Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Is This What Scarlett Johansson Would've Looked Like As Lisbeth Salander?

by Kevin Jagernauth
October 16, 2012 3:46 PM
  • |

“We flew in people from New Zealand and Swaziland and all over the place,” David Fincher said last year about trying to cast Lisbeth Salander for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." “Look, we saw some amazing people. Scarlett Johansson was great. It was a great audition, I’m telling you. But the thing with Scarlett is, you can’t wait for her to take her clothes off.”

In case you need that translated, Fincher felt that ultimately, ScarJo was just too hot to play the socially maladjusted Lisbeth, and we wouldn't argue with that. But what if she did get the role? While this shot for the latest issue of W magazine is supposed to represent "the '90s" (really? it looks like it represents Hot Topic) it does get the actress into some goth gear which we don't see everyday. So tweak that patch of grey to black (and give it a trim), maybe change the lipstick and a few other adjustments....could it have worked? Here's the full image -- weigh in below. [Celebitchy]

  • |

More: Scarlett Johansson

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Ciao | October 18, 2012 10:15 PMReply

    I'm not a fan of Mara, but ScarJo is one of the most boring actors. She looks like a cheap Debbie Harry wannabe here.

  • jingmei | October 16, 2012 11:44 PMReply

    Firstly i thought this article was published for a wrong date.

  • Daniel | October 16, 2012 10:01 PMReply

    Personally, I think Fincher -- who is one of my favorite directors -- screwed up the casting on "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," big-time. Yes, Lisbeth is supposed to be socially maladjusted, but while that can work on the page, movies require actors that the audience can invest in; the role of Lisbeth, because her exterior is so hard, required someone who could suggest an additional quality - personality, charisma, warmth, anything - beneath that exterior. In my opinion, casting someone with a confrontational screen presence (i.e. Mara Rooney) exacerbated the inherent problem. Maybe ScarJo's natural sensuality would have provided an interesting tension to Lisbeth's asexuality, and maybe not... but if she had played the role, I think I would have been more invested in the character.

  • Adam | December 15, 2012 1:07 AM

    That's a very strange thing to say considering most fans of the books criticized the American movies for making Lisbeth "too soft and vulnerable." Frankly, I thought Mara was great and she's a large part of the reason I sought out the Swedish movies and the books.

  • en | October 18, 2012 11:35 PM

    Daniel: As you said, movies are different from books. And this movie is different from the book it's based on, with different ideas and intentions. That she was an off-putting/confrontational/not-immediately-likable presence was the point, I think -- in the movie. I warmed to her, though, and by the end was hooked. I grew to understand her. That's just my experience.

  • Daniel | October 17, 2012 8:46 AM

    Because movies are different from books -- they're different mediums, they function differently, and they play by different rules. Books are more participatory: they take place in your head, and you essentially 'perform' the roles yourself, which allows for more empathy. Watching a movie is a more passive experience: you're reacting to what an actor does with a role, instead of participating. For me personally, I could get into Lisbeth's character more in the book, because the character in my mind wasn't as off-putting as I found Rooney Mara to be. As for Noomi Rapace, I never saw her movies, so I couldn't say. Did she bring an additional dimension to it?

  • Brad | October 17, 2012 12:22 AM

    Did you have the same problem with Noomi Rapace? I think Rooney Mara was one of the films strengths not one of the weaknesses. Also if you can invest in a character on the page who is socially maladjusted why does it need to be softened for film?

  • Real | October 16, 2012 7:30 PMReply

    Bizarre article: Does this phtotoshoot that has absolutuely nothing to do with the movie containing a part that ScarJo din't get give any clues as to what she might have look like in the role? The answer is no.

  • Pierre | October 16, 2012 5:24 PMReply

    Umm, this is a bit of a weird celebrity based non-article article.

  • BB | October 18, 2012 10:17 PM

    Scar's publicist wants us to know she was up for the role. Fincher was being charitable in his comment.

  • AS | October 16, 2012 5:06 PMReply

    Dodged a bullet on that one...

  • caro | October 16, 2012 4:40 PMReply

    Debby Harry!!!!!

  • Sam | October 18, 2012 10:19 PM

    The ugly version!!!!!!!

  • rodie | October 16, 2012 4:17 PMReply

    That hair and makeup are all wrong, but Scarlett can't help but be sexy. 'Shop the hair all black, lips neutral and take away the rings and you'd be close I guess. The tats and the nose ring are right on.

  • coke | October 16, 2012 4:06 PMReply

    Is This What Scarlett Johansson Would've Looked Like As Lisbeth Salander?
    Hell no!

  • Lou | October 17, 2012 12:26 PM

    Agree. Lisbeth Salander was described in the book as a very skinny, short, not pretty, flat-chested woman looking like an adolescent. I think that Rapace fits the description, more so than Mara. The only thing that Johansson has in common with Salander is the height.

Email Updates