The document analyzes the Coen brothers' film Raising Arizona through a social and ideological lens. It argues that while the film is comedic, it leaves viewers uncomfortable because it exposes real issues through exaggerated comedy. Specifically, it critiques dominant social systems like the prison system, family structure, and socioeconomic class divisions. The film acknowledges these systems as imaginary constructs that control people but also allows for human freedom and truth through a balance of imagination and reality. Overall, the document uses theories on postmodernism, irony, and social structures to interpret Raising Arizona as a critique of American ideology and illusions of modern existence.

1. Figert 1
Erica Figert
Dr. Gaughran
English 384
6 February 2012
“Was I just fleeing reality like I know I’m liable to do?”: Raising Arizona and the Establishment
of Modern Equilibrium
If I ask someone for a description of the Coen brothers’ film Raising Arizona and I
receive the answer, “it is funny,” I am left vastly unsatisfied. Yes, the film is quite entertaining
and warrants many audible laughs, but the uncomfortable familiarity I experience as I watch
leaves me perturbed. In the guise of comedy, the uncanny presents itself to me. Why is this
apparent comedy so disturbing? Some critics might argue that Raising Arizona is simply
farcical, and that it is the absurdity of such improbable events that leaves viewers with more than
sore abdomens and wrinkled eyes. Although the film does include much improbability, it is most
certainly not absurd. In fact, the film is uncanny precisely because it is not absurd. The
relationship between the main characters and their modes of existence mirror that of the modern
subject because, ultimately, modern existence is ironic, and irony implies some sort of meaning
and rationale. Raising Arizona is thus both uncanny and comedic because of its irony; it exposes
the dissonance between the imaginary and the real conditions of existence by acknowledging
class as a social, economic and political phenomenon, but also by satirizing dominant ideological
apparatuses like the family and prison systems.
In order to analyze Raising Arizona as social commentary, it is important to differentiate
between irony and absurdity. Although most postmodernists assume that the “Age of Irony” has
evolved (or devolved) into the “Age of Absurdity,” I argue that this is not necessarily the case.

2. Figert 2
Although modern thought has strayed from the teleological tradition of Western philosophy it
does not imply an eradication of any objective form of truth or meaning. The assumption that
“God is dead” does not entail the death of an objective ordering of reality; the objective systems
that structure our reality do not have to create any final cause or meaning for existence, they
simply function as apparatuses of truth, or knowledge.
In Andrew Moss’ “Schizophrenia and Postmodernism: ‘Raising Arizona,’ ‘Barton Fink,’
and ‘The Coen Brothers’ he argues that Raising Arizona contains schizophrenic dynamics that
function as a type of postmodern aesthetic (25). The disruption of the traditional linear narrative,
characterized most visibly by what Moss refers to as the “retrospective dream effect,” simply
signals a shift in Western thought (25). When our focus is no longer on unity or the fundamental
essence of a piece of art, “the very narrative depends upon the incompatibility of opposing
forces” (32). Incompatibility does not posit absurdity, nor does it deny us access to knowledge,
but rather it exposes the irony of the dominant ideology and its insistence on representing truth
while fundamentally distorting it. The irony, then, is that our relation to the real conditions of
existence is ultimately imaginary, and knowledge resides in recognizing and exposing this
incompatibility.
Moss argues that Raising Arizona “is unified by its own peculiar brand of madness,” (31)
but the word madness implies a loss of the ability to distinguish between reality and imagination.
If the Coen brothers do in fact “circumvent any aspect of time/space unity” and “render useless
the unity as a whole,” (29) then the film’s status as a work of art depends on the modern aesthetic
of combining discordant elements into an intelligible framework. It cannot be a representation of
madness precisely because it leaves us with knowledge about human existence. The film is not,
as Moss argues, a “deeply psychological tale of a man battling his own divided soul” (28).

3. Figert 3
Raising Arizona is instead a deeply psychological tale of modern humans battling to reconcile
their own subjective experiences with the real conditions of modern existence. If this battle is
absurd, it is only because it recognizes that “reality and unreality exist symbiotically” (33);
however, as paradoxes are wont to do, the seemingly absurd relationship between reality and
unreality is actually capable of producing knowledge.
Since the movie introduces us to H.I. McDunnough on the cusp of incarceration, it seems
logical to discuss the film’s depiction of the unpleasant reality of modern prison systems. In
Foucauldian terms prison functions as a discipline, or a type of power, that “arrests and regulates
movements” and “dissipates compact groupings of individuals wandering about the country in
unpredictable ways” (208). With the increase of population and the expansion of modern
capitalism, it became necessary to organize, categorize and integrate human experience into
objectified fields of knowledge (Foucault 209). According to Foucault the disciplines must fulfill
three criteria: 1) power must be exercised with minimum cost; 2) the discipline must maximize
social power; and 3) the discipline must “increase both the docility and the utility of all the
elements of the system” (202). In case it is not blatantly obvious, the prison system violates the
first criterion with reckless abandon, and the Coen brothers are very much aware of this;
however, their social critique of the prison is not only a matter of recognizing its lack of utility,
but also a matter of criticizing its obstruction to human freedom.
If the “disciplines provide, at the base, a guarantee of the submission of forces and
bodies,” (Foucault 211) then the Coen brothers’ depiction of the prison system is meant to
expose, and thus create knowledge about, the injustice of the justice system. In “Complete and
Austere Institutions” Foucault argues that at the turn of the century the prison came to represent
“the power to punish as a general function of society” (214). Through observation and

