1. From yet another girl with a very visible clavicle and zero cleavage, well said :) The focus shouldn't be on fat or skinny, but accepting each individual woman as she is.

Posted at 12:22PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Jen

2. I dont really agree. If she was being "who she is" than that would be one thing, but she is competing for roles against the most skinny starved starlets weve ever seen. If she was a little skinny that would be one thing, but when she tetters on the edges of anorexia I think it is something that should not be accepted.

Posted at 8:30PM on Sep 28th 2008 by carly

3. WOW!!! Keira Knightley posing nude here:
http://kcelebvidz.com/video.php?v=Keira_Knightley_nude

Posted at 9:20PM on Sep 28th 2008 by Brad

4. To the Author: The media's focus on Kiera Knightley's weight isn't the problem you make it out to be......the REAL problem is how you've managed to take that criticism and turn it on yourself because you may share SOME similar characteristics to Ms. Knightley. Now that you've turned a critic's comments about Kiera Knightley into a personal attack against you, you feel justified in labeling the comments "sexist" when they are far from it.

It is the media and the entertainment industry's fault that we have young women suffering from eating disorders at alarmingly younger ages and I think it would be irresponsible of the media to ignore her weight loss. Sure, they may blast Kiera if she put on 50lbs, but we're talking life or death situations here with anorexia and as far as I know, no woman has ever died from ordering the occasional "Supersize" Value Meal at Mickey D's.

It may be the "job" of the critic to ignore the person behind the role and focus on the performance itself, but the filmmakers need to bear responsibility for casting someone whose outward appearance is controversial enough that it detracts from the role they have been hired to play.

On a side note......to any adult men who find the physical appearance of Kiera Knightley to be sexually attractive, you just may be harboring tendencies bordering on pedophilia. It seems quite unnatural for a man to be sexually attracted to a woman who closely resembles a 10 year old boy from the neck down.

Posted at 11:51PM on Sep 28th 2008 by Mike

5. I do not think that KN has a weight issue. She is filled out and has a healthy glow... never gaunt looking. She is very energetic and again - she glows! One of my best friends was a size 00 before they made 00 and it was always so difficult for her. She had even had three children as was still that small - naturally. Whenever she tried on clothes she would just be so disappointed because they always swam on her (she got disappointed but never down about it). She WAS NOT THIN THOUGH she ate like a horse and was active and I spent five days a week with her at work and many weekends at her home. I saw her and her husband's prom pictures and she was so small even then but she never had that gaunt look nor did she have that strange stringy muscle thing going on. She glowed just like KN. I guess if I had ever seen KN looking bigger or looking gaunt instead of always beautiful, slim and radiant I might think she had a problem. She has never looked anything like Nicole Richie or for that matter remember when it seemed like Jennifer Anniston and Courtney Cox were in a competition to starve to death. Remember hold old and awful they looked that couple of seasons on friends? KN is just a naturally talented woman blessed with a figure that girls are dying for. She could have been a famous “catwalker” with her natural beauty and thinness but she was born with smarts and talent also. She had a choice sooo few in life were given and I guess she had no interest in the thin and beautiful business and some people resent her for it. Just like the person that wanted to be a jockey but was too big or the frustrated navigator that wanted to be the pilot but has poor vision. So few are really thin enough, small enough or have the eyesight for these position but there are a rare few that do. KN is naturally slim and beautiful and I hope that she does not have to end up hating herself like the rest of us!

Posted at 3:59AM on Sep 29th 2008 by chachigo1

6. I can't agree, either. This girl used to have a *little* flesh on her bones, and she looked absolutely wonderful. Thin and Skeletal are two entirely different things. I don't mind seeing a few bones, such as the clavical. But Keira WAS thin, and has lost what I would consider to be a dangerous amount of weight, if pictures are anything to go by (though I do understand they can be deceiving, the multitude of pictures showing just HOW thin she is kinda overrides the possibility that this is a mere mistake). I can't judge her for it, and it certainly doesn't overshadow her performance, but it does take something away from it. I'm not suggesting she 'pork out', but perhaps gain about 5-10 lbs, and eat healthy, and I doubt anyone would shame her for it. I'm more concerned about her health at this point than 'judging her' about anything.

