Political theory and practice

Who is the best Poirot? This question came up on Facebook, and I naturally took to the keyboard to answer. See below for further enlightenment. Facebook had a great many expressions of opinion on this question, and I am glad to see that. However, that is all they were. Blurted opinions. Below I start an argument with some criteria.

Who is the best Hercule Poirot? Now there is a question with which to stir one’s little grey cells, mon ami.

By what criteria do we pass such a judgment for the ages? Let’s start with what we know about Poirot. He is a non-English. Hmm. That is the way a journalist today would style it. He is Non.

But we can be more specific. Yes, he is a foreigner, a Belgian, in fact, hence the occasional Frenchisms. Being a foreigner means he is a little out of place, and thus tries a little harder to fit in, but he is not familiar with some of the idioms of English.

He is also meticulous, starting with his own grooming and appearance. He is also something of an egotist, as shown in his dress – always ever so perfect and overstated. That is Poirot the man.

What about Poirot the detective? He is scientific, mon Dieu! But in his case scientific means careful and repeated observations of his fellows; not the laboratory analysis of cigar ash or DNA. He is a social scientist who learns most of what he learns by observing others, and making inferences from what he sees to what he does not see.

There is something else that unites the man and the detective. Poirot appreciates what he does not have - romantic love. Of nothing is he more keenly aware than love. What it makes people do. What people do for it. What its absence means. The effect of love not returned, and so on.

There, of course, is more than one interpretation of Hercule Poirot. The IMDB returns 96 titles for a character search on the name, though not all seem relevant.

There was Albert Finney in Murder on the Orient Express (1974) and Peter Ustinov in Death on the Nile (1978), Evil Under the Sun (1982), Thirteen at Dinner (1985), and more, Ian Holm in Murder by the Book (1986), and even Tony Randall The Alphabet Murders (1965).

David Suchet
comes closer to the figure in Agatha Christie’s books than any of the others. He is fussy in his manner. He touches the soft boiled egg at breakfast first to see that the temperature is right, before cracking the shell. He brushes his hair, his clothes, his boots, and his clothes again, before looking into the mirror. A cloud of puzzle passes over his face when someone says he “lost his rag” and the Anglais idiomatic is once more detected. Then there is that moustache. Ah bien sur, it is paramount.

As ever, Wikipedia is there when you need it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot

Albert Finney is a great actor but he did not get the Belgian right.
Too much a pragmatic, practical Englishman, and not enough of the misplaced romantic that lies within Poirot. “Peter Ustinov, I hear you ask?” He is – since some indeterminate time when he became an international institution – first and foremost always Peter Ustinov more than anything else. He is ramshackle and slow where Poirot is precise and quick. No, Ustinov's is another character altogether, and an enjoyable one, but not Poirot.

I recommend Hercule Poirot Central http://www.poirot.us/ for the serious student of the romain policier, or crimie. If you can cope with the French try http://herculepoirot.free.fr/ Full of fun and facts.

I have convinced myself and so I ordered the complete Sachet Poirot from Amazon. I can hardly wait!

Although The French Detective is that other scientist of la bête humaine, Jules Maigret. On him, more later. But only if you are good. So be good.