ROTTEN TOMATOES: Meet a Critic: Former Village Voice Critic Nathan Lee, Part One

Meet a Critic: Former Village Voice Critic Nathan Lee, Part One

The first of a two-part correspondence with the former Village Voice scribe.

by Jen Yamato | April 15, 2008

Discuss Article

Name: Nathan Lee

Age: 33

Hometown: My own private Idaho.

Years reviewing film: 7

For better or worse, recently departed Village Voice writer Nathan Lee has become something of a poster boy for the disappearance of the film critic. The irony is that Lee is far from the stodgy old cineaste that some denounce as irrelevant, out of touch, or replaceable; to the contrary, he's one of a few late-Generation X critics in a position of major media influence, having written for the New York Sun, the New York Times, Film Comment and the Village Voice, and all by the tender age of 33.

In the first of our two-part interview with Lee, the equally intelligent and profane writer (who parted ways with the Voice last month) answers our Meet a Critic questionnaire. Check in next week for our more in-depth conversation with Lee about his exit from the celebrated alt-weekly and his surprising thoughts on the future of film criticism.

Why and how did you become a critic?

Nathan Lee: Randomly, fortuitously.

Fill in the blank: "If I wasn't a professional film critic, I'd be ..."

NL: ...a wealthier man than I am now.

What is your favorite film and who is your favorite director?

NL: I'm dying to answer Southland Tales just to watch a number of heads explode. The honest answer would circle around Rio Bravo, North By Northwest, Flowers of Shanghai, The Docks of New York, M, Au Hasard Balthazar, and a half-dozen films by either Jean-Luc Godard or Andy Warhol or Robert Beavers or Jean Renoir or...But if I had to zoom in on just one, my gut says David Cronenberg's Crash, the most inexhaustible movie I know, and one whose tone and meaning change every time I see it -- ten and counting.

What's the worst movie you've ever seen, and why?

NL: I'm dying to answer The Diving Bell and the Butterfly just to watch a number of heads explode.

What other film critics/bloggers/entertainment journalists do you read regularly?

NL: I dip into lots of folks, both in print and online, although the longer I write about movies the less useful I find movie writing. The Rest is Noise, Alex Ross's amazing chronicle of 20th century classical music, opened up richer avenues of thought than all the film criticism I read last year. That said, I read every word penned by Amy Taubin, Kent Jones, J. Hoberman, and James Quandt.

What does a film need to achieve to earn a perfect rating from Nathan Lee?

NL: Generally, it needs to be directed by either Robert Bresson or Robert Beavers.

What is the state of current film criticism?

NL: Slightly better than the State of the Union.

What is the state of modern cinema?

NL: Fascinating, frustrating, enthused, enervated, joyous, despondent, inspired, idiotic -- in short, the same as it's always been.

What's the biggest misconception about film critics?

NL: That our job is to see movies. I wish. The job is to write.

What word or phrase do you over-use?

NL: "Improbable." "Bitches."

When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?

NL: Luke Skywalker.

What is your most common concession stand purchase?

NL: Imaginary cigarettes.

What has been your most bizarre movie-going experience?

NL: Watching a 3-D IMAX underwater documentary while on LSD.

Editor's extra -- We've assembled some of our favorite recent Nathan Lee reviews below for your perusal. Check back next week for Part II of our interview.

George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead (2008): "Please. Everyone knows you can't trust The Man, and while you might find a more or less rational zombie infestation in a civilized place like England, traceable to an outbreak of the rage virus (28 Days Later), here in America that shit just happens"..."Diary climaxes as a kind of Zombie Year at Marienbad." (Full review here.)

Cloverfield (2008): " The mechanism is the message in Cloverfield, a movie so aluminum-sleek, ultra-portable, and itsy-bitsy sexy, it's amazing Steve Jobs didn't pull it out of an envelope at Macworld." (Full review here.)

The Hottie and the Nottie (2008): "Scripted by Heidi Ferrer and shat onscreen by director Tom Putnam, this strong contender for The Worst Movie I've Ever Seen follows Nate's attempt to woo the "hottie" while suffering the rancid foot fungus, oozing facial blisters, and hideous tooth decay of her best friend, June Phigg (Christine Lakin)." (Full review here.)