Posted at 7:28AM on Sep 29th 2008 by Melanie

7. To all of you who are "naturally thin", congrats, you're lucky. To all who say "leave all these skinny models alone and quit saying anyone has an eating disorder" I say no, we DO need to look at this. If you have a young daughter, you would be more likely to realize that this IS an issue and it DOES affect young girls. I don't want my daughter looking up to any celebrity for anything, but I also don't want her reading headlines and thinking because she's tall and a swimmer (therefore muscled), she's huge and fat. Yes, my daughter, a few years ago at all of FIVE years old, was sitting on the couch and said "Mum, my legs look fat". I don't wish any mom to have that heart attack and have to figure out how to give their daughter a positive self image in today's society! And no, she's not fat by any stretch. I wish everyone could find a healthy weight, it's a battle for many either to gain or to lose. I also wish we as a society would stop worshipping skeletal physiques. Not likely though, we're not smart enough for that.

Posted at 9:29AM on Sep 29th 2008 by A

8. Sometimes it's okay to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Posted at 1:11PM on Sep 24th 2008 by filmsuki

9. To play Devil's advocate: The job of a film critic, even the most respected art-film critics, is arguably to tell the reader whether they should plunk down their hard-earned money to see the movie. If the film critic thinks something will affect the reader's enjoyment of the movie, aren't they obligated to point it out?

Posted at 1:55PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Sam

10. Keira's weight (and size) was of importance in The Duchess as larger weight was synonymous with wealth. It is completely irrelevant whether she acted a good Diana or not. The fact is she was miscast due to the bias of today's (more svelte) trends.

Posted at 1:55PM on Sep 24th 2008 by 4outof10.com

11. But few women would have been of larger weight -- having seen real preserved dresses from the period, even Keira Knightley is too large to fit in them. People had poor diets and health care...it would be a miracle if any of them achieved "voluptuous" except from sheer luck, just as many of us strive for "ideal" bodies.

Remember, the only evidence we have as to what people looked like are portraits -- which were often painted to reflect an ideal and flatter the sitter, NOT to portray them accurately.

Posted at 2:26PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Elisabeth

12. You're right. Few people would have been of a larger weight. However, of these few people it is likely that royalty would have been amongst this exclusive group. That would include the Duchess of Devonshire (a wealthy aristocrat).

Indeed a similar argument could be made for larger women not appearing in movies. However thin actresses do not have this problem. They seem to hired regardless (and no, I don't believe Ms Knightley is THAT good an actress).

Posted at 3:47PM on Sep 24th 2008 by 4outof10.com

13. With regards to your comments about how male actors' weight/looks aren't focused on - Cillian Murphy is a bad example, you'd be hard pressed to find a review of Sunshine that didn't obsess over his eyes, and a lot of reviews have pointed out just how thin he is. Jonathan Rhys Meyers used to get the same treatment back when he was skinny.

So you're right, but you need better exaples than that.

Posted at 1:56PM on Sep 24th 2008 by J

14. Just for kicks, I've re-read a bunch of "Sunshine" reviews -- focusing on larger publications, then smaller ones at random. Only one mentioned Murphy's eyes...and interestingly Zacharek, who has such a problem with prominent bone structure in women, doesn't notice it on men.

Close-ups of eyes also played a huge role in Sunshine -- so even if somehow missed every other mention of Murphy's eyes, it hardly compares to a criticism of Knightley's weight. It was a stylistic part of the film, for better or worse, and deserves to be commented on.

The only time I have heard Rhys-Meyers called "too skinny" is in reference to his portrayal of Henry VIII which, of course, is true -- although Henry VIII was skinny once upon a time, he was always a big man, a Gerard Butler sort.

