Interstellar (2014) ****/5: Captures the imagination of those that star gaze and wonder about their place in the universe but is overcooked in parts and underwhelming in others.

In Interstellar we finally have a film that takes as its premise our place in the universe and the inevitable fact  that we won’t survive forever on earth in this solar system. Even if the film itself is overcooked or lopsided, in parts, the topic of interstellar travel will become increasingly important in the next 20, 000 years or so if we’re still around. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long and humans have burnt very brightly in our short stay on earth.  The solar system itself will eventually die when the vast energy of the sun is extinguished.  A lot of documentaries that discuss the vastness of the universe make it clear that human kind must search for a new home in the cosmos. The distance to be covered is vast, however,  hence why we must first look for signs of life in our own solar system such as on the planet Mars or on the Saturn moon, Titan. It will be difficult for us to consider travel beyond this solar system for now because our Milky Way Galaxy is so huge there is not much of a chance in our human form unless you can learn to cover great distances in quick time. In  Interstellar there is a wormhole located close to Saturn that opens the door for the exploration of other galaxies and planets. Wormholes have been used in sci-fi films before as a means to allow our great space heroes to travel great distances however Christopher Nolan &co. have applied a rigorous scientific basis for it.

Interstellar is a film about a group of explorers led by Cooper (Matthew MCconaughey) and Dr. Brand (Anne Hathaway) that take a trip to another galaxy, through a mysterious wormhole near Saturn,  in search of other planets that could support life so that they can rescue the humans  on a earth whose environment is growing increasingly hostile to life on earth. The trip takes place at a time when space exploration in the near future is considered a waste of time and the production of food more important since the planet strangely ran out. It is a dust bowl sort of future with advanced technology flourishing underground in a  Nasa base.  At the heart of the film is the relationship between Cooper and his daughter, Murph (Jessica Chastain,  with Mckenzie Foy playing the younger version) which addresses the issue of the power and endurance of  the love humans have for each other; a love that can cover all sort of space –time distances.

If Nolan was a bit more daring with the human story he would have made a towering piece of work from an emotional point of view. It still captures, magnificently, the scientific basis for space exploration apart from the mystic elements related to some 5^th dimension. The black hole was the high point of the film in terms of spectacle.

Positives

The primary positives were the visual and scientific bases for space exploration. The scene featuring the ship moving along the surface of a black hole (which is an accurate depiction of what scientists expect black holes to look like) is something to behold.  The look of the two planets explored look more artistic than realistic but are certainly eye candy particularly the planet covered mostly in ice. The tidal wave sequence was  interesting as well but it seemed too convenient as if Nolan intended those huge waves for an Imax presentation. Not everyone, like myself, will watch the film in IMAX and so the awe  of seeing  such a massive tidal wave in all its grandeur was never there for me. I know deep down that Nolan made that sequence explicitly for IMAX and so it’s a bit too manipulative.  The question I have though is:  How can there be a planet that is composed primarily of water or ice? Is there a scientific basis for this or was it just an artistic creation? This is what I could never come to terms with although the scenery was great to look at.

This film does well to capture the imagination that comes when we look up at the stars and that is commendable.

The explanation for what a wormhole is expected to look like was also well done. I liked how it represents this distortion in the space time continuum as it manipulates the environment around it. I was not so impressed by the actual journey through the wormhole because it seemed like a typical sci-fi episode to me although it is supposed to be scientifically based..

I also liked the human element related to love and conflict. This is seen primarily through the relationship between Cooper and Murph but there is a bit of surprise involving Dr. Brand and her own tale of love that truly challenges the scientific basis and has certain consequences for the mission when the characters decide to follow the scientific lead as opposed to the emotional one. This leads to all sorts of surprises particularly on the ice planet where the team find the lone survivor of a previous mission, Dr. Mann (Matt Damon). These were some of the best moments when it concerned the conflict scenarios in the film. It also demonstrates how easily misled the team was from a scientific basis.  The relationship between Murph and Cooper was a good one but it could have been more effective if Nolan took certain risks.  The relationship actually hinders the film in some way. The mystery surrounding Professor Brand (Michael Caine) is also interesting. It is made more interesting because he likes to repeat a particular quote by Dylan Thomas. Sometimes it's funny.

