First of all, can we just admire how beautiful Keira Knightley still is at 40. There is such grace and poise in how she is aging, so much sparkle, and I hope and pray that other actresses feel like they can follow suit. That it is okay to enter different seasons of your life and to allow your body and your face to change. If Helen Mirren can do it (here's an
interview with Helen on Allure), so can every other actress out there, and it would be such a healthy thing for society rather than having so many women absolutely run from natural aging.
Back to the topic at hand.
In case you haven't heard, Keira Knightley was hijacked during an interview about her latest film, where the interviewer grilled her about her knowledge of JK Rowling's pro-woman views and if she knew about them before agreeing to be cast as Professor Umbridge in the full-cast audiobook series of Harry Potter that's about to be released. Yes, that's a long sentence. But it completely changes the perspective of the reader by phrasing it as Rowling having a "pro-woman" stance instead of "anti-trans."
Keira, bless her, responded with a laugh showing the absurdity and misplacement of the question, and graciously called people to figure out how to get along with one another because we are a diverse group of beliefs and opinions and mutual respect is important. I'm paraphrasing.
She's right. We will never move forward as a society if we cannot agree to disagree and move on from topics of contention.
But that reasonable response has resulted in a bit of a Keira Knightley witch-hunt and reinvigoration of the "boycott Rowling" crowd. Both of which are completely uncalled for and extremely dramatic, something that frustrates me as I grow older because drama is just so absurd.
But I did just think of something else that is bothering me.
Why Keira? Is it just because she was "to hand" in an interview? Or is it because she's the most well-known female in the audio cast (from my perspective)? Or . . . what? Because I see famous male names like Hugh Laurie, Matthew Macfadyen (now that's kind of funny that they're in the same audiobook series!), Kit Harrington, Simon Pegg, James McAvoy, and Riz Ahmed (maybe not everybody knows his work, but I do) in the cast but it doesn't seem that they were pressured the same way as Keira.
How is that okay? Now that I'm really thinking about it, I am quite upset that she was jumped like that, out of the blue, when it seems none of her male costars have had to put up with the same absurdity or endure the same online witchhunt. She was simply being diplomatic in her response! Or are these people only upset if someone doesn't voice their disdain for Rowling, not if they are acting in a Harry Potter production? I wouldn't be surprised if that was it. They're fine so long as the actor hates Rowling.
TikTokers and Redditors are not the majority of people. They're just not. Are they the most vocal, oh yes, but do they reflect the beliefs of every single person, absolutely not. So they really should just be viewed as the vocal 1% and treated as such. A flash-in-the-pan knee-jerk response of online rage isn't going to impact my love and admiration for Keira Knightley and her varying roles in the slightest. And I can guarantee you that she has a ton of fans IRL who will never know about this "controversy" and wouldn't care even if they did because they are not chronically online. What next? A call to boycott the PotC franchise? I don't think so. The rage echo chamber is getting old and it's showing how little the 1% actually spend amongst the rest of us.
Now, back to the actual reason for the Rowling question in the first place, the Harry Potter full-cast audio book series! It sounds amazing!
I look forward to intense pangs of hatred and loathing for Professor Umbridge that I know Keira's voice acting will deliver. And, wow, give me my Hugh Laurie as Dumbledore! He's an absolute fav of mine from waaaaaaay back in the 90s, yes, I am that old! I truly hope the full-cast audiobooks of Harry Potter live up to the hype!
.png)
