The New Yorker has an interesting little blurb today about Sean Penn, his recent journalist endeavours interviewing Chavez and Castro, his recent 'political' film "Milk" and finally argument that it's just as silly that Sean Penn, a great actor, gets to interview incredible subjects simply because of acting abilities as say, the idea that Chelsea Clinton gets to be a Senator just because she's the offspring of one.
A few excerpted gems:
I saw "Milk" the other night and thought: this man is the greatest actor of his generation. When Penn plays Harvey Milk, he's a sweet, whimsical gay-rights politician...
Why does someone like Penn think he can do this job, which isn't his job? [Me: Regarding his recent attempts at journalism.]
Penn's moonlighting shows a kind of contempt for journalism, which turns out to be rather difficult to do well. It also shows that he's missed one of the main points of Obama's election, which has Penn shedding tears at the end of his dispatch. Obama is the splendid fruit of a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, actors who act well get good roles.
Interesting thoughts--and even acknowledgements--especially from The New Yorker, of all places.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article