CoS Theories

[Indigo]

No: HPFGUIDX 47197

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., GulPlum <hpfgu at p...> wrote:
> 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. 

Facile it may be, and Occam's razor I have to thank for that; but 
specious? I am sorry, that's not so.  Hollywood is not in the habit 
of casting actors to exact character age necessarily. They cast for 
who they think can convey the part best. 

If you prefer more examples from the movies themselves:

Snape is canonically in his middle 30s.  Alan Rickman is *checks IMDB 
to confirm*  fifty six years old.  So again, we have someone cast who 
is considerably older than the part he is playing.

Dumbledore is to the other extreme, with good reason. The character 
is well over a century old, but Richard Harris was in his seventies. 
I am fairly certain there is a paucity of venerable actors well over 
a century of age.

Hagrid is well over 50 years old, as he was a teenager "fifty years 
ago" when Riddle first opened the Chamber. The actor, Robbie 
Coltraine, is only 52 years old.  

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.

No reason to your mind for the production team to depart from typical 
and acceptable Hollywood casting convention. Riddle was a Hogwart's 
pupil at the time of 50 years ago. But the memory of Riddle was being 
influenced by the at least 66-year-old mind of Voldemort -- which, as 
I said [but was snipped] is a good reason for him to have looking 
older than sixteen.

That said, though?  It's also possible that he did look sixteen to 
the casting people.  I don't know where you're from, but I personally 
have seen a goodly number of thirteen year olds who can pass for 
eighteen, and sixteen year olds who can pass for over 21 without 
getting carded. I went to school with several of the latter type, 
actually.  
 
> 
> 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 my flub about the GoF new Voldemort body] 
> 
> 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."

Mea culpa, mea culpa. My books are in storage, and I haven't been 
able to find a copy of GoF in my new location to reread it as 
recently as I saw this missive.  

> 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 stand by my thought that young Riddle's body being driven by old 
Voldemort's mind lends an air of age and "maturity" to young Riddle's 
face that an actual 16 year old actor might not have been able to 
pull off. Add to that that the actor chosen  does have something of a 
baby face and I think that the casting team believed it was a 
balanced decision.  See above regarding your own comments about 
Myrtle: they chose "someone unlikely to change much in the next few 
years."

> > >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. 

An interesting one, yes, but it would be, to my mind, out of 
character for most of the cast. 

Harry did show mercy to Pettigrew, and regretted doing so when 
Pettigrew escaped.  

Harry was willing to show no mercy to Black until he heard sufficient 
evidence to trust him otherwise.

Harry might be willing to show mercy to Voldemort, but considering 
Harry has grown angrier about the death of his parents as he has 
grown older, and angrier about Voldemort's continued attempts to kill 
him -- I don't think Harry is going to remain merciful forever.  

I'm disinclined to think that a memory charm above and beyond the 
level of Lockhart's facility for them, being placed on a young 
Riddle/Voldemort is something anyone would be willing to trust to.  
[As an example of some way to change Riddle's personality entirely.]
Not after all the death Voldemort has caused. 

The Ministry of Magic lost a number of aurors to Voldemort, to say 
nothing of the UK wizarding population at large who lost friends and 
loved ones.  Voldemort's name became one that was not spoken, and 
even the euphemisms were whispered with awe and fear.  The Ministry 
is unlikely to stand behind such an action to render Voldemort no 
longer a threat.

I believe it would take a phenomenal amount of magic [beyond anything 
we've seen to date] to change Voldemort's personality that much.  I 
also believe that the UK wizarding population would not stand for a 
memory charm being put on him, or anything that appeared outwardly to 
have reformed Voldemort to a non-Dark wizard.  

Voldemort's followers are numerous and ready, willing, and able to 
restore him to power.  All the Death Eaters would have to be defeated 
this time [as they were not when Voldemort was defeated before]  and 
placed in Azkaban, or worse, given the Kiss, to prevent them from 
aiding him.  

In fairness, there is the possibility they'd all scatter to the winds 
and claim they were cursed but I don't believe that likely to work a 
second time.  

--Indigo