Johansson And Knightley Strip For Vanity Fair

[hasselbrad]

If it were nudity for nudity's sake, it wouldn't be in Vanity Fair and it wouldn't be shot by Annie Leibovitz. This is an issue of the magazine that's been around for years. It's tastefully done, photographic art.
Comparing the shoots Keira has done to Playboy is like mentioning "Dogs Playing Poker" in the same breath as "The Girl With The Pearl Earring"...and with that bit of art history, I'll segue into this...
Scarlet and Keira are two of the hottest stars in the Hollywood universe. And, as a bonus, they are two of the most talented. Each has an Oscar nomination, which means that, individually, they have more Oscar nominations than everyone on your "pretty faces" list put together.

[Idle]

I find this reaction hysterical.

If you don't like actresses who do nudity then fine. But this girl did a more revealing topless scene in a low-budget thriller when she was 15. So how it could come as any kind of surprise that she'd agree to do a very prestigious and high profile cover shoot like this five years later is baffling.

[Jacoby]

I personally agree with Mr. Former Fan, and his response could actually be a thread in itself. I second the opinions. When I first saw Bend it Like Beckham 4 years back I thought Keria was extremely pretty and she showed so much promise. I was expecting one of those Laura Linney type actresses that choose their films really wisely. It looks like Keira took a wrong turn somewhere between then and now. And I'm not saying it was a bad choice for her to do this photo shoot, it IS Vanity Fair and all, but all the other photoshoots I've seen in the past two years have been upsetting. They don't lead me to believe that Keira really cares about this respectable actress image. As Sarah put it once, "OMGZ she looks SO AMERICAN! "
I still think she's one of the most gorgeous actresses, and when I hear her on talk shows or movies it makes me want to run back here and reply to the "Where would you take Keira on a first date" thread, but I don't think she's making the best possible choices on films and how she wants to be viewed by the public. It's a shame, but I too think of her now as just another pretty actress.

But who knows what she wants? It's probably not even up to her.

[CollisionStar]

Hmm. I agree somewhat with Former Fan as well. Although I'd still like a copy of the mag, I can see where he might be coming from. Personally, I think she's a great actress, though she is slowly becoming somewhat of the 'pretty face' standard.

It doesn't stop me from being a fan really. And being nude? I see it as another reason to admire. It's brave to me. There's not many I know willing to shed their robe in front of not only a camera, but a photographer, crew, director, and whomever else is involved.

[michael22]

I also have to agree with former fan. I took her flashing in the Hole to be just a fifteen year old as I am only fifteen, I am mature and can do what I want. but I thought she had matured and did nudity for the sake of film in general. I am seventeen I should in any right world be jerking off to her picture (sorry for the lewd language) and should be taking cold showers every minute (such is my attraction to Keira). But I am not, because well it just does not fit. FOr months I thought that she actually had brains and not a thick skull like such other pretty faces. yes, she is still intelligent but she is just different.

the one possible explanation that leaves her wih some dignity is that she is tired of everyone thinking in only one way about her .


But seriously what happened or what did I miss. I respect her still and still get that weird feeling whenever I see her (save for that photo). But please say that that's as far down the rabbit hole as she will go. but for now I am still her loyal fan. Though I guess it could have been worse. and is not that bad

[Leonie]

I think this photoshoot is much worse. It's completely classless.

The Vanity Fair shoot has artistic value to it, whereas this one, and there are more, have really made me wonder where this Keira has gone. She's a bit like that last picture in the Vanity Fair video - funny, smiling a lot... Lord knows what happened to that in front of photo cameras. I for one think it's a real shame.

She used to look like she could be your friend, and a really cool friend at that. I can't remember a single recent photoshoot where she isn't busy looking constipated. I suppose someone decided the fresh faced Keira look was soooo 2003.

[doubly]

Honestly, I don't Keira looks very pretty in the picture. Keira looks high and not very seductive at all. Scarlett has kind of a pig face in the picture too. The picture is pale and dull, as though Keira were all flesh with no spirit, attitude, or personality. That's not the spirited Keira I know.

Let's be honest: Keira's figure is not her best attribute. So when their are photos taken of her, they should focus on her stunning eyes, jawline, neck and hair. Keira's stunning face looks out-of-place atop her frail body.

On the other hand, believe me, I want to see Keira completely naked as much as the other people on this forum. But, I think this picture was a poor career move.

Keira, listen: You can be a sex symbol without baring it all. You are stunning in body and soul. Please don't let Holllywood get to you. We fans are concerned for you and your career, and we love you.

[Mandy]

Speak for yourself.

I haven't paid any attention to Keira for like a year. So I can't be fucked to care about this cover.

[Ranman]

I see two landing strips, I don't know about the rest of you

[Mags]

Originally Posted by Jacoby

I was expecting one of those Laura Linney type actresses that choose their films really wisely. It looks like Keira took a wrong turn somewhere between then and now.

I kind of agree with you, but I do need to point out that it seems like Laura Linney gets naked in nearly every movie she's in. And she makes great movies, like PS, and You Can Count on Me, and Love Actually and all that, but in every one of them she takes her top off. So I don't think nudity has anything to do with whether a person is making the right movie choices. I personally think Laura Linney is awesome and she has a habit of choosing really great movies. I just don't think that necessarily nudity and good movie choices are mutually exclusive. Of course, I often find myself withing she would keep her top on, as often it just makes the scene uncomfortable, like with Topher Grace in PS, but I think that's generally what the intended reaction is, so I'm ok with it.

That said, what do I think of the cover? Those are some pasty pale bitches.

And I totally thought that was Piven too. Which weirded me out.

