"Influential" and "Good"

I read something on a comment on an Alien review that got me a little riled up. For the record, it wasn't on my own review of it, and I never read the review, but the comment. It read something like this: "Thank you for recognizing true brilliance. Alien was great because it, like Star Wars, was more of a dirty sci-fi, not showing a picturesque future but a less-than-perfect one. It was also great because it featured a strong woman character, and that was influential."

The gist of it is that it's great because (1) it reinforced the fact that sci-fi movies didn't have to be overly positive, and (2) because it had a strong female character and that idea has been influential in movies nowadays.

Ignoring the fact that the first point isn't really something to praise of criticize (it's just there), let's move onto the second point. While having a strong female character is something to praise, especially for a 1970s flick, the addition that it was "influential" is what I take issue with, largely because I don't believe that films suddenly become "good" if enough movies use some of its elements. They're either always good, or contained one good idea but overall don't become classics because they've helped influence other movies. If that were the case, only a few movies ever would be great, while all others would be ripoffs. Citizen Kane isn't a great movie because its non-linear storytelling (among many other things) was used after it -- it's just great because it was well-made and engaging. Sure, it was innovative, but that just goes into how well-made it is. Innovation in and of itself isn't a big deal. I could shoot a film that's entirely upside down and call it "innovative." But would it be good? And if it were copied, would it retroactively become "good"?

I don't think so. A good movie is a good movie, and whatever comes after it will not change that for better or for worse.

Ciao,
Marter