[HPforGrownups] CoS Theories

Indigo indigo at indigosky.net
Tue Nov 26 03:29:54 UTC 2002


No: HPFGUIDX 47172

On 11/26/2002 at 2:59 AM GulPlum wrote:

>I was about to post this to the Movie list, but decided that here would
>be 
>a better place (please bear with me)...
>
>A thought occurred to me earlier today when I was talking to a (non
>HP-book 
>reader) friend who'd just seen TSMTSNBN.
>
>I needed to explain to him that Christian Coulson's Tom Riddle was meant
>to 
>be 16 (the one reference to it in dialogue passed him by) and I started 
>thinking why an actor who is visibly obviously not 16 (though admittedly 
>less than Coulson's real 23 years) was chosen to play the part. After all, 
>there is no end of real 16-18 year-olds who could have played the part
>just 
>as well (and more believably), yet for *some* reason, the casting people 
>went for an adult.
>
>The only explanation I can think of is the same reason why 30-something 
>Shirley Henderson was chosen to play Moaning Myrtle: Tom Riddle's 
>16-year-old self will be returning in a later book (and movie).

I don't think so.  It's normal Hollywood convention for casting people to pick older actors to play younger parts. The 90210 kids were portrayed by adults. 

But the reason I think they chose Coulson, who doesn't look 16, does have a canonical, book-based reason behind it.

Vapormort was, with every use of the diary, growing stronger in his connection with the memory of 16 year old Tom Riddle. And every time Ginny's life force diminished, making Riddle stronger, he took on more aspects of the Voldemort he will eventually grow into.

Possibly, you have a point, since we already know in the books that Voldemort gets his own body back. I don't think it was made clear whether this new body was a ringer for Riddle or whether it looked different based on the blood of the ally/blood of the enemy spell.  

>
>I therefore propose that observation in support of a theory I've had for 
>some time (and seen mentioned in various places by others as well), which 
>is that Voldemort's ultimate downfall will not be his death, but the 
>undoing of all the changes he underwent since leaving Hogwarts, and a 
>return to his previous form as an adolescent. The ultimate "second
>chance", 
>a recurring theme in the books!

Interesting thought, but I am not so sure I think that would be considered wise.  Riddlemort's nature would have to change at the intrinsic basic level to not have him rise all over again, wouldn't it? And then there's the morality of  the "would you kill Hitler"  question coming back into play.

--Indigo





More information about the HPforGrownups archive