Related Items

Critic:	Nathan Lee
Source:	Film Comment Magazine
	New York Times
	Village Voice

(1-20 of 20 posts) | Reply

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Apr 15 2008 05:23 PM

Yawn.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Apr 15 2008 05:43 PM

Way to contribute, Bruce.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Apr 15 2008 05:48 PM

I do what I can.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Apr 15 2008 11:58 PM

I'm sorry, but I agree with Bruce. Not to say the article itself wasn't newsworthy--it was--but Lee's attitude can be summed up in one word, concisely expressing why I never read the Village Voice(and I'm a native New Yorker) on a regular occasion: PRETENTIOUS.

Also, I don't know what's with this new culture of so-called "ultra-hipness" of people in the public spotlight suddenly admitting to the drugs they did way back when("Watching a 3-D IMAX underwater documentary while on LSD"). With all the problems society faces in keeping kids off of drugs, it's simply irresponsible for anyone to blatantly point out the where/what/when of their "cool" experiences with such. Not that kids should be sheltered from the fact such things exist, but Lee should realize that someone somewhere might think "that sounds awesome" and try it themselves, only with more harmful consequences than what he experienced. Absolutely irresponsible of him.

Your article was nicely written though, Jen...I just wish a better subject had been chosen to answer your questions.

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Apr 16 2008 12:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#1689316)
My most bizarre movie-going experience was watching The Departed while I was LSD, Vodka, Coke and Mescaline. If there are any children reading this make sure not to mix drugs like that since it can stop your heart, or give you seizures among other things. I am just really cool so it didn't affect me...

Jen Yamato kicks ***.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Apr 16 2008 09:20 AM

The only critic I really listen to is EBERT.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Apr 16 2008 09:51 AM

Thank you to Bruce for always getting the discussion going.

Thanks to Young Turk for the encouragement. I'll keep trying to kick as much *** as possible.

Most of all, thanks to thereign - I see what you're saying about the drug comment, but is it a writer/critic's responsibility to be a public figure/role model for kids, in the same way that one might expect it of a celebrity?

And I am interested to hear what you, as a New Yorker, think of the sweeping cuts that have befallen not only critics nationwide, but those in the New York metropolitan area (Nathan Lee, Jack Mathews, Gene Seymour, Jan Stuart).

Having talked with Nathan Lee, I will say that I don't feel he's one of those snobby, pretentious critics. I think his writing really demonstrates a lot of what is needed in criticism, if the profession is to survive: witty, dialed-in, irreverent, entertaining, and obviously knowledgeable. I wholly agree with Lee's answer to the biggest misconception about critics. The focus should be on the writing, and needs to be if new generations of readers (who are closer in age to Lee than to most of his peers) are going to value film criticism as much as their parents did.

In any case, next week I'll be running Part 2 of the Nathan Lee interview, based on a long conversation we had on a wide range of subjects. I hope you check it out and get a deeper understanding of who he is and why (I feel) he's important.

(Reply to this)

stacilayne writes:
on Apr 16 2008 11:21 AM

Hey... Jen, I didn't get a two-part interview! (Thank goodness for that, actually. I'm in emo-aversion therapy even as I type. Can you hear the Sunny Day Real Estate playing?)

Joking aside, I did want to drop a note to say that although I haven't read any of Nathan's reviews before, I will be on the lookout for them from now on. I like his style and sense of humor. I think this Meet A Critic weekly feature is a fun idea; I'm learning a lot, and I think you do a great job with your interviews, Jen.

I agree with you on your comment about Nathan's answer to what is the biggest misperception on working as a film reviewer. There's the writing for sure, but a lot of people don't take into account the major time commitment involved just on driving to- and from- screenings (in L.A., it can take up to 2 - 3 extra hours sitting in traffic, as the $4 per gallon gas evaporates at the speed of light). Then there's the joy of parking, waiting for screenings to begin (usually about 20 minutes after the appointed time, but I've sat in a theater seat in front of a blank screen for 45 minutes to an hour), and so on.

I love what I do and I would not trade my job for the world because the joys far outweigh the woes, but it really is a whole package %u2014 not just "watching movies, and getting paid for it."

Finally, I'm wondering if you've profiled Rob Humanick from Slant magazine yet. He's a recent discovery of mine (loved his RT pull quote on THE FOUNTAIN), and if you haven't already interviewed him, I think he'd be a good candidate for Meet A Critic.

Staci

(Reply to this)

RT-Ryan writes:
on Apr 16 2008 11:57 AM

I just want to say, I think it's wonderful that Staci actively participates in these discussions. Oh yeah, and good job, Jen! And rock on, Nathan!

(Reply to this)

Mr. Cartmenez writes:
on Apr 16 2008 12:01 PM

Have you ever seen an IMAX movie while ure trippin balls. Its kinda awesome

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Apr 16 2008 12:16 PM

Why bother interviewing a guy who's going to just be a smartass instead of actually answering the questions.