The presentation of the future earth was interesting but limited in my opinion. It’s interesting to see that technology takes a back seat to large scale farming which is not normally the case. NASA, as we know it, is home to some of the most advanced technology on earth and it is forced underground due to food priorities. According to Cooper humans have become a generation of caretakers instead of explorers and pioneers. According to his father in law (John Lithgow) there was a time when the latest technological gadget was always celebrated like christmas. Now humankind is compelled strictly by necessity. The fantasy of capitalism and its scientific and technological advances are a thing of past. That is a very interesting viewpoint of the future suggesting that capitalism is the beacon of light within us and that without it we will languish  in the realm of dire necessity. I never knew that Nolan was a spokesman for capitalism now. The farming  in this film does not seem capitalist at all because the farmers are not seen as accumulators of wealth with their large cornfields they are seen as uneducated, ignorant individuals, which is a perception normally associated with the past not the future.

Negatives

The primary negatives of this film  are associated with a narrow viewpoint and a overextended one.

The narrow viewpoints come with the presentation of a dying earth.  I was not convinced that earth was dying or that human kind was dying out. In this film dust storms and an increase of nitrogen in the atmosphere are the only indicators of disaster but that’s not enough particularly as the only part of the earth that’s featured is Cooper’s farm. What is going on in the other parts of the world? We can’t just take the viewpoint of NASA, seeking to justify the need for exploration, as the only acceptable explanation. It is too convenient because here in Jamaica I want to know what’s going on. Is it that we must see NASA, an American organization,  as our savior? There is no collaboration with the phenomenal scientific talents of other countries. Not even the Europeans are featured in the collaboration process which is very strange. It seems that America is dying out and needs to find a new home not all of human kind. The morale being that if America finds its feet then the world will be saved. So I never really understood how all of the earth is dying out or what changes lead to the increasingly hostile environment. The scientific basis of this aspect is wrong in my opinion and I say that without being an expert. I take the viewpoints of the geologists featured on many documentaries that make it clear that our time here is a mere  moment for  the  earth’s timeline. It is difficult to accept that in the 21^st century we will suddenly have a dying earth or an earth unable to support life when the prognostication is that the earth will be around for a long time in all its glory. If human beings stay around for the next 20, 000 years we will still find an earth able to support life; the real changes will come millions of years from now.  This bias of human centrism associated with sci-fi films such as this only obscures the issue without explaining it properly. Yes Nolan needed some basis to go off into space but it all comes crashing down when you realize that there was no real reason to leave in the first place apart from a situation concocted by the writers who claim that this film is scientifically based.  

Is this film a propaganda tool for capitalism? It seems so because the farmers are considered uneducated and ignorant in a future that focuses primarily on food production. Did capitalism disappear because of climate change? What happened to all the great centres of commerce and industry? Capitalism must have disappeared because it does not seem as if Cooper and his family are planting acres of corn for profit or they would be rich with all that acreage under cultivation. One would expect that the technological foundation laid by capitalism would still remain in the future instead of being forced underground.  Nolan really ignored a detailed presentation of earth for an excuse to leave it.

Are we also to believe that a wormhole was left there for us to explore other galaxies? I went into the film with the expectation that this wormhole would be a normal scientific anomaly only to hear that it was left there by divine beings from the 5^th dimension. Instead of encouraging space exploration this film can make it seem like a waste of time. Why haven’t we exhausted the possibilities of our own solar system?  Why do we have to rely on some empty equation to solve the issue of gravity? It is clear that covering large distances in space will not come with wormholes based on how the film  explains it but by advanced technology that can allow us to travel at very fast, sustainable speeds and with adequate fuel reserves. I would rather take my chances with developing ships that can travel at light speed than waiting for a wormhole to be left for us by divine elements.  Wait we’re back at the old Sci-fi premise of interstellar travel and Nolan with his realistic account has made those premises more believable.  Very interesting.

Nolan also overstretched the divine element in this film with too much explanation. ‘They’ , as the divine beings are normally referred to , left this wormhole for us and also left the answers  in the heart of a black hole. I agree with one particular critic, although I can’t remember his name, that Kubrick understood in 2001: A Space Odyssey that you have to keep things vague but be firm in your presentation. You have to leave some mystery. This is why the ending of Inception was more effective. It left open many possibilities.  Nolan tries to explain everything, even the divine origins of the universe. Not even he is that smart. In Kubrick’s case we left in search of a divine being that kept pushing us onward as a species. It was not deliberately pushing us to force a mass exodus from earth. It was  igniting that drive to go further and change what we thought of ourselves by having us go further into the unknown.  The divine being was something we could relate to in a strange fascinating way because the monolith remained mysterious. In  Nolan’s case  we are given strange explanations as a basis for Cooper to be reunited with his daughter.  The element of love becomes a hokey device but it also becomes a platform for interesting designs on Nolan’s part.  It is because Nolan tried to explain everything that people are now looking for all sort of plot holes. ‘How did this happen?’ etc.  it would have been more effective if the beings from another dimension did not exist just the dimension itself. A dimension we could use to manipulate space and time.

