Yes, I am not immune to propaganda, I've started to watch Columbo (the start of S3, specifically)
And the thing that stands out to me about the character of Columbo, and actually to a reasonable extent the show itself - the thing that stands out is that Columbo is genuinely interested in the weird thing the villain is into. Not just pretending to be, but actually gets into it. I've seen all of two episodes now - one where the villain is a wine snob & one where the villain invented subliminal messaging, and in both cases there's a bit where Columbo just, like, goes to school for a bit. Checks out some library books, asks a guy for a crash course. He genuinely gets into it, to the point that he's competent, he can actually pick out a nice wine/entrap the villain by secretly splicing subliminal clips of him searching his office for the murder weapon (sorry, spoilers).
And even though the baddies are always smug rich dudes, and he manipulates them via flattery, the reason his flattery works is because it comes from a place of genuine interest. He listens - the same skills that he uses to catch someone out in a lie or a bit of incongruity are the same skills he applies to everything else. His winning catchphrase might be "one more thing", but the thing you actually hear him say the most is "huh, that's interesting".
And this is tied to status, of course - comparing him to, say, Sherlock Holmes or Poirot, the interesting thing about Columbo is that he's low status. The enjoyable thing is the villains underestimating him, seeing him come in, seemingly bumbling and then -- of course -- ensnaring them. But I think this ability to listen is also tied to status - if you assume you are smart, that you know what you're doing, you stop listening so hard. He's playing along with the villains, but I don't think it's an act. He knows that as soon as he thinks he's got it all figured out, he'll stop actually figuring it out.
All of which is just projection onto a fictional character, which is something you should be careful about. But then also, this has me thinking of Dan Luu constantly complaining that people are bad at things. Which, eh, I don't know, I don't see this as strongly as he does, often when people seem to be bad at something they're actually just optimising for something different than you'd like them to (but which they are actually rewarded for). But I must admit - there are people within the tech world that seem to think they're god's gift & then turn out to be chronically bad at things. And I think that's connected -- it's a world that's invested in being smart, and feeling like you're smart, going to change the world, the main character, etc -- that does put you in the worst place to genuinely listen to people and learn about their niche.
The ending of the episode "Any Old Port In A Storm" -- which is kind of beautiful, a Columbo episode which ends with the villain & Columbo sharing a bottle of Italian dessert wine in at atmosphere of mutual respect (before the villain gets hauled off to jail) -- it sums it up:
> You've learned very well, Lieutenant.
> Thank you, sir. That's the nicest thing anybody's ever said to me.
The best thing you can be is not someone who's smart, but someone who learns.
I wonder is this is something that happened over time in the show, because from what I watched of the first two seasons it doesn't seem quite accurate. But Columbo was a long show, so it makes sense they'd let him stretch out a little over time.
However, it's certainly true that Columbo is a person who learns, and that the show in fact posits that a detective is a person who learns. So broadly speaking I still agree, I think.
What I have to add that's actually useful is that the comparison to Sherlock Holmes stands, because this is actually exactly how he worked. In a story called "The Musgrave Ritual" Holmes talks about one of his first cases, finding a butler who disappeared. It turns out there's a Poe-esque treasure on the grounds and the butler was clever enough to figure out how to get to it when the rich family just ignored it or said the clues were nonsensical for generations.
In that story, Holmes talks about his method, which is essentially to simulate being as intelligent as the criminal, putting himself in their position, and knowing what they know. This relates to Holmes' skill as an actor, of course (and also some Victorian ideology of intelligence).
In that sense, I would argue -- though I have not seen all of Columbo -- that part of what is happening is that we cannot tell if Columbo is genuinely interested or not. This is why the show consistently brings up his wife and family, and almost as often casts doubt on it. In the episode with the lady from Rhoda, for instance, I think one of the last lines of dialogue is her asking Columbo if he really even has a daughter-in-law, never mind if she really had the problem she had.
Apart from having a dog, Columbo's personal life is sort of totally off camera in the first few seasons. We know he's extremely well respected in his office, because of that episode where the new detective wants to study under him. But we also know that very few other people respect him. In a big city, of course, it's not as likely he'd run into people he knows, in the way that Jessica Fletcher does.
So, anyway. My take, which I suppose since this isn't my wordpress I should point out is my take and not an attempt to "win" against other theories, is that Columbo is effectively the detective version of Turn of the Screw. We're meant to just not know what his deal is, or, that is to say, to be constantly wondering about it. I know there's that one scene where his diction changes when the rich guy leaves the room and he's left with cleaning staff, but I haven't watched that full episode so I can't speak much to it.
