I saw the future through a two-way mirror in November 1990. I had just started a new job as a senior editor at Entertainment Weekly, a magazine then less than a year old, and I was sitting in a darkened room with nine or ten other members of the staff, watching a focus group. Page by page, an amiable, den-motherly facilitator led half a dozen of the magazine’s subscribers through a discussion of the latest issue, the cover subject of which was John Lennon, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of his death. (I would like to think of that cover choice as evidence of the young magazine’s mavericky resistance to the forces of hype, though the truth is that the top editors, veterans of People, thought of dead celebrities as good for newsstand sales.) Toward the end of the session, the focus group got to the back of the book, the pages devoted to reviews of movies, TV shows, CDs, and books—my chief area of responsibility—and I flipped to a clean sheet on my notepad.
The group was asked about the lead piece, a movie review by Owen Gleiberman, a transplant from the Boston Phoenix who was the magazine’s sole film critic at the time. I no longer remember what movie he had reviewed for that issue, or what the assembled readers said about it. What I recall most vividly from that day is what most surprised me: how the people in the focus group brightened when they came to a small box of type set in the corner of the first page of Gleiberman’s prose.
Identified as Critical Mass, the box contained a list of ten movies showing around the country, followed by grades (A-plus, A, and so forth, down to F) assigned to those...
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.





Criticism of art is criticism of life? Maybe I have other sources for criticism of life, and detect a bit of hubris in the critic who hopes to purvey this to me.
Honestly, I do sometimes just want to know whether I should see the movie. And for movies, my local paper could probably use a national critic, rather than the local one (who doesn't seem to share my sense of humor).
For plays, my local paper has always not printed negative reviews of our local theater companies. They don't lie, they just don't print the negative review. This is not a new policy.
And book reviews? They don't just tell me whether to buy the book, they usually save me the trouble of reading the book. I'm not going to read an 800 page biography of Andrew Jackson. I have a day job. But it's nice to be reminded of salient information about Jackson in six paragraphs. Sorry to be such a dilettante...
So, your readers are consumers, we like critics who serve us, get used to it.
Posted by William Braden on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 11:58 PM