 Nolan  could have been more daring in his presentation of the father daughter relationship by not making them reunite in body but in spirit . Firstly, the film would have been stronger if he left to lay the foundations for colonization of new planets instead of finding the planets and then desperately trying to return home.  This is hinted at towards the end.  If he desperately tried to return home then he would be blocked by some form of conflict such as the disappearance of the wormhole etc.  Yes he would relay the information to the earth but he would have to come to terms with a new form of settlement.  He would let them know that he could not return and that he hoped they would eventually use the equation for the massive exodus from earth. He would know the risks he was taking.  The people of earth would join him later or maybe by then he and Brand would have been long gone leaving their footprints behind. The daughter would be proud and would have accepted his decision to leave her. Do they really expect us to believe that you can move 6 billion people by solving some equation about gravity? I wonder what an abandoned earth looks like?

I just made that suggestion to imply that Nolan could have gone all out and really make the emotional impact heartfelt. In the end Cooper and his team would be known as great explorers and pioneers without having to return to earth. 

In terms of explanation Nolan could have provided us with more visual illustrations. Not enough of the concept are translated visually hence why people get lost in the middle.

A lot of the characters are disposable in this film. My favourite character was Romily (David Gyasi) but he and the other astronaut are easily disposed of. This should not be the case if everything did not centre on Cooper reuniting with his daughter.

In the end Nolan overcooked this film in parts and under cooked in some with the result being that there are some moments to behold and those where you have to question whether this is just a propaganda tool.  All this mystery surrounding the plot was not worth it in the end.

Follow up to the PG-13 discussion with a particular look at Demolition Man (1993)

Any critic, professional or amateur, that originally dismissed Demolition Man (1993) as a silly sci-fi action film needs to reconsider that assessment in light of where  Western civilization is headed. In light of my discussion on the age of PG-13 blockbusters I decided to take another look at this film which I remembered because of its satire directed at what was expected to be a futuristic  Los Angeles society (renamed San Angeles in the film). The action aside, since they had to provide entertainment, this satirical viewpoint coincided with what I was saying about blockbusters being dominated by films rated PG-13. The beret Stallone wears in The Expendables series is clearly reminiscent of his portrayal as Sergeant John Spartan in Demolition Man who wore similar head dress.

Firstly, according to the film the future is a sanitized, technologically enhanced, physically weakened environment. According to Simon phoenix (Wesley Snipes) the people are  ‘pussy whipped’. Most of the people are very dependent on technology, physical contact is avoided in order to preserve a clean environment and reduce the risk of disease or germ transmission and contraction and the moral code is strictly regulated. When you curse you’re fined. One important prediction in this film is that the society is cashless and everyone has an assigned code which provides information on the various credits which they use to conduct transactions etc. This is similar to the trend in society today particularly from a moral point of view where there is increased regulation of profanity or ludicrous behavior which is seen as a shocking act or something from the sewers. We are trying to make this world quite harmonious from a pg-13 perspective when we step outside. Every act of violence in the bourgeois world above is portrayed as savage or barbaric i.e. acts with no purpose and there is no such thing as conflict. Everything must be in harmony.  This has always been the case when the ruling class wishes to dominate and create a sense of harmony in a world where their rules prevail but with the pg-13 blockbusters the trend is clear. The barbarism in some blockbusters in the‘80s and ‘90s is being replaced by a high technological and sanitized portrayal that is very cerebral. In Demolition Man the cerebral element is made fun of when sex is turned into strictly mind to mind contact. There is also the mystery of how to use the three sea shells after taking a shit, no let me say defecating, instead of toilet paper which is considered primitive. Well  this prediction is timely because it is claimed internationally,  and here in Jamaica, that some toilet papers carry bacterial agents. They need to hurry up with the three sea shells.

