A

大島渚即使是拍攝外語(yǔ)片，還是帶來(lái)了一絲東亞式的隱秘情感。解密的關(guān)鍵在“鑰匙孔”“黑猩猩”“女仆過(guò)敏”或明或暗的幾個(gè)意向上。

鑰匙孔=窺視欲，男性通過(guò)鑰匙孔窺視伴侶與他人/獸的性事而獲得“滿足感”，是不是很東亞？但這樣理解的話影片卻僅僅最多展現(xiàn)女主擁抱著猩猩，委實(shí)可惜，祖拉斯基就真拍出這種畫面來(lái)了。

“黑猩猩”則是男主對(duì)女主消逝的愛(ài)意的具象化存在，孤獨(dú)的女主發(fā)現(xiàn)孤獨(dú)的“它”，男主對(duì)其由抵觸到最后的接受，可最后女主讓影片氛圍陡然變奏的獨(dú)白，似乎又體現(xiàn)出其對(duì)這份失而復(fù)得的愛(ài)意的患得患失感，竟是下定決心若將面臨破裂時(shí)刻，寧愿親手終結(jié)這份感情，男性的情感去了又來(lái)，又可能再走，女性卻再難以承受。

“過(guò)敏”這個(gè)點(diǎn)在影片的結(jié)尾之前都是作為滑稽元素而存在，可當(dāng)女仆道出其真正過(guò)敏源時(shí)，我才敢確定猩猩與男主的聯(lián)系。

關(guān)于影片基調(diào)，表面上看倒是頗有功力的神經(jīng)/荒誕喜劇，而大島渚在尺度上對(duì)于這個(gè)題材來(lái)說(shuō)表現(xiàn)得頗為“清新”。

荒誕無(wú)稽的人獸之戀下是一反傳統(tǒng)地對(duì)不道德的兩性關(guān)系的另類思考。將人與猩猩的奇情畸戀置于夫妻關(guān)系中第三者的地位，使這只不速之客荒謬地出現(xiàn)在這段復(fù)雜的家庭關(guān)系中，以跨物種相戀最終調(diào)和了夫婦感情卻又遭致人類戀人將其遺棄的想法作為耐人尋味的結(jié)局。

值得一提的是，片中鎖孔的巧妙隱喻具備著兩重性：其一是片中丈夫由嫉妒和男性尊嚴(yán)的受傷而產(chǎn)生的窺視妻子與猩猩交媾的獵奇心理；其二是暗喻觀眾在影片中亦處于窺探者的位置——這點(diǎn)從電影開(kāi)頭與結(jié)尾的鎖孔暗示亦可獲知（此處似有打破“第四堵墻”的意義）。

還有，影片一開(kāi)始瑪格麗特與馬克斯幽會(huì)的房間，以及馬克斯后來(lái)居住的房間，兩個(gè)房間的鎖都曾被彼得強(qiáng)行打開(kāi)。這在揶揄著夫妻關(guān)系中丈夫帶來(lái)強(qiáng)壓的同時(shí)，也玩味著夫婦雙方對(duì)出軌的態(tài)度和彼此的心理。盡管彼得前期對(duì)妻子與馬克斯如何完成性交帶著作為丈夫有失顏面的羞憤和疑怒，并由此做出了滑稽且惡俗的行徑——窺視妻子與猩猩同床共枕以及要求觀看娼妓與猩猩茍合。但需要指出的是，即便同是出軌，出軌對(duì)象的不同已足以使人心中產(chǎn)生不同的起伏波瀾，何況妻子不僅在出軌的物種上一反常規(guī)，還要與這位跨物種的戀人在與丈夫所住的家中同床共枕。此處無(wú)意討論夫妻雙方在這段不尋常的關(guān)系中的道德是非權(quán)重，而重在提出影片中在表現(xiàn)雙方行為時(shí)不應(yīng)忽視的因素——恰恰是這些因素的合力作用形成了此一復(fù)雜且變質(zhì)了的夫妻關(guān)系。

此外，馬克斯坐在車頂?shù)幕丶彝局幸l(fā)全城的狂歡，如同迎接英雄凱旋般嘉年華會(huì)式的歡慶和瘋狂表現(xiàn)，雖則不免過(guò)分顯露其諷刺的變形夸張，卻也流露出一層黑色幽默的意味：戲謔著因循守舊者的同時(shí)試圖以喧鬧呈現(xiàn)的荒謬感將人與猩猩的跨物種相戀帶來(lái)的道德束縛與倫理桎梏解綁，消解人獸感情原始意義上的背德感，凸出了影片從一開(kāi)始就表現(xiàn)出的對(duì)傳統(tǒng)婚姻插足者條框設(shè)限的嘲弄。

