马克斯我的爱

荒诞无稽的人兽之恋下是一反传统地对不道德的两性关系的另类思考。将人与猩猩的奇情畸恋置于夫妻关系中第三者的地位，使这只不速之客荒谬地出现在这段复杂的家庭关系中，以跨物种相恋最终调和了夫妇感情却又遭致人类恋人将其遗弃的想法作为耐人寻味的结局。

值得一提的是，片中锁孔的巧妙隐喻具备着两重性：其一是片中丈夫由嫉妒和男性尊严的受伤而产生的窥视妻子与猩猩交媾的猎奇心理；其二是暗喻观众在影片中亦处于窥探者的位置——这点从电影开头与结尾的锁孔暗示亦可获知（此处似有打破“第四堵墙”的意义）。

还有，影片一开始玛格丽特与马克斯幽会的房间，以及马克斯后来居住的房间，两个房间的锁都曾被彼得强行打开。这在揶揄着夫妻关系中丈夫带来强压的同时，也玩味着夫妇双方对出轨的态度和彼此的心理。尽管彼得前期对妻子与马克斯如何完成性交带着作为丈夫有失颜面的羞愤和疑怒，并由此做出了滑稽且恶俗的行径——窥视妻子与猩猩同床共枕以及要求观看娼妓与猩猩苟合。但需要指出的是，即便同是出轨，出轨对象的不同已足以使人心中产生不同的起伏波澜，何况妻子不仅在出轨的物种上一反常规，还要与这位跨物种的恋人在与丈夫所住的家中同床共枕。此处无意讨论夫妻双方在这段不寻常的关系中的道德是非权重，而重在提出影片中在表现双方行为时不应忽视的因素——恰恰是这些因素的合力作用形成了此一复杂且变质了的夫妻关系。

此外，马克斯坐在车顶的回家途中引发全城的狂欢，如同迎接英雄凯旋般嘉年华会式的欢庆和疯狂表现，虽则不免过分显露其讽刺的变形夸张，却也流露出一层黑色幽默的意味：戏谑着因循守旧者的同时试图以喧闹呈现的荒谬感将人与猩猩的跨物种相恋带来的道德束缚与伦理桎梏解绑，消解人兽感情原始意义上的背德感，凸出了影片从一开始就表现出的对传统婚姻插足者条框设限的嘲弄。

最后一幕中妻子与丈夫、马克斯在餐桌上的对话，尤为耐人寻味。当马克斯被丈夫彻底接受，成为家庭的一份子，与彼得一家共同生活时，妻子却似乎因为重新得到了丈夫的关心和爱护，而产生了另一重阴暗的幻想——马克斯突然被警察带走。这不能不使人重新思考她对马克斯的情感，究竟是在感情落寞时“同是天涯沦落人”的孤独感促使其对一只猩猩移情别恋，还是同彼得在这一场互有欺瞒的婚姻关系中同等地位的道德越轨，不过出轨的对象并非人类？当这不免带着荒诞主义意味的伦理思考被置于象征爱情的婚姻关系中时，也为其所警示的现实意义增添了几分离奇的喜剧色彩。

猩猩（动物）人类（动物）。情感，这个东西要产生方式是一样的。

对人类来说，爱情真的太难发生。没有人相信这是一瞬间能决定的事，所有人都在质疑它的神圣性。明明只需要遇到一对浪漫的眼睛。一双眼睛盯着你，发了神，你盯着这双眼睛，跟着这特有的节奏一起发神。就这样，互相选择，那么事情就足够发生了，就是这么简单。这不再在乎什么性别、什么年龄、什么物种……要紧的只是眼睛。这么容易的标准，这么难碰见的事。

而这部电影就太棒了，舒舒服服地给了一段真挚的情感。在马克斯身上，爱情很明白。一只猩猩对一个美人一见钟情，在大庭广众亲吻她，在见不到她的时候得相思病，他大大方方地去示爱。说真的，这比人诚实好多。猩猩不用考虑很多愚蠢的问题，所以他的爱情只是爱与做爱。没有语言、没有嫉妒、没有孤独、没有自由、没有第二个爱人。这么大胆的行为，我没有在任何一个人类身上见到过。

