BLOGS
Is Daniel Radcliffe too old to play Harry Potter?
- Posted at 11:05am
- 03 October 2008
- by AndrewCollins-RT
- 22 comments
Now pay attention!
With the terrestrial premiere of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire upon us, in which the 14-year-old wizard is mysteriously entered in the 17s-and-over Triwizard Tournament, I think it's worth considering the problematic age difference between Harry in the multi-million-selling books and how he's perceived in the films.
There are seven Harry Potter books, each one representing a year in the young wizard's life at Hogwarts School.
He is 11 when the first book, The Philosopher's Stone, whisks him for the first time to the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, there to begin his epic quest against the evil Voldemort. He is 12 for the second book, The Chamber of Secrets, and so on.
By the time author JK Rowling's cycle reaches its conclusion with Deathly Hallows, seven years have passed.
No problem. In fiction, characters exist only in the imagination. But not so with films.
Daniel Radcliffe was 11 when he was chosen to star in the first Potter film, 12 when it was released in November 2001. Had Warner Bros released one film a year, Radcliffe would only have been one year older than the boy he was playing. Easy.
However, there was a two-year gap between Chamber of Secrets (2002) and Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), making him a ripe old 16 when Goblet of Fire was released in November 2005. In the story, Potter is 14. OK, suspension of disbelief, we can live with that.
Except that things went a bit wonky last year, when, aged 17, Radcliffe appeared naked in the adult-themed play Equus on the London stage.
With good reviews, it was a boost for his acting reputation, and has now transferred to Broadway.
This has led commentators to wonder if the studio has put back the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to next summer so that his racy run will have ended.
They say not, but if nothing else, this conflict of interests reminds us that Radcliffe is growing up – much faster than his broomstick-riding counterpart.
The final part of the movie franchise, The Deathly Hallows, is due in cinemas in May 2011, when Radcliffe will be a man of 21, and graduate Potter will be . . . were you paying attention? . . . 17.
Although Goblet of Fire is the first film to feature the unspeakably horrible Voldemort and the death of one character (as in the book), it's still aimed at kids.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all the films. But come 2011, will the tone have to be even darker to keep the young adults (who were children when they saw the first film) buying tickets?
In other words, will Harry Potter be too old to go and see a Harry Potter film?
Comments
- Posted on 26 September 2009
- at 4:05am
- by jae c
Though late w/ this entry all of the young main actors of HP are indeed older than their film/book characters. The magic here in this series lies with JK in her never ending talent to allow the imagination of all to keep it right where she has it. The young actors have never lost their imagination that she sparks for anyone who truly reads her stories. Andrew! One could easily wonder if you feel your age more than the question you have brought here. I know you are much more talented to dig deeper for a real meaningful question about the HP effect on us all. God Speed lad....its ok that you have aged we all still read your serious work.
- Posted on 24 August 2009
- at 1:33pm
- by Luna
We love Daniel, dont drop him. there will be no point going to see the last film as it will be completly different to the others!!!!
- Posted on 24 August 2009
- at 1:31pm
- by Laura
We all love Dan, you will not get a better acter than him. It will ruin the whole series if he is not Harry Potter in the last film. Like everyone one is saying, Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter.And he is the best acter i have ever seen.!!!.
- Posted on 23 August 2009
- at 6:08pm
- by Katy
This is a fuss about nothing, Daniel Radcliffe is the best you can get.End of story. Why bother finding someone else because they will not be as good as him!
- Posted on 23 August 2009
- at 6:04pm
- by Katie
You can not just drop Radcliffe at the last film, why bother. He is great actor and so what if he is a little older than his charactor.My friends and I have grown up with Harry Potter (Daniel) and it will not be the same with out him! The 7th book is, i think the best book and i honestly do not think anyone will be able to play the role better than Daniel Radcliffe. It will ruin the whole series if he is not in the last film. Most of my friends only watch the films because Dan is in them.
- Posted on 10 August 2009
- at 10:42pm
- by Vicki
Saw a photograph of my niece at her 18th birthday party - she looked at least 21 to me! The Beeb habitually refers to a "man of 17" these days. I think once you've got to the post-15 level, it doesn't make a lot of difference. The real problem is when someone of 19 tries to play someone of 14. Even then kids mature physically at such different rates that you can usually fudge the issue of physical development, after that it's down to a skill called "acting".
- Posted on 30 July 2009
- at 4:27am
- by J@$MIN3
i hav to agree,he may be alot older than his charator,but he apears way younger than his actual age.
