Hercule Poirot: well dressed gentleman or overdressed dandy?

[Scotus]

Having read through this thread, and having read all the Poirot books several times, I think David V says it best when he states, "Better dressed but never over dressed." To me, that is the best way to describe Poirot as portrayed by David Suchet (the best), as well as the description of him in Christie's books.

 

[Doug C]

I used to really like this series, but mostly for the art deco architecture, furnishings and cool cars. I also liked alot of the wardrodes used, but never Poirot's himself. I guess you could say I liked the series inspite of Poirot. His character actually gets on my never a bit, way too "dandy" for my likeing. Overdone with the brushing himself off constantly, etc. [huh] , just my opinion. Though I don't think they could have got a better actor to play the role, he does a good job.

Doug C

 

[Mysterious Mose]

The deerstalker and cape comes from the actor William Gillette. He performed as Holmes on stage at Doyle's time (the two became good friends). He wore a deerstalker and thus it became typecast with the character.

Nonsense.

From the Memoirs, 1892, by Sidney Paget:

 

[Mysterious Mose]

Holmes also displays a penchant for wearing tweeds when they are not necessarily considered appropriate and likewise receiving all visitors regardless of rank in his smoking jacket or dressing gown (a sign that one is receiving an equal or an inferior). Holmes frequently dispenses with the wearing of formal day or evening wear even where it may be socially required by the tastes of the day.

How, where, when?

 

[avedwards]

Nonsense.

From the Memoirs, 1892, by Sidney Paget:

Not nonsense, Sidney Paget introduced the deerstalker to the character, but it only became Holmes' trademark when Gillette wore it. Plus Paget's pictures show no Inverness cape (your example shows some sort of hooded overcoat) and no curved pipe.

 

[filfoster]

Hercule Tarot

Dandy. I long for Sam Spade to rough him up.

 

[filfoster]

Couldn't say it better

I used to really like this series, but mostly for the art deco architecture, furnishings and cool cars. I also liked alot of the wardrodes used, but never Poirot's himself. I guess you could say I liked the series inspite of Poirot. His character actually gets on my never a bit, way too "dandy" for my likeing. Overdone with the brushing himself off constantly, etc. [huh] , just my opinion. Though I don't think they could have got a better actor to play the role, he does a good job.

Doug C

I missed this my first read-through. It describes how I also feel about the series, perfectly. Wonderful sets, props,manners and clothes, an evocation of a time and place but I wouldn't really care to bend an arm with him.

 

[Mysterious Mose]

Not nonsense, Sidney Paget introduced the deerstalker to the character, but it only became Holmes' trademark when Gillette wore it. Plus Paget's pictures show no Inverness cape (your example shows some sort of hooded overcoat) and no curved pipe.

You said the cape and hat came from the actor William Gilette. Nonsense.He's wearing an Ulster coat:

Gilette probably didn't bother to get the proper one and came up with this,the Wikipedia version:

Gilette was a heavy smoker and chose a pipe that would hold a lot of tobacco. ACD at the time couldn't care but Holmes' smoking habits have been meticulously described in the stories. The cherrywood,long clay,oily black pipes, the morning dottles, heaps of cigarettes, occasional cigar and even opium in "The man with the twisted lip".

As far as the trademark thing goes, it's my opinion Holmes was a phenomenon before Gilette's plays anyway. Paget's brother Walter was addressed as Mr. Holmes in the street by the readers who recognised his features.

 

[theinterchange]

Dandy. I long for Sam Spade to rough him up.

WHY would Spade need to rough him up? [huh]

I never really bought Bogart as a tough guy, more as a guy who TALKED tough. The only film I really bought Bogart as a tough guy in was Key Largo, and then only in the last 10 minutes or so. I know that statement will be met with a chorus of boos!

Randy

 

[Cobden]

I think Sherlock Holmes and Poirot (and also Columbo) suffer from the problem of the time/setting changing, but the costume not.

When Sherlock Holmes was originally published, a dearstalker and ulster would have been not uncommon wear for a English Gentleman in or travelling to the country - hence their inclusion in the original illustrations. However, the neccessities of stage productions meant that the several costume changes were unwelcome, especially for the titular character, and thus the actor spent the entire play in the traditional Holmesian getup - and it was the fact that this was thus worn in settings where it wouldn't have been appropriate that it became a trademark.

Poirot - originally written in 1916 (where his clothes would not have been inappropriate, or indeed have stood out, apart from their being well maintained). In 1930's, the clothes haven't changed, but the setting has. I haven't read Agatha Christie for a while, but I believe it is only the first novel that his clothes are described in detail - hence the only reference for costumers.

