Camping with "Raw Deal"

“Camp” is simultaneously one of the little pleasures of life and one of the banes of human existence. The good or bad contained in a “campy” artifact all depends on the perspective of the viewer or viewers. Susan Sontag, in her essay Notes On “Camp,” says, “The Camp eye has the power to transform experience.” While one example of popular culture may be quite enjoyable to one person because of its “camp” value, it may appear quite repulsive to another. The aesthetics of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1986 film, Raw Deal, are obviously low brow and not meant for the audience that is seeking a film experience that tugs at the heart. The “camp” value of this piece fits perfectly with Susan Sontag’s specification of how “camp” should be classified.

When first discussing the subject of “camp” it was difficult to consider what the seminal works of the mode were other than in the general sense of horror, and low budget, movies of the 1950s and 1960s. Although the over the top action of Michael Bay films combined with their lofty turn of phrase can most assuredly be classified as “camp,” there are still examples out there that far better typify the word, “camp.”

Raw Deal is a perfect example of “camp.” In the film Schwarzenegger plays what else, a cop. To be more specific, Schwarzenegger plays a cop who kills a bunch of people with brilliant style and trademark dry/cool wit.

Sontag states, “Camp rests on innocence. That means Camp discloses innocence, but also, when it can, corrupts it.” Raw Deal strives for realism but fails in spectacular fashion becoming childlike in its failures. The greatest moments of folly come at no expense to the actors themselves, but at the expense of a boom mic operator and a dummy, and by default the director. According to Sontag, for a movie to be truly “campy” it must not intend to be “campy.” The special effects of Raw Deal and the film’s cinematography, quality wise, stand up to any other movie of the decade; with the exception of typically agreed upon cinematic achievements like Alien and Blade Runner. The quality of the film making, for its time, makes the ability for the audience to spot a boom mic in the side of not one, not two, but three limousines surprising and helps to categorize the film as “camp.” It is safe to assume that the director did not intend to have the mic so visible in the shot because the film as a whole was not meant to be poking fun at anything, but to be taken seriously.

The sheer body count in Raw Deal is another factor that makes the film “camp.” One man murdering people with a final total in the high 50s would be labeled a psychopath unless his name is Arnold Schwarzenegger and he’s killing people in the name of justice. The apathy with which the film treats the act of killing is another factor that makes it “camp.” Sontag says that, “camp proposes a comic vision of the world.” Whether or not Schwarzenegger’s character was right or wrong, he would have been stopped by some sort of law enforcement in the real world, but runs a bloody muck with impunity throughout Raw Deal.

Raw Deal is a movie that connoisseurs of “camp” would be able to enjoy. The disregard for realism and penchant for lens flares that the film epitomizes makes the film typical of the 1980s and ahead of its time [sic. Star Trek (2009)] respectively. The value of Raw Deal is in its badness and according to Sontag, “It’s good because it’s awful.”

- Joel Engles -