Opinion Louvre heist, a dapper detective and some bad casting

For a minute, it seemed that the aftermath of the Louvre heist would continue in the cinematic vein of the initial robbery. On a Sunday morning earlier this month, a team of four — two robbers and their accomplices — made off with priceless jewels from arguably Europe’s most iconic museum. Comparisons to Hollywood caper movies, predictably, flooded the internet after the audacious daylight robbery. But the internet was hungry for more drama. Last week, a photo taken during the investigation went viral: Surrounded by uniformed policemen was the most dapper of “detectives”. He wore a three-piece suit (with a gold waistcoat) and a fetching fedora. And, like all gentlemen, he carried an umbrella.

As it turns out, the investigation does not have a Hercule Poirot-like detective. The photographer responsible for the image confirmed that the man was just a bystander. The obsession with the “detective”, though, points to something deeper in the stories people tell – and make up. A high-profile crime in Europe, decades worth of crime fiction have taught people, demands an investigator with style, brilliance and a little arrogance. But, as with so much else, narrative causality didn’t quite play out in real life. In fact, the dapper man — a la Poirot, Jacques Clouseau, Albert Campion, et al — doesn’t even quite fit the story of the Louvre heist.

Advertisement

If the suave sleuth is one archetype in fiction, there is another, better one for the crime at hand. The grizzled veteran, whiskey or wine-soaked, who is cynical about things like royalty, jewels and museums, may be a better and more entertaining choice. Like John Rebus, from Ian Rankin, or even Luther from the eponymous TV show, a crime that involves history and royalty — and their excesses —demands an investigator with some cynicism. Of course, real cops may be neither. But that’s another story.