I mentioned Columbo too. Originally it was a stage play called "Prescription: Murder", eventually televised in 1968 starring Peter Falk as Columbo. His clothes don't stand out from the other characters - not particulary smart, but dressed as a detective in 1968 would have done. Because he wasn't meant to be dressed in a costume, Peter Falk just wore his own clothes. By the time the Columbo series, based on "Prescription: Murder" came about, in 1972, he wore the same clothes - four years later not surprisingly they were somewhat out of date by then. And exactly the same clothes were worn throughout the entire run, hence the tattiness.

In all three cases, it's a case of something that isn't really a costume or distinctive becoming distinctive.

 

[Shangas]

Holmes never actually wore a deerstalker hat. To my knowledge, it's never mentioned in any of the stories. It was an invention of Paget's, along with the cape. The curved, calabash smoking-pipe was an invention of the actors who played Holmes, William Gilette in particular, I believe, because he found it easier to hold the pipe in his mouth and speak his lines at the same time. But again, this style of pipe was never mentioned or even drawn, in the original stories. Doyle mentions briars and clays, he mentions cigars and cigarettes, but not calabash pipes.

 

[avedwards]

You said the cape and hat came from the actor William Gilette. Nonsense.He's wearing an Ulster coat:

Gilette probably didn't bother to get the proper one and came up with this,the Wikipedia version:

Gilette was a heavy smoker and chose a pipe that would hold a lot of tobacco. ACD at the time couldn't care but Holmes' smoking habits have been meticulously described in the stories. The cherrywood,long clay,oily black pipes, the morning dottles, heaps of cigarettes, occasional cigar and even opium in "The man with the twisted lip".

As far as the trademark thing goes, it's my opinion Holmes was a phenomenon before Gilette's plays anyway. Paget's brother Walter was addressed as Mr. Holmes in the street by the readers who recognised his features.

I didn't say that the hat and cape came from Gillette, I said the character's association with them came from him. Yes, Holmes is wearing an ulster in that picture, but the ulster did not end up becoming the character's trademark. Gillette wore an Inverness cape, and that is now associated with the character, despite it not being in the original illustrations. His choice of an Inverness over an ulster may not match the illustrations, but it isn't completely inaccurate as it was a period accurate coat which a person like Holmes could have worn when travelling.

Paget only shows a deerstalker on a few occaisions and at that time the hat was not Holmes' trademark. It only became his trademark through Gillette who wore it in all of his plays as a result of costume changing being impractical.

And I acknowledged that Gillette's Holmes is not 100% book accurate. Then again he couldn't copy the character's smoking habits perfectly because on stage a pipe is more practical than smoking cigarette after cigarette. As for he curved pipe, he used it for practical reasons and despite it not being in the illustrations or desciptions, and it is now Holmes' trademark.

Like it or not, a lot of the things we now associate with Sherlock Holmes stem from William Gillette. Even the line "elementary, my dear Watson" which Holmes never says in the novels stems from Gillette. I'm not saying that he copies the Holmes of the books perfectly, just that a lot of our associations with the character do stem from him.

So please stop condeming my posts as nonsense. I am a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast and I have done a lot of research as to where the connotations of him originate from.

 

[Scotus]

Poirot - originally written in 1916 (where his clothes would not have been inappropriate, or indeed have stood out, apart from their being well maintained). In 1930's, the clothes haven't changed, but the setting has.

The original question in this thread was about the series with Suchet, in which case the time setting is 1935/36. They came to settle on '36, but I noticed in one episode a man signing a register '35. The movie The Mysteries Affair at Styles was set earlier, but that was a "throw back" to his first case in England. So, I stand by what was said earlier about "Better dressed but not over dressed." Certainly, no one looks upon Poirot as someone inappropriately dressed on any occassion.

 

[Mysterious Mose]

The deerstalker and cape comes from the actor William Gillette.

I didn't say that the hat and cape came from Gillette, ...

This remark: "(your example shows some sort of hooded overcoat)" tells me there's more research to be done before stating 'facts' like the one quoted at the top of this post in a 'General Attire etc.' thread.

And yes, I like it not that a lot of the things 'we' now associate with Sherlock Holmes stem from William Gillette. I don't do that. I don't bother with Gillette, Rathbone or even Mr. Cushing's. I think Brett's portrayal was excellent. But
that's just my opinion.

