I
wanted him to be real, as real as he was in
the books, as real as I could possibly make
him.
The first thing I realised was that I was a
slightly too young to play him. He was a
retired police detective in his sixties when he
first appeared in The Mysterious Affair at
Styles, while I was in my early forties. Not
only that, he was also described as a good
deal fatter than I was. There was going to
have to be some considerable padding, not
to mention very careful make-up and
costume, if I was going to convince the world
that I was the great Hercule Poirot.
Even more important, the more I read
about him, the more convinced I became
that he was a character that demanded to
be taken seriously. He wasn’t a silly little
man with a funny accent, any more than
Sherlock Holmes was just a morphine addict
with a taste for playing the violin. There was
a depth and quality to the Poirot that Dame
Agatha had created – and that was what I
desperately wanted to bring to the screen.
I took the role of Poirot because it
precisely symbolised everything I believed
about being an actor, which I hadn’t truly
discovered until well after I’d started out in
Chester, at the age of twenty-three, back in
1969.
In my first years in the profession, I
struggled to find my identity, to understand
why I was actually doing it. What was it that
I wanted to be as an actor exactly? Was it
just about dressing up and becoming
someone else? Was I desperate to become
some kind of star?
I was confused. I’d achieved part of my
dream – I’d become a professional actor –
but what did that mean? What did I want?
I was so uncertain that I looked up the
dictionary definition of what an actor was. It
defined it as a thespian, a theatre player –
but that was really no help to me at all. It
didn’t strike any kind of chord. If my only
objective was to strut around the stage or
the film studio pretending to be someone
else, I didn’t feel comfortable.
There was no real purpose in that for me;
it just didn’t fit the man I knew I was: the
serious, slightly reserved son of a South
African-born gynaecologist and an English
actress who was the daughter of a music-hall
artist from Kent, and who’d gone on to
become a dancer on the West End stage
herself.
Deep down I knew that I didn’t want to
pretend to be someone else; I wanted to
inhabit them, to bring them to life. The
longer I thought about it, the more I realised
that what I really wanted to do was to
become different people, to transform myself
into them. I wanted to be a character actor,
not a star. That was what I enjoyed, that
was what acting really meant to me.
It was at that moment that I also realised
that the playwright or screenwriter of any
piece I appeared in depended on me as an
actor to give his or her character a
personality and voice. That was what excited
me,
because
without
character
and
personality, there can be no drama. I was
convinced that my purpose as an actor was
to become the writer’s voice.
That
understanding
came
like
a
thunderclap. I realised – suddenly – that it
wasn’t about me. It was about the character
I was lucky enough to play, and my job was
to bring out the truth in the character – and
what the writer wanted. Ultimately, that was
what really lay behind my decision to play
Poirot.
That’s one of the reasons why I wanted to
write this book. I wanted to try to explain
what being a character actor means for me,
and how it can sustain you even if you play a
single part for more than a quarter of a
century. I don’t think any actors have ever
really attempted that before – not Basil
Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, who both played
Sherlock Holmes; nor John Thaw, who
played Inspector Morse; nor Raymond Burr,
who brought us both Perry Mason and
Ironside; nor even Richard Chamberlain, who
was Doctor Kildare for all those years.
I wanted to try to explain what my