In a recent black and white shoot for Interview magazine, Keira Knightley decided to strip back – literally – and bare it all. So hang on, a really famous, beautiful and successful actress, who is constantly ranked in lists such as: 100 hottest women’s for men’s magazines with an acceptable body size/shape did a photo shoot without any photoshopping to her body?
Oh. Society now defines nudity as ‘bold’ and ‘brave’. I think not. However me and Yaz have different opinions and here is what happened when we battled it out…
Does Keira Knightley Have a vested interest in condemning the use of Photoshop?
helloiammariam: Not being a fan of Knightley, I have tried to be very objective in exercising my opinion over her latest endeavors. I’m all for empowerment of the female body or male body and making sure the use of Photoshop isn’t over exercised but I find it difficult to digest that Knightley doesn’t have a vested interest in participating in a nude photo shoot with the latest blockbuster coming out in less than a week as the last blockbuster movie she was in was almost seven years ago. Her career though respectable hasn’t been as attention-delivering since her days on The Pirates of The Caribbean.. Interestingly enough in KK’s previous career choices she has signed off on Photoshop changes to promotional material as can be seen from the poster for ‘King Arthur’ shows a drastic enhancement of KK’s chest which she consented to.
I think she’s a beautiful women, but her acting style has never really impressed me. My speculations isn’t malicious its human. I think she has had a successful career but she shouldn’t make herself a complete victim – KK has to agree and sign off on doctored images. She has and had a choice. However saying all of that I do appreciate every women, man and human being has insecurities and it could be that she no longer feels the need to be photoshopped in material because she has found confidence in herself and her body image. Or this could be a PR stunt where Knightley’s agent decided her new movie needed media coverage so KK agreed and said ‘ah what the heck’ …I’m just putting it out there. I think her actions should speak louder than her words and we should wait patiently for the next glossy cover she is splattered over and measure her objections in correlation to her concern over digital retouching and Photoshop.
Yaz: I feel like things like this don’t phase me anymore. Whenever a celebrity does something I know it’ll blow over in a few days and nothing will change. I’m neither here nor there with KK. When I first saw it I wasn’t shocked or moved, to be honest, I just went ‘oh she’s topless’ and moved on with my life. I understand you’re saying Mariam and you do make very good points. I just don’t think I have that strong opinions about this.
Should Knightley have done a nude photo shoot?
helloiammariam: In an interview with British Times KK discussed the societal perspective of women and their bodies, ‘ think women’s bodies are a battleground and photography is partly to blame. Our society is so photographic now, it becomes more difficult to see all of those different varieties of shape.’
Though many have labelled KK’s move ‘brave’ and ‘bold,’ I strongly disagree. A white, thin, beautiful women with slightly smaller breasts than the average expectations. Okay, why is this making headlines? What I don’t understand is if given the choice previously to being doctored in images – why now does Knightley choose to make such a bold move. I don’t believe this is a bold or necessary move.
An article I read put it accurately: ‘We don’t need more images of conventionally attractive white women showing the world how conventionally attractive they are, with and without Photoshop. We need more images of women of all shapes and sizes and colors and sexual orientations doing same. Only then, when the rest of the world sees what a wide range of real, beautiful bodies looks like, will we have a shot at victory on the battleground of the war against women.’
Yaz: I think it takes guts to be nude anywhere, with or without a camera in front of you. If she wanted to show the world that she has smaller breasts than what are conventionally regarded as sexy, perfect or normal then ok. In this day and age, everyone is getting their kits off and it’s not anything special so maybe that’s why I’m not too bothered by things like this.
Do you think KK wants to empower women to embrace their natural selves?
helloiammariam: No. That is the short and sweet answer to this question. However I think in the future Knightley should be just as vocal about her ‘body being manipulated’ as she has been recently. It isn’t about just one magazine or one shoot, if she has a point to make she should stand her ground and make it. The next time she is asked whether her body can be doctored for a promo she should say no. That would be a positive way to empower women and to encourage them to embrace their natural bodies.
Yaz: I love it when we disagree! I think she was and she was doing it the only way she knew how. With the risk of sounding like the girl from Mean Girls who wants to “bake a cake made out of rainbows and smiles”, you know the one who “doesn’t even go here”, I really wish this wasn’t an issue for women, women should embrace their body shape whatever it may be.
Plus, if singers like Meghan Trainor can talk about how being big is better than being skinny or Nicki Minaj can talk about that fake butt she has and glorify it then someone should say that its ok to be skinny, if that’s your natural body not if you have to starve yourself to get that way. Its ok not to have not to have big boobs with a tiny waist and a big tush and its also ok to have big boobs and a big behind.
Let us know what your thoughts are? Do you think Keira Knightley went nude for the greater good of women in Hollywood and elsewhere or was it just a quick promo scheme before the release of her latest movie The Imitation Game?