[Mandy]

Me 3 on the Jeremy Pivens ordeal. THEN I thought he was the guy from Nip/Tuck.

[Rob The BLack Douglas]

If someone is comfortable with their body and decides to disrobe that is their decision. No one made her, she decided to do it for reasons that are her own. You don't have to like it but to put her down because of it is plain stupid.

[Jacoby]

Originally Posted by Mags

I kind of agree with you, but I do need to point out that it seems like Laura Linney gets naked in nearly every movie she's in. And she makes great movies, like PS, and You Can Count on Me, and Love Actually and all that, but in every one of them she takes her top off. So I don't think nudity has anything to do with whether a person is making the right movie choices. I personally think Laura Linney is awesome and she has a habit of choosing really great movies. I just don't think that necessarily nudity and good movie choices are mutually exclusive. Of course, I often find myself withing she would keep her top on, as often it just makes the scene uncomfortable, like with Topher Grace in PS, but I think that's generally what the intended reaction is, so I'm ok with it.

I kinda made it sound like nudity = classless and a bad career move, but honestly that's not what I meant. I meant role choices more than choosing to be nude. Keira has some good choices, like P&P and a few others, but then there's Domino and King Arthur as well as a few other films that made me think, "No! WHY?!" But yeah, you're right.

I also agree with Former on the fact that there's no shock if she shows her breasts. I sort of go into a Keira film now expecting to see me some boobehs. Save Pirates 2 + 3, but even then I can't even be too sure.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by Jacoby

I kinda made it sound like nudity = classless and a bad career move, but honestly that's not what I meant. I meant role choices more than choosing to be nude. Keira has some good choices, like P&P and a few others, but then there's Domino and King Arthur as well as a few other films that made me think, "No! WHY?!" But yeah, you're right.

I also agree with Former on the fact that there's no shock if she shows her breasts. I sort of go into a Keira film now expecting to see me some boobehs. Save Pirates 2 + 3, but even then I can't even be too sure.

Love Actually, King Arthur, PotC, Pride & Prejudice, Bend It Like Beckham... It's really not as though she takes her clothes off in every single movie she does. I think she's picked a few great films. Sure, King Arthur turned out to be crap, but I'm guessing it was crap directing. See, I hear Clive Owen is quite the actor, but he was nothing but disappointing in KA. Keira sounded like all the lines came out just wrong. The story itself was interesting though, it could have been a great film. Domino... maybe not such a great choice, though I haven't seen it. I can see why she wanted to do it though. It does show how versatile she is.

What I do have a problem with are the more and more frequent 'seductive' (read: slutty) photoshoots, and the fact that she never smiles anymore. The Pout never bothered me as she seemed to smile a lot too at premieres and the like, she generally looked like a really fun type of girl. Compare the PotC premiere pictures with those of the Domino one in America. Bah. Not so fun now.

I don't have a problem with the Vanity Fair shoot though - it seems more tasteful than others she's done, and there's something artsy to it If it weren't art, they wouldn't have bothered strategically positioning arms, would they?

[Mandy]

That's a good point. There's a line between nude photography and porn. Porn is not artistic. No matter how much Ranman says so.

[deviljet88]

Originally Posted by Leonie

If it weren't art, they wouldn't have bothered strategically positioning arms, would they?

So they can put the photo on the cover for magazine stands? Only thing 'arty' about it all is the hair (Is Scarlett supposed to look like Monroe?) and the editing that make them look so pale.

[devine kk]

[quote=Leonie]
The Vanity Fair shoot has artistic value to it, whereas this one, and there are more, have really made me wonder where this Keira has gone.

I agree with Leonie the VF shoot was done for its artistic value, and I like it, not because she is nude but it is a nice picture (with the exception of Tom Ford, he comes across as looking a bit sleazy). If you look at the video as she comes out of the shoot (about 2 mins in) she looks thoroughly embarrassed and shy, she did not do this for the wow facture. The picture looks pasty because it was air brushed to look pale; to represent purity as was the norm in historic paintings.

I do however feel that everyone longs to see the smiling Keira as opposed to the pouting one, you can see it again in the video where she is laughing and joking with her mum. I appreciate that in this instance a beaming smile would not be appropriate but its almost as though she has been told to pout whenever she sees a camera. I hope that this is not what Keira has become and that we will see the old Keira again soon. Please don't let Hollywood snare her.

[Viper_PL]

Without Johansson it would be interesting .I like Keira in blond version :icon_bigg

[hasselbrad]

Something that needs to be understood here, is that these photoshoots are not candid snapshots of Keira. We're not getting a glimpse into her soul here, but rather a glimpse at the artistic (or lack thereof) vision of an art director and photographer. Just because she vamps it up in a photoshoot, it doesn't mean she has suddenly become someone else. Well, actually, it does...because she becomes someone else for a few hours or so...but when she leaves, she's the same intelligent, charming young woman from the suburbs of London.
Same with movies. There is a lot of artistic input that goes into a film between her first reading of the script and what you see on the screen. Actors do the best they can with the material they are given, and then are up to the mercy of the director and editors as to which take is used. A subtle, perfect delivery of lines may very well be scrapped for an over the top ***cough***King Arthur***cough*** because of someone else's artistic (or, again, lack thereof) vision.

[Adam]

I agree with Leonie the VF shoot was done for its artistic value, and I like it, not because she is nude but it is a nice picture (with the exception of Tom Ford, he comes across as looking a bit sleazy). If you look at the video as she comes out of the shoot (about 2 mins in) she looks thoroughly embarrassed and shy, she did not do this for the wow facture. The picture looks pasty because it was air brushed to look pale; to represent purity as was the norm in historic paintings.

Agreed. I love the photo. It's an exceptional piece of art.