4. Figert 4
codification the criminal became the delinquent, an individual who exists “qua delinquent” and
whose crime exists “’scientifically ‘ qua offense” (222). This objectification of the prisoner
results in “a new objectivity in which the criminal belongs to a typology that is both natural and
deviant,” (221) so instead of functioning as a means of rehabilitating the prisoner, the prison
functions as a means of reproducing delinquency (recidivism). In Raising Arizona H.I. exposes
the contradictory nature of the prison system in relatively few words: “In an effort to better
ourselves we were forced to meet with a counselor who tried to help us figure out why we were
the way we were”. The word “better” implies an insistence on rehabilitation, but the phrase “why
we were the way we were” exposes the prison system’s objectification of the prisoner as
naturally deviant and incapable of rehabilitation.
The prison, much like the insane asylum, does not aim to rehabilitate, though it does
claim this as its function. When H.I. questions the function of the prison system, he echoes
Foucault’s belief that “delinquency is the vengeance of the prison on justice” (223): “Now I don't
know how you come down on the incarceration question, whether it's for rehabilitation or
revenge, but I was beginning to think that revenge is the only argument makes any sense”.
If the modern subject recognizes the incongruence of the imaginary “truth” represented by the
system and the real conditions of its existence, he or she may form knowledge about his or her
relation to, in Althusserian terms, Repressive State Apparatuses and attempt to find freedom in
that knowledge.
Freedom, in the modern (or postmodern) sense, is not an inherent trait that resides in the
essence of human existence. Quite frankly, the material conditions of existence influence and
construct our subjectivity more than one would care to admit, but they do not deny us the
possibility of freedom. In “Raising Arizona as an American Comedy” Richard Gilmore stresses

5. Figert 5
the significance of the dream, in its philosophical sense, as “the only kind of real liberty that
there is” (24). It is important to recognize that Gilmore’s dream is not the American dream, or
the “idea that we are not necessarily limited by birth or class or race,” (9) but is instead a
conscious choice to recognize and oppose the hegemony of the ideological systems that create
submissiveness and oppression. Gilmore sees this dream in H.I. and Ed’s relationship, for they
“see in each other the possibility of another narrative, another way of being that would
supplement and reconstitute their present ways” (15). If the dream, or freedom, depends on a
reconciliation of the outlaw (H.I.) with the law (Ed) it is obvious that imagination and reality
can, and must, coexist as means to truth.
One might argue that Ed’s desire to leave H.I., as she expresses late in the film,
represents the incompatibility, and thus meaninglessness, of the imagination’s relation to reality.
I, however, would willingly protest against this argument. Ed and H.I.’s relationship is not meant
to establish a truth that transcends material conditions, for it is the equilibrium between reality
and the imagination that constitutes truth. Take, for example, the characters of Evelle, Gale and
Leonard Smalls. All three of these characters are, arguably, projections of H.I.’s imagination.
Gilmore argues that Evelle and Gale “are like emissaries from Hi’s unconscious, come to remind
him of his ‘true’ nature,” (19) but, as I have argued, H.I.’s “true nature” is a result of the
objectification of the prisoner. Evelle and Gale represent the ideological positioning of the
delinquent as someone who is naturally deviant, but their return to the prison symbolizes H.I.’s
ability to recognize and oppose this ideological “truth”.
The character of Leonard Smalls is a bit more complex, but, if Gilmore is correct (and I
believe he is) in understanding H.I.’s name as “a spatial metaphor” and a “description of his
ambitions” (7), then Smalls’ name functions as a spatial metaphor for his lack of ambition. As an

