the ups and downs so deeply. His gentleness with the children — he’s the only servant who gives piggyback rides — is that sweet side of the Four when joy is let out for a spin. And his suicide attempt is the darkness winning for a moment. He’s a Four drawn and acted with full complexity. Well done.

ANDREW GARFIELD’S PETER PARKER, FOUR

This is an emotion-driven Spiderman. He must be a Four, lol.

First of all, The Amazing Spider-man is a particularly grim version of the story. The world is darker than in other iterations. Stylistically, this movie has a touch of the horror genre to it. Certain Character Enneagram numbers are more suited to this kind of storytelling. We need someone resilient. Peter is beat down a lot in this film. A Four will rise back up again.

The plot to this version is sparse. I won’t try a breakdown, but it doesn’t feel like it would hit all the beats. A Four Parker is very interesting; however, this isn’t the vehicle for him. Give me more backstory, more depth. Dig in. Ben and May are fantastic. Gwen and her father are fine (although don’t get me started about a costumer putting a young woman in thigh highs for a professional environment).

Many of the details on this movie are just okay. Peter’s a Four! Give him juicy scene chewing! Garfield is up to the task. Let him off the leash! This should’ve been a huge, emotional roller coaster. Instead, it’s meh.

BATMAN (2022), FOUR

Well, his Batman headpiece fits well and doesn’t give that horrible neck-pinch impression when he turns his head. Good costume, check. And when he takes off the cowl we still see his eye black, which feels realistic.

Now I have nothing.

He’s not a Holmesian detective, he’s not an intimidating fighter, he’s not a rich guy with toys, and he’s not a companion with Alfred. He’s a blank, mostly, with Batman-esque tropes laid lightly over his character.

Again, as I said with Catwoman, I don’t blame the actor for this portrayal. Pattinson was given a lank of hair over his face as an acting tool.

So, what do we have besides “not” qualities on the left-hand scale? He and Gordon spend a lot of time together and work as a team. To extrapolate, this Batman could be a Heart Type, someone who seeks social engagement and a sharing of duties. But then his aloofness with Alfred could negate that reading. However, considering how underused the marvelous Andy Serkis as Alfred is, the script might just have had a hole around them.

Wow, the more I think about this movie’s lack of focus, the angrier I get. Tropes and lazy archetypes are tossed around rather than character development. One of the worst was the accusation that Bruce Wayne, because he’s rich, can’t feel the sorrow and pain of being an orphan. Does Bruce let this slide because he agrees, because he’s divorced from his own feelings around the tragedy of his parents’ deaths, or because the script gave him nothing to play? I can’t tell. This movie has a lot of medium shots with no emphasis to help point the film.

Are we talking Null? His emo mood suggests a Four, as does his companionability with Gordon. If the script had pumped Alfred and his relationship with Batman more, this could’ve been a great reading of his character. I’d say that this is the only number that even suggested itself during my watch.

I’ll count it. I think this is what Pattinson was playing, even though the directing and writing didn’t back him up. It just makes me sad for the depth of a Four Batman that we’ve missed. A lot more juice went unsqueezed in this orange.

MARIAN BROOK, FOUR

With the energy of the young, Marian will engage with New Money or Old. She’ll call on a social outcast, befriend a Black woman, and concern herself with the Cook’s problem. She’ll also become romantically entangled with a man her Aunt Agnes has labeled an adventurer.

Marian, always willing to discard convention, is not always right to do so. Her enthusiasm leads her to overstep, such as when she brings cast-off shoes to Peggy’s mother’s home — a wealthy and stylish household — as an act of charity.

The problem with Marian is not just her youth and naivete. Her rebelliousness can feel fresh at times, and then foolish. The story has made her the bridge between Aunt Agnes’ Old Money prejudices and the Gilded Age’s ambition. It’s a difficult straddle for a character, and Marian isn’t always up to the task. Also, I can’t help wondering if the actress, Meryl Streep’s daughter, wasn’t cast for her pedigree — how Old Money! — rather than for the innovation of a New Money unknown.

Marian has a lot of energy — she’s always walking Ada’s little dog, lol — and a taste for conflict. She likes to stir the pot in social situations. Her father, Agnes’ and Ada’s brother, was, by the sisters’ accounts, a selfish terror. He burned through the family money, used up the sisters’ inheritance with no remorse, and left Marian destitute at his death.

She’s a Four. Although her past has hardship, she is undeterred and willing, if necessary, to fail. It takes a certain bravery to step forward in so many social situations. Not every number would persist against such risk.

XU WENWU, FOUR

The Ringbearer, the patriarch, the villain. Tony Leung’s portrayal is so complex and nuanced, I kept wanting him to be the hero and future Marvel addition! He went from conqueror and crime lord to husband in the blink of a scene, and I believed every moment of it. When his wife Li dies he switches back, becoming even harsher, and again I believed it. At the end when he releases the evil dragon, he thinks he’s releasing his trapped wife. He’s hearing suspicious voices, and again I believe. He breaks my heart with his desire to see his wife.

