i want to post this response to an earlier question/comment in a new thread so that it can get more attention. the poster commented that there apparently were no hero/villain roles in aeon flux...

definately no good or bad, the way i see it is this: aeon flux (as her name implies) represents change, trevor represents a struggle for stability. i've only analized two or three episodes deeply, (in a general sense) and this seems to be the recurring theme... if i recall correctly, in the demi urge and evolution revolution episodes aeon talks about how no one changes her, perhaps other episodes too... so what she is saying, actually, is that she doesn't want stability. this fits in nicely with the idea of the demi urge as a stable and peace-bringing creature, as well as my theory about the evolution revolution episode.... end sinister, was it? the "alien" race was completeley stable and in a sense, completely evolved. the process of elimination we call evolution measures strength as reproductive ability, and well, the "aliens" didn't reproduce... thus the ray eliminated them and not aeon and trevor. in the seraph-trev episode, perhaps trevor found stability in the creatures.... the clone episode, aeon's submission to trevor was some sort of metaphor.. i havent figured that one out completely. one episode i can think of that doesn't go along with this theory would be the giant baby episode.. but i think i read somwhere that peter chung didn't write that one. the rest of the episodes i haven't seen more than once or twice, so... comments? additions? anything?

forgive me if i appear ignorant, or my spelling if it's lousy, i'm a mexican highschool sophmore.

-- jim (X_I_X@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000

Answers

No good or evil... sounds like something Peter Chung would say ;). Very astute, Jim, welcome to the fold.

-- Paul D. Gilbreath (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), May 31, 2000.

Oh yeah, before I forget... there is an excellent guide to the cloning episode "A Last Time For Everything" at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rach/aeon.htm

It's part of the Aeon Flux webring, a little old but I think you'll like it. Viva las Aeon Flux!

-- Paul D. Gilbreath (gilbreathfamily@worldnet.att.net), May 31, 2000.

The subject of moral correctness is discussed in many of the interviews Peter Chung has given and from what I understand Aeon Flux deals more with the concepts of perception/point-of-view. What you or I perceive or how we view and understand things. We view the actions that make up the story but what we choose to believe is left to the individual. The story unfolds with characters and a plot, however sides/good/evil are all subjective concepts. Each character has their obvious allegiance but with whom we most identify with and which side we choose to believe to be right, ultimately, is left for the viewer to decide. What we understand to be wrong may be completely acceptable to someone else. I believe this idea came from the intention of offering an alternative to common action entertainment (movies etc...), where good and evil can be more easily defined. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is in the short animation 'War'. Although this employed another intent of Peter Chung (gratuitous violence) the constant change of protagonists (each equally as violent) meant that their was no clearly defined good or evil.

-- William (stateoflux@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

What is interesting to me is why do people make stories where good/evil are so easily pointed out? In general, good/evil is clearly defined by the writer. Is it a personal desire to be well thought of by oneself, when a story clearly attacks what the writer decides to be wrong? Or the achievement of some inner fantasy unachieved in their own lives, as the writer imagines himself as more like the 'good' hero/heroine. Or many other reasons, but why does Peter Chung care to give the audience the freedom to think for themselves? Is he still working out his philosophies in his work? or is he really so democratic, he wants his audience to choose for themselves and grow? I sometimes wonder if he doesn't wish to help the human race to advance, and I wonder if it has anything to do with that war in Korea...

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

Perfect.

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

i found the stability/power thing in another ep.... ether drift theory.. should be pretty obvious, trevor built a stable environment which aeon shot straight to hell in under 20 minutes. that leaves the custodian episode and the potato-bug critter episode. the latter i've seen only once... just thought i'd add this tidbit.

hmm. this is a nice board, people don't yell at each other much.

-- jim (X_I_X@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

I think standard entertainment clearly defines good/evil as it is a lot easier to write for. It avoids complication.

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

If they could think of trying to make you think film would become, much more meaningful. The greatest thing a film can do is to put it together in such a way that you can't help but see association, or understanding for both the "good" and "Bad" sides. Remember American History X, I think that it would have been a more effective movie if we haden't see that Derek had turned into a nice guy near the begining. I would have been better to keep it more mysterious as you watch why he became what he was and you are unaware he's changed. So in essence the "bad" guy would have been the focus of the film, and not until like half way do you see a change.

-- (nadar@BigPoppaPump.zzn.com), February 26, 2001.