家庭与责任，社会与光荣，人类好像在不断寻找这些的过程中失去了爱的能力。但凡进化高级了，就依赖冲动、依赖语言、依赖示爱的方式。但归根结底，一切都只是感受。太多器官的调动会破坏掉这感受的单纯，从而变成了幻想的沉醉。这是应该感到羞耻的，因为它不真诚。

但占有不羞耻。像片中玛格丽特对马克斯的爱一样。当马克斯抛弃她选择自由时，她是一定会杀掉马克斯的。像琼斯一样，举起枪，对准抓狂的源头，开枪，再选择是否放下。人愤怒的发射通常需要通过一些武器，简单来说，需要一些死伤。只有这样，人的愤怒才会被那强烈的愚钝感所稀释掉。琼斯的敌人是猩猩，玛格丽特的敌人是猩猩的自由。是这样的，爱可以不道德、可以不体面、可以不伟大。遇到时，只能珍惜，然后默默感谢“幸好这只猩猩选择了跳上我的车，而不是永远攀在树上。”

这部短小的片子探讨了如此深刻、永恒的主题。探讨得那么专心，也那么全面。我想，这才是一种浪漫，一种没有过度渲染的爱情。只是关于感受、关于生活、关于选择即永远。这是爱的本质。

（p.s.大家为什么总是喜欢当懦夫呢？我不明白。）

MAX, MON AMOUR received a tepid reaction when it debuted inCannes in 1986, a French-American co-production under the rein of the late Japanese provocateurNagisa Ôshima (1932-2013),which would become his penultimate feature film.

Since then, it has become a succès de scandale which isless being watched than hyped due to its subversive content, but in fact, most of the time, it suffices as a tongue-in-cheek comedy, a marital satire borne out ofJean-Claude Carrière’s urtext, Peter Jones (Higgins) isa liberal-minded British diplomat working and living in Paris, one day, to his utter dismay, he finds out the paramour of his wife Margaret (Rampling), is a male chimpanzee named Max, beggar belief, the couple decides to try out a kind ofménage-à-trois by bringing Max into their official residence, where also lives their towhead school-age son Nelson (Hovik), and believe it or not, in the end of the story, their co-habitation actually works.

Cagey about the salacious details of the relationship between Margaret and her“supposed" primate lover,Ôshima sides with the husband’s point-of-view to parse the couple's tug-of-war, firstly, Peter takes up the gauntlet to show his magnanimity by accepting the situation without letting it get under his skin, then, driven by curiosity and jealousy, his attitude towards Max seesaws between hostility and respectable concern, an experiment of corroborating the inter-species sexual act is a bust, whereas an episode of shotgun scare is just a cheeky practice of cheap tension.

It is an immoral cock-and-bull story, menace is palpable, but vice has never descended into the picture andwhat sagaciously affirming is the film’s brazen stance on the dynamism between the couple, it is always Margaret who has the say-so in their states of affairs, however preposterous and quixotic, there is a deep respect unites them as an entity, Peter stoutly fights her corner in the face of extrinsic parties, whether it is a zoologist or a neuropsychologist, accordingly, she also quite frank about her feelings, even stays on friendly terms with Peter’s secretary-cum-lover Camille (a gratingly loud Diana Quick).

It is a surprise that Ôshima chooses not to go out on a limb in salting the plot by bestowing Max with a feral complexion, alternatively played by real chimps and stunts in verisimilar costumes (solely by this reviewer’s reckoning), Max is presented as a meek pet, not dangerous, sulky at most, albeit his human-like size, even becomes mawkishly lovelorn and loses his appetite when Margaret is absent. Granted, there is a touching and tender naiveness seething beneath its surrealistic premise, which also is not exactly congruent withÔshima’s make-up if one might venture to surmise.

Both Rampling and Higgins tackle the thorny subject with bravura, what percolates from their collective effort is a beguilingly unfeigned sophistication stemming from a bourgeois background, andÔshima conspiratorially sends up their caprices with deadpan seriousness, not to mention a non sequitur triumph appended to the part where Max momentarily goes missing in the woods.

Ultimately, MAX, MON AMOUR doesn’t come to provoke moralists, but offers a keyhole for the audience to observe a behavioral pattern says as much of living beings' universality as of their idiosyncrasy, the point is made, but reverberations are somewhat deadened when Ôshima settles for a middle road between "funny and die" in his overall approach.

referential point:Ôshima’s MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE (1983, 8.5/10)