- Posted on 28 July 2009
- at 12:04pm
- by Annabel
I have to agree with every person on this topic: Daniel Radcliffe appears younger than he is and therefore there is no problem in him portraying a 17-year-old schoolboy. Also, it would make no sense to take him out of the films at this point and replace him with a younger actor - as one poster pointed out, he IS Harry Potter. This doesn't mean that he can't play anything else, but we have become so used to Radcliffe playing Harry that anyone else just couldn't live up to public expectation. This is a worry about nothing, so stop complaining and just enjoy what's left to come of the films.
- Posted on 19 July 2009
- at 6:54pm
- by Vic
Judd Nelson - Breakfast Club. Need I say more?
- Posted on 16 May 2009
- at 2:30pm
- by nona
At 21 playing a 17 year old he will still be younger than many actors playing teenagers in movies. Remember, Michael J Fox was 23 when he played 17-year-old Marty McFly in the first Back to the Future film, and a lot older in parts two & three.
- Posted on 29 March 2009
- at 4:22pm
- by Rose
they can make him look the right age for the part i am certain.
- Posted on 24 January 2009
- at 4:11pm
- by carilo
i think he looks a lot younger than he is, but i dont know if he will look 17 in the last movie when hes acctuali 21
- Posted on 08 November 2008
- at 12:15pm
- by Michael
If we can cope with Tom Welling being 10 years older than his superBOY character (not mentioning Chloe and Lana) than I'm sure we'll be ok with Dsniel being 2 or 3 years out.
- Posted on 10 October 2008
- at 9:45pm
- by sherpa
The fact that a lot of people have read a certain books does not prove their quality merely their ability to appeal.
- Posted on 07 October 2008
- at 4:41pm
- by Helen
I go to see all the Harry Potter films, on my own. And of course I am only 51.
- Posted on 07 October 2008
- at 11:40am
- by Wodewose
Given that the part of Moaning Myrtle in the films is played by 42-year-old Shirley Henderson should we worry? In the cinema, at least, you're as old as you can get away with.
- Posted on 05 October 2008
- at 6:31pm
- by Kat
I really don't think it matters that the series of films is taking a long time to be completed. You forget that those children who read the first Harry Potter book aged 11 in 1997 were 21 by the time they read the conclusion of the series, but the increasingly darkening plot kept them all captivated, so if the films all truly reflect the nature of the books, the original audience will still be interested. As for a 21 year old playing a 17 year old, it's been done many, many times before!
- Posted on 05 October 2008
- at 4:59pm
- by MazY
I think you're worrying unnecessarily on this issue.
Aside from the real age and the fictional age difference not being that great, Daniel does appear and sound younger than he is in reality. Add to that the magic of movie make-up, and I think things will be just fine and dandy.
- Posted on 04 October 2008
- at 8:38pm
- by c**khead
i agree
- Posted on 04 October 2008
- at 6:09pm
- by Caroline
We're talking suspension of disbelief here, it's what makes movies work, and it's less of a stretch to believe Daniel Radcliffe playing a character three or four years younger than his actual age than it is to suddenly believe a completely different actor playing Harry Potter after six films. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter by this point. End of story.
And since when has any actor ever been exactly the right age for a role? Has it harmed Grease's legacy that the actors were the oldest teenagers ever? Of course not! If they changed the actors after this long I for one would not go see the film, and of course they're not going to do so, because there'd be a public outcry.
- Posted on 04 October 2008
- at 5:19pm
- by HF
Radcliffe isn't too old to play Harry. He looks young for his age anyway, and plenty of actors play younger than they are for certain roles. Watch any soap or program about teenagers and you'll find half the cast is older than their characters.
- Posted on 04 October 2008
- at 8:28am
- by Joan
One is never to old to see a Harry Potter film!
Post a comment
More
CHOOSE BLOG
LATEST POSTS
-
- Gordon Ramsay's F Word
- Fri 20 November 2009, 4:05pm
-
- Camilla quits I'm a Celebrity…
- Wed 18 November 2009, 12:54pm
-
- The X Factor: week thirteen
- Mon 16 November 2009, 1:30pm
-
- Strictly Come Dancing: week nine
- Mon 16 November 2009, 12:32pm
-
- Bruce to miss Strictly because of illness
- Fri 13 November 2009, 11:40am
LATEST COMMENTS
-
- Martina Cole's The Take
- "FAO suzanne - We're told that…"
- Fri 20 November 2009, 6:20pm
-
- The week in soapland
- "Has the wholly bizarre grandmother…"
- Fri 20 November 2009, 6:06pm
-
- Why I Hate...Spooks
- "Come on, Danger Man, Avengers, Man…"
- Fri 20 November 2009, 5:44pm
BLOGS ARCHIVE
ADVERTISER LINKS