 

[Cobden]

The original question in this thread was about the series with Suchet, in which case the time setting is 1935/36. They came to settle on '36, but I noticed in one episode a man signing a register '35. The movie The Mysteries Affair at Styles was set earlier, but that was a "throw back" to his first case in England. So, I stand by what was said earlier about "Better dressed but not over dressed." Certainly, no one looks upon Poirot as someone inappropriately dressed on any occassion.

Yes, but as I said, the look of the Poirot is based upon how he is described in the books - but the main reference to how he dresses (IIRC) comes from the 1916 novel; Christie however does make other, lesser references to how he dresses throughout the books (mentioning mud on spat boots, that sort of thing, rather than full blown description), but doesn't change what he wears. Sort a literary version of the Columbo problem, really. It's not that he's inappropriately dressed, in the way we tend to use on the forum, but rather out of date; I think the nearest thing is the equivalent of someone wearing a newly tailored suit with 1930's features nowadays for work. Not inappropriate, but not normal. Basically, Poirot is a 1930's equivalent of a Magnoli wearing lounger

 

[Mysterious Mose]

A study in scarlet.

Is there a Holmes thread? If not, there ought to be one.

Oh dear...

 

[avedwards]

This remark: "(your example shows some sort of hooded overcoat)" tells me there's more research to be done before stating 'facts' like the one quoted at the top of this post in a 'General Attire etc.' thread.

And yes, I like it not that a lot of the things 'we' now associate with Sherlock Holmes stem from William Gillette. I don't do that. I don't bother with Gillette, Rathbone or even Mr. Cushing's. I think Brett's portrayal was excellent. But that's just my opinion.

If the first quote of mine you used in your post had been used in context it wouldn't have looked like the contradiction you made it look. My point is simply that the modern view of Holmes, even if not book accurate, stems largely from William Gillette. I realise you may not be a fan of his, but that doesn't change the fact that he affected what is commonly assiciated with the character. I personally do not know if I would be a fan of his as I wasn't around to see any of his plays sadly.

We are talking at cross purposes here. You are telling me what Holmes is like in the books which I am aware of, having read the majority of them. I am not disagreeing that the modern perception of Holmes differs from the character in the books, I am simply saying that it comes from Gillette.

For example, Holmes being steriotyped always to wear deerstalker comes from Gillette and not Paget, as Paget was well aware that Holmes would never wear a deerstalker in the city and consequently draws him in a bowler or topper when he is in urban settings. Paget's drawings of Holmes in a deerstalker are only in a few stories, so I doubt that he could have started the steriotype. However Gillette always wore one and was a star in his day and therefore began an association, which I am well aware of is not book accurate.

You may not like Gillette's, Rathbone's or Cushing's interpretation of Holmes. I can fully see why you may not like them, but the fact still remains that modern (and undoubtedly incorrect) ideas of the character are largely based on Gillette's interpretation.

 

[Mysterious Mose]

Allright, I almost agree with you, BUT
I was first exposed to Holmes by the Brett version in the later 1980's. Therefore I only knew his version and the books, which I loved. Then I looked into the previous versions. Terrible, with the exception of the Carleton Hobbs/Norman Shelley radio adaptions. To me the Brett interpretation is THE modern idea of the character, the earlier ones are better ignored or forgotten. But I already said that, didn't I?

 

[avedwards]

Allright, I almost agree with you, BUT
I was first exposed to Holmes by the Brett version in the later 1980's. Therefore I only knew his version and the books, which I loved. Then I looked into the previous versions. Terrible, with the exception of the Carleton Hobbs/Norman Shelley radio adaptions. To me the Brett interpretation is THE modern idea of the character, the earlier ones are better ignored or forgotten. But I already said that, didn't I?

Precisely, you have a preference for Brett who is undoubtedly one of the more accurate Holmes'.

However, I would recommend you also see Cushing's series made in the 1960s. I'm not referring to the Hammer version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" which is dreadfully inaccurate but a short TV series with the BBC. That series is far more accurate for the most part, and both Holmes and Watson are portrayed relatively faithfully, leading me to think you may just like it. Many see it as a pre-runner to Brett.

I'm glad we found a mutual agreement, despite our differing preferences. I personally prefer Rathbone, but precisely because his innacuracy allows me to relate to the character better as he is not as perfect as Doyle's and Brett's Holmes.


Back to Poirot before we got side-tracked , almost everyone on this thread is in agreement that David Suchet does a fantastic job of portraying the character as meticulously neat (or fussy) but not effeminate.

 

[BellyTank]

The Suchet Poirot reminds me of Gustav von Aschenbach,
from the film, Death in Venice-
inapproprate on several levels- collar too tight, suit too hot,
mixture of black dye and brilliantine oozing and running in the heat.

Not the best look-


B
T