Casting, wizard appearance and magical aging

[Jen Faulkner]

No: HPFGUIDX 12464

Hey all,

All the recent discussions of casting and the ages of various
actors/characters prompt me to ask about how the longer lifespans of
magical folks should affect the age of the (Muggle *g*) actors chosen to
play them.  If witches/wizards do age more slowly, shouldn't actors be
chosen who are younger, chronologically, than their characters?

This policy doesn't seem to be the one that TPTB are following (e.g.,
McGonagall being played by Maggie Smith, who is nearly 70, instead of
someone middle-aged, despite 70 being slightly on the young side of
middle aged for a witch).  Do we have any definite idea of how the
longer lifespan affects the aging process and appearance?  Magical
children must physically appear (more or less) their chronological age
and develop at approximately the same rate, I would assume, since no
mention is made of it being otherwise, but the aging process must be
retarded at some point, or we'd have a lot of wizards suffering from
Tithonus syndrome. :)  (Nicholas Flamel as a grasshopper? *g*)

Now I suppose it would work best for the aging process just to be slower
on the whole, so that what is in the beginning a completely
non-observable difference between wizard and Muggle, becomes more and
more exaggerated until at around 150 (which I'm taking to be the normal
lifespan of a wizard, perhaps without adequate justification) old age
has well set in.  By 'work best', I mean make most intuitive sense to
me in following a biological sort of model, though, admittedly, magic
need not be constrained by biological, genetic, or any other sort of
'natural' rule system.  

I have visions in my head of this difference in aging rates mapping onto
one of those curvy-graphy functions, but dear me, high school math was a
long time ago. *g* It should be some kind of exponential growth, but I'm
afraid I just don't have the knowledge any more to do the thing properly
-- though I'm sure it's possible, to a limited degree of specificity and
relying on loads o' assumptions -- and I haven't replaced the batteries
in my TI-82 (good ol' TI-82!) for years (which could do the thinking for
me *g*).  But the net effect would be that the differences in rate of
aging would grow more and more pronounced.  IOW, what is practically
indetectable in childhood/young adulthood would be noticeable by the
40s, but not startling (chronologically 40, appear 30 or so); would be
pronounced by 60/70ish (chronologically 65, appear 45); extremely
obvious by 80/90 (chronologically 85, appear 48; cf. Dumbledore's auburn
hair at 100); and finally just extreme by 150, when the wizard should
appear about 75.  All numbers made up without real math for illustrative
purposes, naturally.  :)

Anyway, what I'm basically saying is that I think most of the choices
(including those of the actual people involved with the movie) are just
too old...  

--jen, who, for some reason, has Prof. McGonagall's appearance fixed in
her mind as being a *lot* like JKR's, complete with blond hair, no
matter *what* canon, fanon, planon or whatever have to say about it :)

* * * * * * 
Jen's HP fics:
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~jfaulkne/hp.html
Snapeslash listmom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapeslash
Yes, I *am* the Deictrix.