Summary
- Daniel Radcliffe closely mirrored Harry Potter’s age throughout the film series, portraying him as a pre-teen to young adult.
- Radcliffe’s age while filming aligned well with the character’s growth and development on screen.
- Despite an increasing age gap as the movies progresed, Radcliffe’s portrayal of Harry Potter remains iconic and everlasting in film history.
Daniel Radcliffe grew up in the Harry Potter franchise. While he’s a bit older than Harry in the later movies, his age was relatively close to his character for most of the series. Harry Potter is one of the most iconic multimedia franchises ever, and Radcliffe’s time playing Harry immortalized him in film history. Though HBO is remaking the Harry Potter series, those who grew up watching the movies will always picture Radcliffe when imagining Harry. He may not have been a perfect match to Harry’s description in J.K. Rowling’s book series, but his version of Harry is eternal.
Radcliffe was perfect for the role because, though he did look a little older than 17 by the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2, he was close enough that it didn’t matter. Further, Radcliffe was pretty close to Harry’s age throughout the film series, even though it took 10 years to produce the movies, which took place over seven years. That being said, it’s worthwhile to take a look at his age in every Harry Potter movie because the gap between Radcliffe and Harry’s ages does fluctuate somewhat as the series progresses.
Related
Harry Potter Cast – Where Are They Now?
It’s been over a decade since the Harry Potter movie series wrapped up with Deathly Hallows Part 2 – what are the cast members doing now?
7 Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)
Daniel Radcliffe was 11 years old
Filming for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone began in September 2000 and concluded in March 2001, making Radcliffe 11 years old at the time. Radcliffe was born on July 23, 1989, so when the film was released in November 2001, he was 12 years old. Though the Harry Potter movies make some age changes, Harry remains the same age in the films as he is in the books.
Harry celebrates his 11th birthday early on in The Sorcerer’s Stone, making Radcliffe the perfect age to portray him at the time of filming. Naturally, this would have been one of the major reasons he was chosen for the role. This is a perfect starting point for the Boy Who Lived. When Harry heads to Hogwarts, he is a pre-teen, and at the awkward stage where he is still a kid but not yet a maturing teenager. With Harry and Radcliffe both 11, it makes it easy to see him as the kid overwhelmed by the magical wonders of Hogwarts.
6 Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets (2002)
Daniel Radcliffe was 12 years old
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets began filming just days after the release of The Sorcerer’s Stone, starting in late November 2001 and wrapping in July 2002. This puts Radcliffe’s age at 12 years old when filming began, turning 13 near the end of The Chamber of Secrets. His birthday may have come just after filming wrapped, but either way, he was the perfect age to portray 12-year-old Harry in the movie.
Considering how close to the first movie this one started shooting, it seems Harry Potter‘s production crew wanted to film the movies as quickly as possible to avoid the actors outgrowing their characters. This also plays well into the story, as Harry and Radcliffe are both only one year older, starting a second year at Hogwarts. Both have learned more about their roles, Harry as a wizard and Radcliffe as the actor playing him, and they continued to grow well together.
5 Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (2004)
Daniel Radcliffe was 13 & 14 years old
When principal photography began on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in February 2003, Radcliffe was 13 years old. Filming wrapped in November 2003, at which time Radcliffe was 14. So, while he was 14 for the final four months of the shooting process, he was 13 for the first six months. Once again, this is mostly spot-on with Harry’s age, who is 13 years old at this point in the series.
The film was released in late May 2004 in the United Kingdom and early June 2004 in North America, meaning Radcliffe was nearing his 15th birthday by the time it came out. The change here is that Radcliffe had a major spurt and looked much taller and more grown-up he did in the first movie. However, Harry would also be turning 13 or 14, so he would likely experience a similar one. Seeing Harry looking older also worked well since Prisoner of Azkaban was the movie where the story matured greatly.
4 Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire (2005)
Daniel Radcliffe was 14 & 15 years old
He easily looks young enough to play the character
Filming with the main cast of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire began in June 2004, about a month before Radcliffe’s 15th birthday. So, while Radcliffe was 14 when he started working on The Goblet of Fire, he was 15 for the majority of the movie. While this makes him one year older than Harry for most of the film, he easily looks young enough to play the character.
When principal photography wrapped in March 2005, Radcliffe was still several months away from turning 16. Coincidentally, filming for The Goblet of Fire took almost the same amount of time as a Hogwarts school year. This movie saw Harry in life-or-death battles, and his life was in danger more often than in the past three movies, especially with Voldemort’s return. As a result, while Radcliffe was now a year older than Harry, it worked better since it made his scenes of peril more intense.
Related
How Much The Harry Potter Cast Was Paid At The Beginning & End
The Harry Potter movie franchise launched Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint to stardom. That was reflected in how much they were paid.
3 Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix (2007)
Daniel Radcliffe was 16 & 17 years old
The fifth Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, began filming in February 2006 and wrapped in November of the same year. This means Radcliffe was 16 for the first six months of filming and 17 for the final four. This is the first Harry Potter movie in which Radcliffe was not the same age as Harry for at least a portion of the filming process.
While he does look considerably older in this movie compared to The Goblet of Fire, he definitely looks close enough to Harry’s age — 15 — to avoid any major fuss. Since the movies each take place in the next school year, and the final two movies took place in the one year, this means Radcliffe would keep outgrowing Harry, but by this time, fans had fallen in love with the cast, so most people just accepted the growth spurt and let it go.
2 Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Daniel Radcliffe was 18 years old
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince began principal photography in September 2007, and wrapped in March 2008, making Radcliffe 18 years old for the entirety of filming. This was the first Harry Potter film since The Chamber of Secrets in which Radcliffe was the same age throughout the shooting process. The Half-Blood Prince was released on July 15, 2009, just eight days before the actor’s 20th birthday. Radcliffe being 18 while portraying 16-year-old Harry, is the largest age gap between them up to this point in the series.
Daniel Radcliffe’s youthful appearance really helped this movie. Harry, at 16, would just be old enough to get a driver’s license, but Radcliffe was already 18, so he looked older, but not so much that fans couldn’t buy into the character’s age. It also helps that the movies stopped referring to his age and let fans just witness him growing up before their eyes.
1 Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows — Part 1 (2010) & Part 2 (2011)
Daniel Radcliffe was 19 & 20 years old
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1 and Part 2 were filmed back-to-back from February 2009 to June 2010. Radcliffe was 19 years old when filming began, and just over a month away from his 21st birthday when it was completed. While the age gap between Radcliffe and Harry does begin to appear more clearly in the final two Harry Potter movies, Radcliffe doesn’t look distractingly old, and his fantastic performance more than makes up for the age discrepancy.
it’s quite impressive that the initial four movies started filming while Radcliffe was the same age as his character.
It was never truly realistic for all eight Harry Potter movies to be filmed before the actors began outgrowing their characters. In fact, it’s remarkable that the first four films managed to begin principal photography while Radcliffe was still the same age as Harry Potter. Casting Radcliffe in the lead role proved a good decision because he still looked reasonably close to Harry’s age when the difference could have become an issue. He was also so firmly entrenched in the role of Harry at this point that it was hard to complain about him looking slightly older than the character.