Recently Sean Penn's interview of the notorious El Chapo (Gúzman) was published in the Rolling Stones magazine. Penn is not particularly known for his journalism but is becoming more well known as a social activist prior to the article.
After the interview was published, many readers are not fond of his "friendly tone" towards Gúzman. After an ABC interview, Senator Marco Rubio responded in Penn's defense after receiving so many criticisms that if actors want “to go fawn all over a criminal and a drug trafficker in their interviews, they have a constitutional right to do it.”
Prior to this interview, Penn has interviewed plenty of controversial people over time like Castro in Cuba.
However, Penn was trying to make a point of demonizing criminals "and this simple man,” Mr. Penn observers, “from a simple place, surrounded by the simple affections of his sons to their father, and his toward them, does not initially strike me as the big bad wolf of lore.”
Personally, I do think some people who have committed a crime should not be defined as a convict solely on one action. On the other hand, if you commit a crime you're technically a criminal. I think Penn was just trying to do something he thought was right. But if you think about it, such a personal interview with such a secretive man is a huge deal because now we have officials records of what Gúzman's life is like.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/arts/international/sean-penns-excursions-into-writing-often-mix-activism-with-journalism.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
I think that Penn simply did not want to be negatively involved in the case, for the actions he had done could not be reversed.
ReplyDeleteJasmine Rodriguez Period 4