Typing "Jonathan Rhys-Meyers" and "skinny" into Google...even including it with "Velvet Goldmine" produces nothing. The label most attached to him is "drunk" or "pouty" I'm afraid -- a long way from skeletal.

So it seems my argument still stands.

Posted at 2:14PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Elisabeth

15. http://www.privatjokr.com/index.php/movies?cat=26 - "It looked like the cover from a cheap steamy-romance novel. I say cheap because I bet Rhys-Meyers's scrawny frame doesn't tip the scales at more than 160 pounds."

http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/jonathanrhysmeyers.html - "Rail-thin and slightly androgynous,"

http://www.jrmfansite.org/2000/06/136 - "He has looks that get him noticed: cheekbones that enter the room before he does and a blazing blue gaze."

Those are just the first couple of quotes dug up, most of the worst ones were around the time of Gormenghast, the "drunk" comments are mostly post-rehab. (Given he deliberatly put on weight to avoid getting the kind of roles/press he'd been having prior to '05)

And the comment about Cillian was only half about the eyes - and Sunshine is only half the picture there, given the Batman director admitted he'd made a focus out of Cillian's eyes. Given you mentioned Keira Knightly, it's also worth mentioning that they were both commented on in the same sentence in reviews of Edge of Love, where people made uncalled for comments about their sex scene with regards to their weight - I can't find those comments because typing anything along those lines just brings up her talking about her figure.

Posted at 2:47PM on Sep 24th 2008 by J

16. Regardless of her looks, I think she is a really bad actress. I find her performances incredibly distracting -- much more posturing than any kind of real acting. She always yanks me out of the world of the movie.

I think the reason a lot of critics focus on her looks is because it would seem that (because of her lack of talent) the only reason she is getting the roles is for her looks. In a period drama especially, the heroin-chic look is very distracting as it doesn't make sense for the time.

Another reason I find her figure particularly disturbing is that even stars with "normal" bodies often look like they have eating disorders in person -- the screen adds weight. So, when I see someone who looks anorexic on screen, I shudder to think what the person must look like in reality.

Just for the record -- there have also been male stars that I've thought were hard to watch for the same reason. It's just a natural human repulsion to what appears to be sickness. Concave chests, bones jutting out, it just says "close to death" to me.

I've known really skinny people and rarely have thought twice about them. The kind of skinny that Knightley and her ilk achieve is far beyond a natural thinness, it is a product of careful, potentially harmful, manipulation of their bodies.

But, the bottom line is, all would be forgiven if her acting didn't suck.

Posted at 1:56PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Vera Doria

17. its obvious you have a problem with her specifically. If you happen to not like her acting, fine. But you can't disregard the quality of movies that she has been in, for the most part, and the fact that she has been nominated multiple times for major awards.

Posted at 4:15PM on Sep 24th 2008 by drew

18. I am disgusted with how she has been reviewed. Many of the reviewers don't even talk about her acting, they focus on her figure and use that to put her down. These people aren't critics they're barracudas!

Those critics who have actually looked at her acting have praised her. Those critics who dislike her because of her looks have ripped her to shreds not based on her acting, but based on her body - it's dishonourable and disgusting and they should be called out for that!

Posted at 1:56PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Miriam

19. I agree with you, Elisabeth. Obviously, she's skinny, but that has nothing to do with her performance, and you made a good point about no one complaining over really thin male actors... it's unfair. Very nice post.

Posted at 1:56PM on Sep 24th 2008 by Susie

20. I find her acting really poor. Similar to what Vera said, Keira pulls me right out of any film. I never buy into it being a character--I feel constantly reminded that I'm watching Keira. There are plenty of other actors I feel this way about who don't have eating disorder rumors swirling about them.

So considering she's a pretty wretched actress, why does she continue to get such high profile work? Because of her body? I don't know, but it seems at least plausible. Also, for all the people who are quick to say she's a good actress--I wonder if they would think so if she had a fuller figure or if she was not considered such a sex icon. I'm guessing not.

Posted at 2:04PM on Sep 24th 2008 by NP