It would have been interesting to find out his answers, but he's obviously more interesting in trying to be cool and "clever" than having something real to say.

Are we really supposed to feel bad he got fired if this is any example of what he has to say?

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Apr 16 2008 12:19 PM

And yeah, I have to agree with Bruce as well.

(Reply to this)

Gymkata Ninja writes:
on Apr 16 2008 12:56 PM

I like Nathan Lee and I think his reviews are the opposite of what people are trying to make him into. Instead of being some stodgy old crank, he still has an enthusism for cinema of all types and his reviews are often very funny. I especially liked his review of Black Snake Moan. Plus he likes Southland Tales, Godard, and Bresson, which makes him just fine in my book. I hope he continues to write for Film Comment.

(Reply to this)

Gymkata Ninja writes:
on Apr 16 2008 01:04 PM

Also, how square is "thereign?" I mean the guy takes acid while watching some IMAX nature doc and you decry his morals? How about...who cares. I bet every single one of those great 70s directors/actors/writers took acid quite a bit in the 60s/70s and the movies are better for it. I bet even squares like George Lucas took some acid from time to time. How do you think he came up with lightsabers and the "force?"

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Apr 16 2008 02:50 PM

Gymkata Ninja;

I think Lucas came up with lightsabers and the force by borrowing heavily from other ideas which came before, such as Kurosawa and Christianity among them(or did you think "May the Force be with you" was on the scene before "May the Lord be with you" was inducted into Catholic masses? Not to go off on a God tangent, but know your facts first) like a lot of film directors do. And if being someone who prefers to not fry their synapses like an idiot makes me square, then I'm happy to be labeled as such.

Please think before you write, for goodness sake.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Apr 16 2008 03:11 PM

Jen;

I think it's sad that a lot of critics--New York and otherwise--are dropping like flies. Even when the NY Daily News' Jamie Bernard was given the pink slip a few years back, I didn't see this coming. In my opinion, it's just one more example of how illiterate and knuckle dragging society is becoming.

When news articles talk about how teens and twentysomethings tend to listen to their own peers rather than an experienced voice with more knowledge of why a story does or doesn't work, those are the same people who should be thrown into a gulag for making something like Meet the Spartans #1 at the box office while a truly great film like Gone Baby Gone slides silently into the grave.

Sadly, these hard ink cuts will probably not cease anytime soon. Thank God we have the internet to save us!(Rolls eyes sarcastically)

As far as Lee's talk of his LSD use goes: I refer you to the statement I made in my initial post here. I honestly believe that once you enter the public spotlight, you have a duty to be more judicious in what you say. Inspirations, heroes, idols, come from every direction and in every field.

How many times have we heard the stories about certain people wanting to become doctors because they saw McCoy on Star Trek? I wanted to become a writer myself based partly on the books I read, the movies I saw, the personalities of certain authors. While being a newspaper film critic may no longer be a viable career option, there may still be someone who likes Nathan Lee's writing enough that they may choose to emulate him...in every manner.

People in the public eye simply have a greater influence on the young in our culture than they think, which is what saddens me every time I see something like Paris Hilton still existing, and people on MySpace still writing her saying "You go, girl!" Guh....

Where the hell's that asteroid that's supposed to wipe us all out someday, anyway? It's running late!
:-P

(Reply to this)

Wanted and Desired writes:
on Apr 16 2008 03:52 PM

Wow, that's the most pointless "interview" I've ever read. Thanks for all the insights, douchebag. This guy comes across as simultaneously smug and retarded. Now that's an achievement!

(Reply to this)

wbgoose13 writes:
on Apr 16 2008 06:19 PM

Drugs or no drugs, Nathan is an awfully astute critic for his age, shafted too soon, and I for one think he wears snark well - which is better than most of his ilk can claim.

Bring on Part Two!

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Apr 17 2008 05:42 AM

this guys thinks he's funny?

nathan lee: what do you mean i'm funny

martinscorsese25: you know, the way you tell the story..

nathan lee: no! i mean funny how, am i a clown, am i here to f***ing amuse you? what the f*** is so funny about me, tell me, tell me whats funny!!!

(we stare at each other)

martinscorsese25: get the f*** outta here nathan...

LOL

ps even though nathan lee thinks that he's funny, he's not!!! intervewee somebody else please!!!

(Reply to this)

paranoid android writes:
on Jun 09 2009 03:57 AM

Awesome. Sounds like a fun dude to chill with.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Nathan Lee

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links