After Che premiered at the New York Film Festival last week, Glenn Kenny wrote two blog posts in which he criticized anonymous critics for their criticism of Che’s lack of “human drama.” I knew I was implicated in the complaint –– In his first post, Kenny directly quoted a phrase I used in my write-up of the film but didn’t link to said write-up; in the second, he said he found it “exasperating” to see such a complaint from “people who position themselves as new voices, with new perspectives, in cinematic discourse” –– but I didn’t intend to respond. Not only do I stand by my take on the film and have little else to say beyond what I’ve already written, but when somebody criticizes something I write on the internet without linking, that’s basically equivalent to talking behind my back, and I’m usually content to pretend like I don’t know the talk is going on until I’m invited to defend myself.

But over the past few days, as reviews of the film far more considered than my own have started to stack up online, I’ve noticed something that I do think is worth commenting on. A number of writers, including Keith Uhlich, Michael Joshua Rowin, Nick Schager, Leo Goldsmith and Daniel Kasman, have written reviews which incorporate the criticism that Che is “dispassionate”, that Soderbergh has a “disposable, inconsequential attitude” towards his subject, that the whole thing amounts to a “prolonged and wearying exercise in disinterest.” I’m sure there are more examples out there, but I think the five of them plus me are enough for a focus group. All six of us not only write for what could be called “alternative” publications, but we’re all in our 20s or early 30s––evidence that the “new voices, with new perspectives” that Kenny cites are in fact almost completely united in our “exasperating” take on Che. Che’s key defenders, thus far, are Kenny, J. Hoberman and Amy Taubin –– all veteran critics, and our seniors by several years.

Which is not to say that the old guard is wrong just because they’re the old guard, just as I hope no one is really shaking a fist in the air at “these kids these days.” But I do think there may be something significant to the fact that the divide is breaking down this way. Are younger critics frustrated (or just bored) with Che because for the most part, we don’t bring an emotional, historical or intellectual relationship to its subject to the viewing experience? Or are we just braindead children with the attention spans of infants? Or both?