A Four. Who else could hit emotions on such a spectrum? Who else would find revenge as palatable as bliss?

MARY KATE DANAHER, FOUR

The Quiet Man still has a lot to love. The couple riding in the matchmaker’s cart and escaping into the Irish countryside is charming. When she shelters against his wet, white shirt, it’s one of the more romantic moments ever put on film. The beautiful horse race on the beach, the Playfairs jovially riding their two-person bicycle through town, Father Lonergan battling with his fishing — all wonderful to watch. I can (and do) quote Michaleen Flynn all day.

However, Mary Kate dragged by her husband through the fields nullifies everything else. I can’t say how that scene played in 1952, but today it’s offensive.

When we strip away the baggage, this love story is simple. She’s a Four and he’s a Nine, a classic combination. She’s passionate and quick-tempered, having all the feelings for the both of them. He’s laid back, able to disengage from much that riles her. Perhaps as a Four, an open book to all of the village, one more degrading moment doesn’t shame her? Perhaps his display of feelings, no matter how ugly, reassures her of his love?

Nope, it’s all the language of abuse. It’s an unnecessary scene — the intent is quite clear without pulling a woman through sheep dung — that could be reworked, making a movie that is watchable today. I hate to see classic filmmaking consigned to the dustbin. John Ford made his choices, though, and today’s audience will judge accordingly.

YONDU UDONTA, FOUR

Tough love! We don’t completely understand until the second Guardians how much Yondu loves Peter and looks on him as a son. It’s a great roll-out. Yondu doesn’t arc, but our understanding of his character does. He is quite consistent.

He’s not gentle, though. No coddling. The whole “the crew wanted to eat you at first” bit seems slightly villainous. Only after he repeats it do we understand that this is just a gag. Yondu’s sense of humor is dry and biting. He’s not a cuddly fellow. And why should he love Peter? He has a job to deliver a human kid to a godlike being. There’s something gentle and quiet in Yondu that makes him break from the job and raise Peter himself.

Again, all of this depth is only revealed over two movies.

So, who is this lovable ravager? He’s not a Body Type. His weapon asks no physical capabilities from him beyond the ability to whistle. He’s a thinker, but he doesn’t dwell there. What he enjoys is to mess with your mind. Think of the scene in the store where he mumbles gobbledy gook at the orb-buyer to manipulate him. Yondu gets a kick out of the show. Heart Type.

Hahaha! He collects little cute action figures for his dashboard. Does that indicate he’s a Two? Hilarious! No, I think he’s a Four because of his acerbic humor. He thrives on the battle of wits. When Peter replaces the infinity stone with a troll doll, Yondu loves it. His protege tricked him, and he thinks that’s wonderful. He’s a gamesman, and personality quirks are his playfield. And no one must ever know how tender he is under that rough blue exterior.

DUDLEY (1947), FOUR

A real angel would have no Enneagram, I suppose. Dudley, however, has many human traits. He feels romantic love for Julia. He takes a perverse pleasure in wrapping Henry around the axle. Even with the Professor, whose alcohol bottle Dudley magically replenishes, he likes confounding him and playing with his expectations. Dudley is an imp as a character archetype and, possibly, as a religious one. Henry has doubts, calling him a demon. I have doubts, too!

So, what Enneagram is the Mischief Maker? Dudley can ice skate beautifully, although I credit that with magic rather than a physical proclivity. Not a Body Type. He’s not particularly intellectual. His purpose on Earth, ultimately, is to save Henry’s soul. A different Enneagram, a Head Type, would argue with Henry and engage him in philosophy in order to guide him. Dudley, instead, goes right for the social levers.

In general, a Four is quite impish. It’s one of the things we love about them, that mischievous sense of finding buttons and pushing them, even their own. Dudley isn’t very self-reflective, though. It’s everybody else’s weaknesses he likes to manipulate.

I’m going to say that the writer purposely subverted the angel trope in order to create humor. It must’ve been funny in 1947, or it wouldn’t have become a beloved Christmas movie. In my lifetime, though, it’s gone from charming to drudgery. For me, The Bishop’s Wife is now unwatchable, and a lot of that centers around Dudley.

NEBULA, FOUR

Angry and jealous. Oh, is Nebula a Four! All of the hurt she’s suffered, physically and emotionally, have left her wide open to more pain. She doesn’t armor up like most people would. She attacks, yes, but deep inside she hopes for love. The more vulnerable she feels, the harder she hits.

She’s portrayed so beautifully, so accurately, that I really have nothing more to say. Gillan leaves it all on the screen for everyone to see.