could I have missed this feature from last Saturday's Guardian UK, in which John Patterson ponders how the world might be different if Sean Penn and George W. Bush were to swap contexts? Patterson points out the similarities between the actor and the president: both were "relatively pampered and lightly educated"; both have made public speaking gaffes that suggest they "should be tethered as tightly as possible to scripts written by other people."

But what qualities does Penn possess that suggest he might be better suited for W's job? Patterson notes that Penn seems to have quelled his legendary instincts towards drunken rebellion, and can now walk a red carpet without feeling moved to start a riot; Bush, meanwhile, "often looks like a man inwardly screaming for a gigantic Jim Beam" - Patterson attributes his policy of foreign offence to The President's " way of sublimating his rage now that hop and grape are unavailable to him". It's all "a ridiculous suggestion, I realise," Patterson says. But, "Could Sean Penn, international hothead, really do a worse job than the fella we've got now?"
categories Cinematical