Secondly, in Demolition Man the R-rated element is portrayed as a criminal, savage class that lives underground.  They are led by the rebel Edgar Friendly who is only about survival. They are the rebels that refuse to be dominated by the bourgeois dictator Dr. Raymond Cocteau and the highly stylized and technological way of living.  They represent the source of conflict  in the film because Cocteau decides to release Simon Phoenix to kill Friendly. In order to stop Phoenix the modern police force  bring back John Spartan, an old fashioned cop from the barbaric ‘90s because they are incapable of handling the type of savage violence that Phoenix is capable of. This is quite similar to how R-rated blockbusters have been taken over by the PG-13 element as discussed previously. The R-rated blockbusters have been submerged underground and those of the past are considered guilty pleasures in light of the rampant CGI on display where actors hover in front of a green screen to appear grandiose and outrageously fantastic.  If you read a lot of reviews of the old  R-rated blockbusters there are many critics that describe them in the same manner as the enlightened bourgeoisie in Demolition Man describe the subterranean rebels led by Friendly. A lot of these critics describe these old R-rated blockbusters as mindless, savage in their excess violence, or stuck in a bygone era. We are told to embrace the dawn of the superheroes over the cowboys. We are told to embrace gross CGI, cerebral spectacle that has no bearing on reality over more gritty presentations of more down to earth, realistic violence.

One final reason why Demolition Man should be reconsidered is in its prediction about Schwarzenegger.  The icons of the great R-rated blockbusters have become holy political figures and have turned their back on what made them great. Schwarzenegger in this film was predicted to become president although in reality he was only made governor of California. If you watch the film again you will laugh out loud when it’s mentioned especially when you consider the rivalry between Stallone and Schwarzenegger in those days. In these days the stars of R-rated blockbusters are viewed as expendable but holy for those that grew up in that era. However  in the pg-13 generation the trend will be, by some, to view them with revulsion. Just like the demolition man was viewed in this film.

Are we in the PG-13/middle of the road age for blockbusters?

I  have now come to accept that the age of the R rated blockbuster is over. Most, if not all, of the blockbusters are rated PG-13. I understand why this is so because it’s clearly a strategy to reach more of the market when a film is released but I still have some issues with this trend. My problems stem from the fact that the release of PG-13 rated blockbusters deny us the opportunity to get a real sense of dread. A lot of momentum is lost when we don’t get to appreciate the gruesome nature of  certain situations that characters normally find themselves in when the action is ramped up. I am not particularly caught up in seeing gruesome episodes but it actually helps us to relate to the struggle of the protagonists. If it’s overdone it can be absurd but when done right the sense of dread is ever present especially when you know what the villain is capable of. It not only applies to violence because R-rated blockbusters would give you the chance to view things in unadulterated  form. You don’t have to concern yourself with seeing things off screen when it can be viewed directly such as a disfigured person or someone mutated without special effects.

Some of the most seminal blockbusters have been R-Rated and they benefitted tremendously from the R-rating. Films like The Exorcist, Alien, Aliens, Predator, Blade Runner, Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Speed, Total Recall(1990),  Blade, The Matrix, The Matrix  Reloaded,  The Matrix Revolutions etc have all benefitted from  being R-rated. I recently watched Total Recall and then saw Guardians of the Galaxy and the differences could not be more stark. Firstly in Guardians… there is a scene where Gamora is stranded in space and the atmosphere seems certain to kill her until Quill/Starlord comes along and gives her support. I noticed that there was little struggle. Yes it seemed like their flesh was disintegrating but I never got a sense of a violent or intense reaction to this disintegration. Most people would respond violently to such a situation when they encounter in naked form the atmosphere of space which does not support life. Instead they tried to make it appear like a beautiful scene with nice colours and no blood etc. Contrast this with Total Recall (1990) when the protagonists are confronted with the harsh atmosphere of  Mars particularly in the final scenes where their eyes start to bulge and their flesh begins to swell as if they are about to pop. That is much more realistic in terms of coming to grips with how you would really act when the environment is not conducive to supporting life.  

