Category: Character Enneagrams

FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER, NINE

This is specifically the version of the Monster in Van Helsing. I’m trying to remember. He’s barely “born”, right? The Doctor is killed, villagers come with torches, and the Monster falls into the flaming windmill. I don’t think he has a chance to be mistreated by his creator.

However, he is co-opted into Dracula’s scheme, and he resists. This Monster seems to instantly know right from wrong, justice from injustice. He does not want to be used to power the vampire babies.

The traditional Monster is a Four. Feelings seem to go with the territory of this character. I want to say Nine, though, for this Monster. It’s the justice. Also, he’s very conscious of his size and strength. He can unleash his power, but he chooses to control it.

He’s actually a very sweetly written/acted Nine. He has a touch of Six in him (his weakness number) that gives him a tenderness and sympathy.

COUNT VLADISLAUS DRACULA, NULL

Stoker’s Dracula is just evil. You fight him with the crucifix. This Dracula is a character with a backstory so convoluted I can’t remember it all. He’s got the whole “breeding with the brides” thing that’s quite disgusting, though. 

I would say that the closer Dracula is to archetype, the better. This Dracula is not that. So, what is he?

He can do things: fly, shape shift, dissolve. Magical powers are expected. I don’t see Body Type, though. He doesn’t really revel in his abilities.

He’s a scientist. Sort of.

Although he has brides, they’re the ones who pine, sort of, for children. Offspring. He wants world domination, maybe. He’s not sentimental, though. I’m not getting Heart Type.

Head? Yes, he’s an intellectual vampire. Beyond that, he has no definition.

He is nothing. The Rules of the Magic for him are so complicated that he doesn’t even register as a satisfying trope. He’s the weak link in this movie. The good guys are character driven. This Dracula needed to be more specific to work as their antagonist.

ANNA VALERIOUS, EIGHT

She’s so brave and beautiful. And she can run like a boss in high-heeled boots! My favorite thing about Anna? She has a clear goal that she pursues relentlessly and achieves at the end. Who has that kind of perseverance?

Like Van Helsing, Anna has huge stunts and big action pieces. Body Type? I really can’t see a Nine being so driven. Probably an Eight. When the vampire wives corner her Anna is afraid but she’s still going to fight rather than wilt. Her first instinct is always to go aggressive when in doubt.

She is a kind of superhero, and Hollywood stories tend to make women the Eight in these cases. That willingness to fight when the physical odds are always against you is the key trait. In Anna’s case they’ve married her strength with a determined will. Her Eight-ness suffuses her character, which is wonderful. “I want to kill Dracula in order to save my family from eternal damnation” is one of the great action phrases an actor can play. Simple, clean, moving.

She might be my top Woman Eight. I’ll have to check!

VAN HELSING, NINE

I refer, of course, to the Van Helsing played by Hugh Jackman in the eponymous movie. I love this version of the classic monster tales!

He is brave, of course. He hunts the worst creatures and slays them under the imprimatur of the Church. Physically difficult and spiritually difficult. This is a high action movie, so the stunts are big and the character is daring. Must we immediately decide that he’s a Body Type?

He’s a Nine. Of course. He’s a superhero, after all. Also, he really doesn’t want to engage in emotional conflict. Kill the demons, bless their remains, and move on to the next one. His own personal biography is something he tries to avoid.

Cool, disconnected, physically capable. As a Nine, he would also be a good judge. Fair and impartial. If you’re going to kill a hell-damned abomination, you want to get the judgment right.

For the more traditional Dracula story (with its briefly seen Van Helsing), I really couldn’t think of an angle. Bela Lugosi, Gary Oldman, Frank Langella, Christopher Lee — all great vampire portrayers, but I didn’t want to write about any of them. Another time, perhaps.

KAHN’S ELIZABETH, FIVE

Victor Frankenstein’s girl — fiancee, cousin, whatever she’s called — is a non-entity. She’s fridged! She basically dies so that Victor can feel something. Her arc is incidental.

Frederick’s girl is a whole ‘nother matter. Go Madeline!

She’s fussy. “Taffeta, darling.” Precise, prissy. Appearances, order, decorum, are all important to her. Partly she’s portrayed as uptight because it gives her an arc, a very funny one. Also, she represents society and civilization to Frederick. His arc is to leave all that behind and embrace his wild ancestor side. Although her character is stylized as a comedic tool, Kahn crafts all this into a true portrayal. 

Like Frederick, she also is set free by the end: she loves the Monster. He, reversing our expectations, becomes civilized. This Elizabeth has it all. Order, social appearance, dignity on the outside. Passion on the inside.

The Monster, with half of Frederick’s brain, becomes the Seven that can live in society without losing his wildness. (Frederick becomes a Seven who lives in the wild while holding onto some semblance of society.) This is the version of the man that suits Elizabeth best.

Passion on the quiet, dignity on the outside? Five.

FREDERICK FRANKENSTEIN, SEVEN

That’s Frankensteen.

In the Young Frankenstein story, Frederick is Victor’s great-grandson. He is the creator, the protagonist — like Victor — but he’s also a separate character with a different Enneagram. Possibly. What do we know?

He’s actually kind. He loves his Monster. (“This is a good boy! This is a mother’s angel!”) Everything frustrating about the original story — why won’t Victor show compassion toward his creation? — is addressed here. Love begets love. This Frankenstein taps into that.

He’s worried about the world’s opinion, at least for a while. Once his curiosity is engaged, he tosses that concern aside. And when he’s in, he’s all in. He solves the problem! Not only does he bring the Monster to life, he integrates him into society.

The castle, Frau Bluecher, Inga — Igor! — all the oddities, are nothing to him. Strange events come at him and he rolls with it. Accepting of all the weirdness the moment brings? Willing to try obscure paths? Non-judgmental of the loons around him? Seven.

THE MONSTER, FOUR

Again, we have split between the original Monster and the Young Frankenstein version. All iterations of the Monster have a sympathetic tendency, but the comedic one has almost no threat in him. Boris Karloff’s Monster is beloved because it can terrify. He pushes that little girl down the well!

Can a being brought to life by man have a soul? He can certainly have an Enneagram number.

The problem is the amount of versions. Some of the Monsters are deeply emotional, hurt, lonely and abandoned. Some are more brutish. Isn’t there always, to one degree or another, a level of envy? Because he’s given life and then rejected by his creator, the Monster is jealous of a relationship that other humans have naturally. When he realizes how he’s been cheated of this by Victor he becomes bitter and violent.

His lows are so very low. I want to say Four. This story is so poignant, so eternal, because the Monster expresses so much emotional pain. He has much to give, and yet he never has the chance to share and express it. Another number wouldn’t rock us with this heartache.

The Monster in Young Frankenstein is more a comedic tool than a character. He doesn’t arc, he just changes due to an operation. He doesn’t really speak. I don’t consider him to have an Enneagram. He’s a great foil for Wilder and Kahn, and is portrayed brilliantly by Boyle, but he’s a punch line rather than a person.

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.