最后一幕中妻子與丈夫、馬克斯在餐桌上的對(duì)話，尤為耐人尋味。當(dāng)馬克斯被丈夫徹底接受，成為家庭的一份子，與彼得一家共同生活時(shí)，妻子卻似乎因?yàn)橹匦碌玫搅苏煞虻年P(guān)心和愛(ài)護(hù)，而產(chǎn)生了另一重陰暗的幻想——馬克斯突然被警察帶走。這不能不使人重新思考她對(duì)馬克斯的情感，究竟是在感情落寞時(shí)“同是天涯淪落人”的孤獨(dú)感促使其對(duì)一只猩猩移情別戀，還是同彼得在這一場(chǎng)互有欺瞞的婚姻關(guān)系中同等地位的道德越軌，不過(guò)出軌的對(duì)象并非人類？當(dāng)這不免帶著荒誕主義意味的倫理思考被置于象征愛(ài)情的婚姻關(guān)系中時(shí)，也為其所警示的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義增添了幾分離奇的喜劇色彩。

猩猩（動(dòng)物）人類（動(dòng)物）。情感，這個(gè)東西要產(chǎn)生方式是一樣的。

對(duì)人類來(lái)說(shuō)，愛(ài)情真的太難發(fā)生。沒(méi)有人相信這是一瞬間能決定的事，所有人都在質(zhì)疑它的神圣性。明明只需要遇到一對(duì)浪漫的眼睛。一雙眼睛盯著你，發(fā)了神，你盯著這雙眼睛，跟著這特有的節(jié)奏一起發(fā)神。就這樣，互相選擇，那么事情就足夠發(fā)生了，就是這么簡(jiǎn)單。這不再在乎什么性別、什么年齡、什么物種……要緊的只是眼睛。這么容易的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這么難碰見(jiàn)的事。

而這部電影就太棒了，舒舒服服地給了一段真摯的情感。在馬克斯身上，愛(ài)情很明白。一只猩猩對(duì)一個(gè)美人一見(jiàn)鐘情，在大庭廣眾親吻她，在見(jiàn)不到她的時(shí)候得相思病，他大大方方地去示愛(ài)。說(shuō)真的，這比人誠(chéng)實(shí)好多。猩猩不用考慮很多愚蠢的問(wèn)題，所以他的愛(ài)情只是愛(ài)與做愛(ài)。沒(méi)有語(yǔ)言、沒(méi)有嫉妒、沒(méi)有孤獨(dú)、沒(méi)有自由、沒(méi)有第二個(gè)愛(ài)人。這么大膽的行為，我沒(méi)有在任何一個(gè)人類身上見(jiàn)到過(guò)。

家庭與責(zé)任，社會(huì)與光榮，人類好像在不斷尋找這些的過(guò)程中失去了愛(ài)的能力。但凡進(jìn)化高級(jí)了，就依賴沖動(dòng)、依賴語(yǔ)言、依賴示愛(ài)的方式。但歸根結(jié)底，一切都只是感受。太多器官的調(diào)動(dòng)會(huì)破壞掉這感受的單純，從而變成了幻想的沉醉。這是應(yīng)該感到羞恥的，因?yàn)樗徽嬲\(chéng)。

但占有不羞恥。像片中瑪格麗特對(duì)馬克斯的愛(ài)一樣。當(dāng)馬克斯拋棄她選擇自由時(shí)，她是一定會(huì)殺掉馬克斯的。像瓊斯一樣，舉起槍，對(duì)準(zhǔn)抓狂的源頭，開(kāi)槍，再選擇是否放下。人憤怒的發(fā)射通常需要通過(guò)一些武器，簡(jiǎn)單來(lái)說(shuō)，需要一些死傷。只有這樣，人的憤怒才會(huì)被那強(qiáng)烈的愚鈍感所稀釋掉。瓊斯的敵人是猩猩，瑪格麗特的敵人是猩猩的自由。是這樣的，愛(ài)可以不道德、可以不體面、可以不偉大。遇到時(shí)，只能珍惜，然后默默感謝“幸好這只猩猩選擇了跳上我的車，而不是永遠(yuǎn)攀在樹上。”

這部短小的片子探討了如此深刻、永恒的主題。探討得那么專心，也那么全面。我想，這才是一種浪漫，一種沒(méi)有過(guò)度渲染的愛(ài)情。只是關(guān)于感受、關(guān)于生活、關(guān)于選擇即永遠(yuǎn)。這是愛(ài)的本質(zhì)。

（p.s.大家為什么總是喜歡當(dāng)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 ?shima (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,?shima 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 ?shima 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 with?shima’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, and?shima 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 ?shima settles for a middle road between "funny and die" in his overall approach.

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