[HPforGrownups] CoS Theories

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 47186

At 22:29 25/11/02 -0500, Indigo wrote, in reply to my musings about casting 
an adult actor to play Tom Riddle:

>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.

The analogy is facile and specious. All of the Hogwarts pupils are played 
by actors within a couple of years of their characters' ages (and 
believably so). On the face of it, there is absolutely no reason for the 
production team to depart from that policy.

As I said previously, there are only two exceptions to that policy: Moaning 
Myrtle and Tom Riddle. We already know why Myrtle had to be played by 
someone unlikely to change over the next couple of years (she should be 
appearing in GoF in 2-3 years), so why Tom Riddle? Especially when he is 
*so* obviously not 16?

<snip>

>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.

Err, yes it was made clear. Page 227 UK edition (start of Ch. 17, "The Heir 
of Slytherin"): "Tom Riddle had been at Hogwarts fifty years ago, yet here 
he stood, a weird, misty light shining about him, not a day older than 16."

OK, the movie dropped the "misty light", but *why* did it drop the "not a 
day older than 16"? As I said previously, the fact that he patently did 
*not* look that way undermined the whole plot of the movie for non 
book-readers. There must be a very good reason why the production team took 
that huge risk.

> >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.

I'm well aware of that. Complicated morality is at the heart of these 
books, and that kind of moral conundrum is just the kind of thing I could 
see JKR attempting to tackle. Furthermore, whilst the importance of "choice 
over abilities" has also been highlighted, JKR has also not shied away from 
illustrating the fact that some "choices" are thrust upon us (inheritance - 
both in terms of of material possessions and heritage - wealth, social 
standing, etc). Riddle/Voldemort is a good example of this. Having Riddle 
end up without any of those advantages would make an interesting finale. 
That I suspect Harry will also end up stripped of his magical powers is a 
different conversation.