Ask HadleyKeira KnightleyThe actor posed topless on the condition that her breasts would not be photoshopped, in protest against artificially perfect images of women. Should we cheer her on?
Keira Knightley has protested against airbrushing by posing topless in a magazine. Is this really the best way to go about protesting?
Sara, by email
For those who have missed this enormous international story of grave importance, Keira Knightley agreed to pose topless for the US magazine Interview on the condition that her image would remain wholly unphotoshopped.
“I’ve had my body manipulated so many different times for so many different reasons, whether it’s paparazzi photographers or for film posters. And that [shoot] was one of the ones where I said: ‘OK, I’m fine doing the topless shot so long as you don’t make them any bigger or retouch.’ Because it does feel important to say it really doesn’t matter what shape you are,” Knightley told the Times.
And she’s right, of course. Few things matter less than what shape a person is. And yet, weirdly, few things are imbued with more significance by the media and society than a person’s physical shape, especially when that person is a woman. So I really, really want to cheer and say: “Three snaps, Keira! Yes, show people what your breasts actually look like as opposed to the puffed-up pastries that are routinely used on movie posters and fashion adverts. Reassure your female fans that even your body is deemed somehow wanting by those ridiculous image-makers, because no woman is ever quite as thin/busty/wrinkle-free/long-legged as women are somehow expected to be. You go, girl!”
Knightley has always been on the receiving end of a lot of stick, from critics and members of the public, and I’ve never understood this. Ever since she first came to public attention 12 years ago in Bend it Like Beckham, she has struck me as being a perfectly nice, perfectly intelligent young women. And yet she was mocked for acting in a load of period drama films, and she was mocked when she acted in contemporary ones. She is clearly astonishingly beautiful, and yet because of that some critics (and members of the public) think this then gives them liberty to make obnoxious comments about her appearance, snarking about everything from her jaw to her feet. Her jaw, people – her JAW. Look at yourselves talking about a young woman’s jaw, then look at a mirror and try to look yourself in the eye.
I used to think maybe this was because Knightley sounds posh and all this bashing was just an expression of that most British of tendencies, inverse snobbery. But then the similarly not-exactly-working-class Benedict Cumberbatch rocked up on the scene and everybody adores him, so it can’t be that. Instead, I have since realised, it was simply down to the fact that she was too successful too quickly and too pretty. How very dare she.
Knightley knows this, and she has spoken repeatedly about how hurt she was by the criticism. So she also knows that making a stand like this, one which leaves her so literally exposed, will be used by the haters as yet another excuse to criticise her. So, as I say, I really, really, really want to cheer on Knightley because she strikes me as an ideal person to show that no woman’s body adheres to some imaginary ideal.
And yet, and yet. Yeah, that roaring sound you’ve been hearing in the distance? That is one big ol’ BUT coming down the motorway. I completely applaud Knightley’s intention in showing the world how she actually looks, but I can’t help but feel that her point about the obsession with women’s bodies would be a little more effective if her method didn’t involve exposing her own.
In my admittedly deeply cynical opinion, Knightley showing the world her unphotoshopped breasts is a little too reminiscent of those “no-makeup selfies” of which women in the public eye are so fond. These aforementioned self-portraits, like Knightley’s magazine shoot, purport to push back firmly against the pressure placed on women by the artificially perfect images of female celebrities with which they are presented daily. But what they do, really, is perpetuate the idea that a woman’s body is, ultimately, the most interesting thing about her, and it exists to be scrutinised and judged by others.
So while I wholeheartedly approve of Knightley’s purpose here, I am just not quite convinced that being photographed topless in a magazine is the way to go about fighting against the tyranny of perfection placed on women about their bodies. For a start, Knightley doesn’t actually explain in the interview in the magazine why she is topless – she only explained it later to a British newspaper, so the majority of the magazine’s readers will simply think she is another famous female celebrity posing half-naked.
Not that awareness of her intention makes much difference. Where Knightley thinks she is taking a stand here, others think she simply has her tits out. One need only look at the comments section beneath articles about this hot-breaking story to see that: “Good for you lass, let’s have some more ;)”, “If only all celebrities were as noble her,” – and that’s just on the Guardian site. It strikes me that a far more effective method to fight against photoshopping would be if Knightley simply put it in her contract that her body cannot be photoshopped on movie posters and adverts.
So in short, hats off to Knightley for the intention. Hats off indeed. But for the method, clothes on.
- Post your questions to Hadley Freeman, Ask Hadley, The Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Email ask.hadley@theguardian.com.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaJ6RqLWqu81oaWlpZGS7sMKOamdoo5Wev6J5yqegoKCkobK6edOop6Wdo6h6sbTOraasoJ%2BkwW6uxKyrZqiipMGmv9M%3D