(Possible spoilers ... )
I would see it that by his very presence, his mere survival of the crash which was intended to kill him, Arthur is a threat to the "lucrative racket". If he manages to escape and return to "civilisation" then Paris would die, hence the attempts to subvert him into becoming a "Parisian". The "youth" (as epitomized by the cars) is/are already in rebellion (as youth always is) and whether he consciously realises it or not, Arthur is also driving the town to its destruction. He is simply seeking his freedom, to be reborn ("I can drive ... I can drive ..."), to live again. He literally crushes the opposition in his desire to escape.
The mayor, despite his unease at the failure to control Arthur, desperately makes a temporary (but ultimately futile) alliance with Arthur to help save the town, and his own position.
The exodus of the Parisian population in the background to all the bloodshed and mayhem is the final knell for the ambitions of (most) of the "leaders" of Paris. It's interesting to note that not all the "sleazy" characters (especially that of the brilliant Max Gillies) succumb to Armageddon, and may in fact be argued to have escaped, taking with them their ruthless greed, and presumably gone on to bigger and better corruption elsewhere.
In the end, I think whilst Arthur is apparently aiding the mayor, it is merely his means to his own desired end, and the "cars" will be victorious, if only temporarily. After all, does not youth supplant itself as the cycle of life continues, with the ageing of the earlier generation?
A superbly dark movie, and one I can enjoy on many levels.
reply
share
spacemouse
18 years ago
I completely see where you are coming from here, thank you.
I had forgotten about this wonderful gem of a film until just now. I shall go out and buy the dvd this morning and add it to my collection - it is I think, one of my favourite films of all time.
Fruit.
reply
share