Keira Knightley Goes Topless To Protest Film Industry Photoshopping

She posed topless to show the world what she really looks like without "manipulation"...

By Natasha Bird

By Natasha Bird | Yahoo Lifestyle 

Keira Knightley has posed topless for Interview magazine, to protest years of photoshopping in film posters.

But is it really wrong of the film industry to "manipulate" her body like this? Or are they just creating a more authentic character?
[Patrick Demarchelier / Interview Magazine] The Motivation
Some might see Keira's topless shoot as a shameless attempt to make headlines, but according to the actress herself, there was another motivation behind the nude shoot.
As Keira Knightley herself put it in an interview with The Times: "My body has been manipulated so many times, for so many different reasons."
She referred to the photoshopping of her body for film posters, to "improve" her form or to inflate her cleavage.

This most recent Interview shoot, she claims, was an attempt to show the world what her body really looks like, without the adjustments.
The actress said: "Okay I'm fine doing the topless shot so long as you don't make them any bigger or retouch."
"It feels important to say it really doesn't matter what shape you are," she concluded.
Keira wants to prove size doesn't matter. [REX] Is There Any Justification?
This begs a particular question.
Does the film industry have more right to do this than other photoshopping industries?
As Keira Knightley has experienced, photoshopping is practised, not just by fashion houses to create slender physiques, nor just by magazines to show pop stars and celebrities at their unnatural best.
Photoshopping is a tool used by the film industry too, arguably to morph actresses (yes, it is predominantly the women) into the image of the character they are portraying.
Perhaps photoshopping for film posters can be likened to the use of prosthesis - it could be part of playing a role; adopting the character of someone else?
You know, like when Nicole Kidman had to wear a big rubber nose in the film The Hours.
Nicole Kidman wearing a prosthetic nose in The Hours [The Hours / Paramount Pictures] Well, No Not Really
Nice idea.
If that was what the photoshopping was really used for in Keira's Case.
The retouching that Keira is referring to is concentrated mainly around her bust.
Take the film King Arthur, for example:
Did Keira Knightley's character Guinevere, an action hero, really need bigger boobs?
Keira Knightley pre- and post-photoshopping. [King Arthur] Enhancing actress' busts is a common occurence in this business and some incidences of it are more ridiculous than others.
There has been wide speculation about what appears to be the perceptibly pointier bust given to Emma Watson on two different Harry Potter posters.
Harry Potter is a movie franchise marketed to children, with adolescents playing the lead roles.
Speculation by posterwire.com. An attempt to sexualise Emma's character Hermoine would have been inappropriate.
If you ask us, photoshopping for film posters seems to be motivated by exactly the same reasons as photoshopping anywhere else - to promote the sense of an ideal female body.
An "ideal" that is fed to men as the embodiment of what is sexy and to women as the goal they should be working towards.
It's not particularly healthy and it isn't easily justified, ESPECIALLY when it comes to photoshopping teenage girls in films positioned for a young market.
What do you think? Is the movie industry's photoshopping any more approriate than that of magazines and fashion houses? Let us know in the comments!