马克斯我的爱

英国外交官彼得最近发现妻子玛格丽特的行为有点异常，她常常夜不归家。通过侦探，彼得得知玛格丽特在外面还租了一间小公寓… 这一天，彼得跟踪而去，当他推开门时，果然发现妻子赤裸躺在那里，明明被子里还有人在动！彼得倒也是个有风度的外交官，见此情景，也没有大发雷霆，只是让那奸夫快点出来。再三要求之下，被子里钻出的竟然是一只又大又丑的黑猩猩… 《马克斯，我的爱》（Max My Love），由大岛渚执导，夏洛特·兰普林、安东尼·希金斯等主演的法国奇情喜剧片，1986年上映。

资源已发功中耗怀旧怪奇电影 影片讲述了外交官的妻子玛格丽特与一只黑猩猩马克斯之间产生了超越宠物的特殊感情，从而闹出了许多麻烦和有趣的事。 一部猎奇的人猿畸恋，即使在现在也显得颠覆三观，更何况是在80年代。大岛渚曾以一部《感官世界》惊世骇俗，而在本片中，他则以相对温和的调子，讲述了一个另类的高贵主妇与丑陋黑猩猩之间互相爱慕依赖的故事。 故事充满讽刺，作为外交官的丈夫彼得，惊诧于妻子的怪癖，却把自己与女秘书的婚外情轻轻忽略，而且还为了满足自己偷窥的私欲，怂恿妻子与猩猩的性生活，并且找妓女加以验证。 同时，电影也充满人文关怀，尤其对于女性地位和情感的关怀。电影的摄影唯美，女性角色无可挑剔，无论女主角那种中性之美，还是小女仆的敏感可爱，以及风尘女郎的洒脱妖冶，都令人印象深刻。

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)