Because of this lack of dread that comes when you cant show everything a lot of the PG-13 films have to rely a lot on your imagination or something heartfelt to bring the message of dread across. It can come across as lukewarm or sleep inducing when done wrong. The best PG-13 blockbuster films are those that introduce a sense of dread that have an R-Rating feel. Look at the scene in The Dark Knight w4hen the joker plans to do a magic trick by making a pencil disappear. He smashes the man’s head into the pencil and voila it disappears. If it was not a PG-13 film then we would have seen all of it and the dread about the joker would be increased especially as he likes to use his knife to burst the mouth open with the idea of making that person smile. Because it is PG-13  it is all done in a flash. It is those dreadful episodes that made the joker menacing in that film although we could not see the actual act in slow time or upfront.  The technique of the Joker using the knife to burst the mouth open was nothing new because it was seen before in Pan’s Labyrinth and in the scene where the rebel posing as a maid in the vile captains house got a chance to inflict damage she took the knife and to cut the mouth open. The difference in that R-rated film is that we actually saw it and it looks quite painful but certainly not enough to kill. This is the reality and so because what the joker did is so mysterious or hidden from view we cannot see how he could kill someone in an instant (Gambol) by bursting their mouth open with a knife. An R-rated film would have shown you in more plain terms and highlight why it was not as gruesome or dramatic as once thought. In The Dark Knight Rises the fight between Batman and Bane ends with the former’s back being broken. It is that crunching element that made you realize that all is over for Batman for awhile.  When the aid in Bane’s prison tells him that there is a bone protruding from his back and it has to be put back we are to imagine the severity of the injury but in a R-rated film it would have been easier to show it and so the audience would know if it was so severe that he could not possibly be healed and fully fit in less than a year or if it was not so severe and so explain why he could recover in time to save his city. The mystery of the injury did not help the film. R-rated films would not take such a risk with the protagonist. The most they would allow is for a shot in the leg or a broken hand or foot. Breaking a man’s back is a bit risky.

The presentation of creatures in the classic blockbusters benefited from the R-rated experience. In Alien and Predator the threat of these two characters is enhanced because of their destructive effect on human beings and the dread of what they actually look like. It made them seem more fearsome and threatening. The chest bursting scene in Alien is so unique in its brutality which is all explained by how that particular biological organism functions. You don’t get a sense of that with the creatures presented in these PG-13 blockbuster films because most are digitally created. Watching Godzilla brought out  nothing when I saw the bloated CGI creations in full flight. In the PG-13  King Kong (2005) the R-rated elements were there particularly in that brutal fight between Kong and the T-rexes. A lot of biting and jaw  snapping and tongue biting. It probably was not given R because of the CGI element and because  it was a animal fight. We see it all the time on discovery or national geographic.. It bordered on the R-rating territory but not much brutality was done to humans apart from a spear through the chest. In Total Recall (1990) the design of the mutants are so detailed and realistic that it deserved it’s R-rating but don’t expect to see such fantastic creations now. In that film it made more sense because it showed you how people could be disfigured by the environment and this made the reality more believable.

In the PG-13 blockbuster profanity is limited and this denies us a lot of reality particularly when you have to interact with ordinary people caught up in the ramped up action. They start saying the least offensive words such as shit or asshole. In Guardians… what is asshole becomes a-hole for comedic effect. In r-rated blockbusters when the person says fuck out of frustration or anxiety I feel it. Obviously it has to be acted well. I don’t feel it when they have to say ‘freakin’ or ‘what the hell!’.

In the age of PG-13 blockbusters we have to contend with what is fantasy and reality on a gut level. On a gut level the R in R-rated stands for reality (according to me) whereas PG-13 and PG and G blockbuster films deal primarily in the realm of fantasy. With all these blockbusters rated PG-13 how can I relate to the struggles of the characters on a gut level. Even when Star Wars IV premiered in 1977 and was rated PG men were being shot straight through with lazer beams, leaving a hole, and the jedis hacked off limbs with their sabers. E.T would definitely fit well in this day and age. A lot of elements from the old Indiana Jones films would not be with us if released to day. In those days however at least there was a definite demarcation. People had more of a choice in choosing kiddy fare or adult fare and now we are middle of the road for all which is much worse. It seems that the calls to tame the violence have won out and the remakes of famous R-Rated films such as Robocop and Total Recall have become sanitized, fantastic representatives of the gritty originals. No wonder they flopped.  No wonder a lot of the action stars of the 80s and 90s are expendable in such an age of freewheeling CGI. When the first two The Expendables were released and featured the violence that was customary in the 80s and 90s it was written off by many critics as over the top or showboating. They would rather engage in a more cerebral experience that looks at all these characters as ideas instead of people. In this day and age a blockbuster must have the proper decorum before it can be released.  Blockbusters have become more academic and emotional instead of testosterone or more dreadful as it was in the past. It seems that everyone wants to get past that and create more sanitized blockbusters for the whole family.  

