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.
biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:43PM
bikini
bikini swimwear