6. Figert 6
embodiment of the outlaw at his most extreme, Smalls represents the depravity of one who
completely rejects the established order of society. If we do not operate within the objective
systems of reality, then we cannot exist. H.I. kills Smalls because he represents existence without
meaning, and H.I. does not believe that this type of existence is possible. Through his
relationship with Ed, H.I. realizes that freedom and truth depend on the ability of the imagination
to interact with reality, so he destroys the part of his imagination that does not acknowledge the
real conditions of his existence, i.e., objective social structures like the law.
Although Raising Arizona emphasizes a critique of the judicial system, it also explores
socio-economic class and its relation to the family system. The first step in an analysis of the
film as class commentary is to understand class as a political, social and economic phenomenon.
As Pierre Bourdieu states in “The Social Space and Its Transformations,” we must not think of
class as linear, because, like the systems of society as a whole, it is over-determined (107). The
objective conditions of existence do not manifest in the subjects who inhabit social space in any
obvious, direct way. Thus, Bourdieu’s concept of class habitus is extremely important because,
as “the internalized form of class condition and the conditioning it entails,” (101) it allows us to
understand how important ideology is to subjective experience. Ideology, or “our unconscious
set of beliefs and assumptions” that structures “our imaginary relation to real conditions that may
not match what we imagine,” (Parker 222) is the reason most individuals remain within the same
class. It is true that “individuals do not move about social space in random ways” (Bourdieu 110)
because ideological apparatuses create “homogenous systems of dispositions capable of
generating similar practices” (Bourdieu 101). If the system were not unconscious and imaginary,
then it would not function to control the masses, for people do not willingly renounce their
freedom (Parker 223).

7. Figert 7
Raising Arizona exposes the relation of class to ideology in “raising the question of
socialism and then turning in an ambiguous answer” (Gilmore 21). The most blatant reference to
socialist theory is H.I.’s justification of babynapping: “we thought it was unfair that some should
have so many while others should have so few”. It is interesting that the object of desire, the
commodity, is a child, because it raises some important questions about the family. Ed and H.I.
may want a child simply because society makes them believe that it is what married couples
desire, and this idea mirrors H.I.’s desire to marry Ed and start a family after the prison counselor
tells him that (normal) men his age do exactly that.
More important than commodity fetishism is the relationship between the dominant class,
or those who control the means of production, and the working class, or those who face
oppression in their inability to control those means. Nathan and Florence Arizona represent the
wealthy elites who control the means of production, or, in a lovely example of Coen wit,
reproduction. Ed desires the means of (re)production because she is a member of the working
class majority who must suffer the injustice of denied access to wealth (or a baby). Since
capitalist systems “grow and prosper at the expense of the working class and other exploited and
oppressed sectors of society,” (Berberoglu 69) Ed and H.I. must operate outside the framework
of the system in order to have a child. At the end of the movie, however, they return the baby to
his parents, and the Coen brothers’ attitude toward socialism is left ambiguous.
Even if socialism is not promoted or rejected, it is obvious that Raising Arizona is
conscious of the differences between social classes. In “The Organizational Theory of Power and
Inequality” Berch Berberoglu explores Robert Michels’ theories of class conflict, and these
theories exist in the character of Glen. According to Michels’ theory, the structure of modern
organizations leads to corruption because “regardless of ideological ends, organizational means

8. Figert 8
would inevitably lead to oligarchic rule” (Berberoglu 13). When Glen proposes a “wife swap”
with H.I., H.I. immediately punches him in the face without even considering the potential loss
of his job (Glen is H.I.’s boss). In the modern capitalist system, “the leader consolidates power
around the newly acquired condition and uses that power to serve personal interests, thus
becoming increasingly distant from the masses” (14). Glen’s proposal is repulsive to H.I.
because they possess different value systems, especially in regards to personal property. As
H.I.’s boss, Glen feels that he has the power to suggest something so vulgar, and as his
employee, H.I. feels that Glen abuses his power by using it to serve personal interests.
Although Raising Arizona is commonly described as a comedy, the function of the film
as a social critique leaves viewers with a certain discomfort. The familiar systems of the prison,
the family, and socio-economic class are exaggerated to the point of absurdity, but the
relationship between the reality of these systems (they are imaginary to the subject, but real in
their consequences) and the human response to them is certainly exposed. The Coen brothers
incorporate major institutions, like the family and prison, into the film because they are
fundamental to American ideology, and they are ultimately illusory. The film, then, leaves
viewers with knowledge about the function of such systems, but also with the belief that freedom
is possible if the imagination, in tandem with reality, seeks truth.

9. Figert 9
Works Cited
Berberoglu, Berch. Class and Class Conflict in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD:
Lexington, 2009. Print.
Bourdieu, Pierre. "The Social Space and Its Transformations." Distinction: A Social Critique of
the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1984. 99-168. Print.
Foucault, Michel. "Complete and Austere Institutions." The Foucault Reader.
New York: Pantheon, 1984. 214-225. Print.
Foucault, Michel. "Panopticism." The Foucault Reader. New York:
Pantheon, 1984. 206-13. Print.
Gilmore, Richard. "Raising Arizona as an American Comedy". The Philosophy of the Coen
Brothers. Lexington, KY: UP of Kentucky, 2009. 7-25.
Moss, Andrew. "Schizophrenia and Postmodernism: Raising Arizona, Barton Fink, and 'The
Coen Brothers'". Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities 27.2 (2008): 23-37.
Web. 4 Feb 2013.
Parker, Robert Dale. "Marxism." How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and
Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. 211-43. Print.