I only like the PG-13 blockbusters that border on what an R-rated film would bring to the table.

LOL @ pic below 

(photo courtesy of highschoolhumorblog.com)

Why can’t we reclaim the essence of the original material or the high standards that paved the way?

(photo courtesy of risk.net)

Every movement that starts promisingly or powerfully always ends in some form of ignominy or final absolution that heralds its decline. Well if not ignominy or absolution then a form of static manifestation or the pinnacle of decadence which is a sight for sore eyes as the extravagance is something to behold. But why? Why do we always reach this stage in our lives when we are called out for not adhering to the lofty standards of our forefathers who paved the way?

The answer is quite simple: we are not meant to reclaim the essence of what made us great. We embody it every day as we go along and we add new ways that will deviate from the original but will be tied to it in some way just as other original manifestations are created in its place or stand side by side with it. We would never be where we were if not for the original exposition or detailed examination of a particular subject.  This original material is inevitably improved upon but never superseded. This expansion moves into the realm of quantity where some elements added to the original are redundant and are vulgar expressions or manifestations. With quantity comes extravagance and extravagance is merely just one way of squeezing as much as can be squeezed from the quality of the original material. It is only when this happens that it is claimed that we can’t aspire to the high standards of the past when in fact the high standard is only reached when we embody all the advancements that came with additions to the original. The original is never complete and to reach a mature stage it must be enhanced in a quantitative form until it ripens and then rots. The dogmatic way becomes almost tedious. When the original element is being formed it requires extensive examination and implementation to guarantee success in some form or the other in the social sphere. It cannot be dogmatic because it has to be tested by whatever reality it encounters and create its own space in that reality. Once it creates its own space it justifies its place as a part of the whole or by becoming one of its many parts. It is almost natural how the original element assumes its place. When the quantitative elements expand the original they do not necessarily make it grander but only refine it or make it even more pronounced.

The high standard of the original was not necessarily as high as previously thought because of the fact that various elements are added to it for enhancement. The real problem is that the original element is exalted beyond a certain reasonable measure and so it actually reaches its peak under the present and not the past.  It is only in the present that the extravagance of the original material becomes unbearable or reflective of decline. The pinnacle of decadence is one term for it because the original material becomes entrenched or even oppressive. When the original was being formed it was actually an inspiring element and gave people hope to follow and to add to it. It is when you can no longer add to what made that original element great, in terms of quality, does it become a great burden to live up to. It can no longer inspire others because any further addition is merely a sign of extravagance. You can never reclaim the original element because it is already there but only in a more extravagant form. Getting back to basics won’t achieve anything because it would mean that you’re actually past the original element and are merely being nostalgic. If you go back to basics you will go back in a dogmatic form because the original inspiring element would have disappeared. People will start looking for another inspiring element that gathers momentum with each addition in the form of support. No matter what you try with the original element that was once dominant it can no longer be reclaimed or its lofty standards will never be reached. Even if you tried 100 years later you would find that the direction that you take can never correspond with the original inspiring element that emerged in a different time and under different circumstances.

People should not be worried about not measuring up to certain standards established in the past. Once it becomes dogmatic it merely becomes one way of doing things. That one way was originally very inspiring when it just came out and over the years all the fancy additions made it soar to the stars however that one way was still just one way. There are other ways, some yet to be discovered. The original element will still be influential in terms of dogma but can’t inspire like the next original element. People must also understand that the highest standard is always set in the present, after all the refinements  to the original have been made.  Decline can only be measured by the other original elements that comprise the whole or the other ways to get things done or to fit in to the whole.  When the original element was inspiring people there were many additions in the form of support but once it failed to inspire and became dogmatic, people gravitated to other original elements that would emerge. There is always unequal exchange in such a scenario. The former inspiring element just could no longer inspire and decline comes when it falls from its high perch because just at that moment when it falls it would have been at its most dominant. You can’t fall from a low perch you fall from a high one and that’s common sense.  You keep squeezing what you can out of the original element but eventually it will tire and when it does tire that was when it would have been reigning supreme. Maybe there were some subtractions but those subtractions would have done their part or they would have moved on to another inspiring element.  The extravagance hides the fact that although the essence of the original element was  very inspiring it was still only one way of doing things and there are other inspiring ways.

So I am not worried about failing to live up to the so called high standards of the past. They were not so high to begin with.