Keira Knightley Refuses Breast Enhancement For "The Dutchess"

Keira Knightley has refused to allow any enhancement of her cleavage on publicity photos for her upcoming movie, "The Duchess," Britain's Daily Mail reports.

Studio heads reportedly want to enlarge Knightley's bosom in the photos, but the actress, 23, put her foot down.

Keep reading.

Publicity Stills For "King Arthur"

Or read about how magazines have had to perform "reverse airbrushing" on Keira Knightley.

Comments

[Roxanna]

I think it is great to move away from the Large Breast Society..

That's a step and if we can eventually move away from the anorexia look will be doing even better !

[LITU]

There must be a shortage of named actresses.

[zmster]

Original headline read "Keira...refuses "larger breasts." That would be "Some breasts" rather than the natural "no breasts" state. I'm against all the "enhancement" the actresses get in Hollywood but the only reason Keira has none at all is because she seems to think the "anorexic" or "12 -year-old boy look" looks good on a twenty-something actress. Newsflash: it doesn't!

[lylo]

"The only reason Keira has none at all" would probably be genetics. Who cares if it looks good to you, it is her body, and probably not on purpose.

[WFV]

Good for her! This is a positive move for all women, and I wish more would follow her lead.

[Fudgefase]

Enhancing her breasts gave her a waist - the first pic she looks fat around the middle because there's no difference between her upper body and lower body.
Obviously I KNOW she's not fat - positively the reverse, but if I were her, I'd have disliked the first pic. I don't plan to see 'The Duchess' though. The kind of films she does don't tend to appeal to me. I didn't like the second 'Pirates' and didn't go to see the third, 'Atonement' looked too sad for me (I like a laugh or a thrill and I hate being made to feel upset at the cinema) and I don't fancy this recent one.
I really sympathise with actresses. Who could take the body focus they are subjected to day in and day out?
I couldn't.
Maybe we should all examine what we expect of our stars.

[AmandaBC]

Good call Keira. Now start being a little more selective with the scripts. Dump the popcorn trash in favour of more and more films like "Atonement." You certainly can afford to live on $5 million/year instad of $50 million...

[loveobama]

I don't think she needs to have breast enhancement. She's beautiful with her natural assets.

[GodfatherofSoul]

She's pretty but she's built like a 12 year old boy. Never understood the fascination with her; besides the American girls with no self-esteem who want to look anorexic, too. Give me a woman like Beyonce, Monica Belluci, or Salma Hayek any day over that.

[meanguy]

she could use a cheesburger or two...she just doesn't look healthy

[lylo]

I agree that self imposed starvation is not healthy, I just don't think it's okay to immediately assume someone is anorexic because they have no breasts or are skinny. That's just not fair. I'm 5'6" and 100lb, and get to hear this kind of crap all the time.
Maybe, instead of assuming that every woman molds and shapes their body to what they believe is men's ideal, you should assume that women have genetic predispositions too.
BTW, I've known a lot of anorexic people, and she doesn't look it. She does, however, remind me A LOT of several women I knew who were born prematurely.

[Aslanspal]

I will go out on a limb here, Keira Knightley has that Ingrid Bergman power when it comes to
closeups and especially romantic closeups on her face.


I MELT ...DOES ANYONE ELSE.

[Fluffnstuff]

Yes, she practically has no breasts. Besides that, she also has the body of a young male. Her face is decent and she has long hair. So yeah, she looks like a female, but mainly because of the hair. If the only thing you base beauty on is the face and nothing else, then I can see how you might find her attractive. The fact remains, if you covered her head and tried to discern if you were looking at the body of Keira Knightley or a 12 year old boy you would have no clue.

In either case, the studio should have the right to alter her appearance. They already do that by placing that first dab of make-up on an actor. I seriously doubt all the posters here supporting Knightley also boycott every single movie where an actor's appearance is altered, for better or for worse. Maybe they are just very selective and make noise for those that contain women with flat chests.

[Bananafarm]

Do you think that her vagina would give you a clue that she had the body of a woman and not a 12 year old boy? Maybe we support her and wish other actors would do the same? How the heck do you get boycotting all other actors out of that?

[Spooled]

She is without question a freak of nature. A beautiful women without breast! If so, she can't be a beautiful women. This is the clever trick nature plays on humans and their ability to recognize abomination!

[Fluffnstuff]

I'm on the studio's side with this one.

This movie, and most others, are about leaving behind the real world and entering a fantasy world. The characters and circumstances are make-believe. If they want one of their characters to be more attractive then they should be able to present that character as such. There's nothing wrong with altering promotional pictures, videos, and even the movie itself.

If you disagree with me then consider all the movies you have seen. Many of them did not present the actors or situations as they truly were. They receive make-up, special help preparing for the role, and all sorts of other things that ends up displaying that actor as something they are not. On top of that many movies have special computer effects as well. All of this combines to present you with something that is not real. Keira Knightley is not playing herself. She is playing a character that the studio thinks needs to be more attractive. I don't disagree.

Also let's be clear about her appearance. She is not an ugly person, however, she does have a flat chest, flat butt, and narrow hips. She essentially has the body of a scrawny, pre-teen male. It's perfectly OK to not find her attractive. I certainly do not. I prefer women who don't look like young boys.

[VSamuels]

If one basically takes a look at those who own and manage the mechanisms of Hollywood, one will typically find an over-representation of gay, white males. It stands to reason that the de-feminization of women would be a constant push-and-pull dynamic that plays out in this environment; females who appear to possess the body types of who they may be attracted to will probably tend to be elevated while females who possess curves may be in less demand. The overall consideration however isn't what the power brokers personally prefer, it will be what the movie goers like who will tend to be folks who don't want to sit in a theatre for a couple of hours and watch a female who looks like a young boy.

[MrsGreebers]

Thank you, finally someone gets it.

However, I do disagree about the publicity photo. If she isn't enhanced in the film, then it's false advertising to enhance her in the photo.

[SaraPulis]

Good for her! She's beautiful the way she is.

[jgaines7]

Good for her. Keep it real.

[cafemocha]

Leave Keira Alone! (apologies to that youtube Britney fanatic). With her natural beauty she'll never be alone. And whomever is with her ought to realize he's one super damn lucky guy.