The Survivor

The Survivor

Harry Haft is a boxer who fought fellow prisoners in the concentration camps to survive. Haunted by the memories and his guilt, he attempts to use high-profile fights against boxing legends like Rocky Marciano as a way to find his first love again.

  • Released: 2022-04-07
  • Runtime: 129 minutes
  • Genre: Drama, History
  • Stars: Ben Foster, Vicky Krieps, Billy Magnussen, Peter Sarsgaard, John Leguizamo, Danny DeVito, Dar Zuzovsky, Saro Emirze, Zachary Golinger, Laurent Papot, Paul Bates, Svetlana Kundish, Sonya Cullingford, Michael Epp, Erik Contzius, Kingston Vernes, Sophie Knapp, Zachary Golinger, Charles Brice, Scott Alexander Young, John Guerrasio, Pablo Raybould, Amalina Ace, Bálint Magyar, Márk Szekulesz, Aaron Serotsky, Miklós Kapácsy, Andrew Hefler, Kristóf Widder, Patrick McCullough, Peter Linka, Hans Peterson, Katia Bokor, Stephen Saracco, Björn Freiberg, Nikos Brisco, Alan Jouban, Adam Zambryzcki, András Kovács, Gábor Czap, Anthony Molinari, Zsolt Erdei
  • Director: Barry Levinson
 Comments
  • W011y4m5 - 17 March 2023
    Be careful.
    When masterful director Steven Spielberg conscientiously created the hauntingly disturbing (& utterly faultless) Oscar winning motion picture "Schindler's List" in 1993 - capturing the startlingly inhumane atrocities committed against (predominantly) the Jewish community by Nazis during the Second World War - an understandably high standard was deservedly set (in the immediate aftermath of its critically acclaimed release) which firmly established the new acceptable level for all filmmakers following in his footsteps thereafter, attempting to also respectfully depict such an emotionally distressing time in our world's history - & honourably to do justice to the horrors, bereaved families & the victims of the Holocaust.

    Therefore, for many unquestionably devoid of his perspective & abilities (borne from notable emotional maturity & close connections to those who luckily made it through the sickening slaughter), to match that calibre was always going to be an insurmountable challenge to over-come.

    I start with this essential prefix in the hopes of acknowledging (with clarity of purpose) there's a very clear way to do things right (as demonstrated by his revered, timeless accomplishment) & equally, to contrast his harrowing work of necessary viewing (still relevant as ever - standing as a mournful monument to the past we mustn't forget whilst informing younger generations of the threats posed to our souls if hatred should run rampant in the future) against this recent HBO film (an example of how not to approach a delicate matter) in order to acknowledge the blatant distinction, so we may potentially have a better comprehension as to how "The Survivor" did things so horribly wrong.

    Firstly, the chronology of the time-line; it beggars belief that I even need to state something so brazenly apparent to most but seldom has there been a historical event in man-kind's development so egregiously heinous in its unfathomable cruelty, accurately translating what occurred in reality to the screen (retaining the tangible impact during this transference) requires no dramatic embellishments whatsoever. Ergo, (for instance) one of the main reasons why Spielberg commendably succeeded in achieving the seemingly impossible (many decades ago) is because he was thankfully mindful enough to register the pace necessitated by the production to reasonably articulate the depths of Germany's depravity at the time, in sinking so low as a society; there were no stylised aesthetics, no quirky time jumps or adventurously experimental gambles made with the editing; his carefully considered approach was strictly disciplined & observational, lingering (without cutting away) deliberately with a long, hard, uncompromisingly sorrowful gaze (lasting a profound 3 hours & 15 minutes), allowing the audience to witness (& live) the relentless callousness of the anti-Semitic discrimination experienced by minorities themselves (first hand), vicariously through these uncomfortable re-enactments (playing out in however much time was needed to reaffirm the motivations of each sequence, refusing to be rushed or adhere to a certain limit) & characters brought to life (embodying the representations of targeted groups) were therefore granted as long as they demanded to visually bequeath information (pertaining to the plot & simultaneously, actual facts) & so there was a grounded authenticity, since the narrative didn't play out inorganically like a "story" we'd typically associate a work of fiction as - & these choices were made intentionally.

    On the other hand, Barry Levinson does the exact opposite; thoughtlessly vying to focus his attention to 3 extremely mismatched periods (one in 1943, the 2nd in 1949 & lastly, 1963 - all with their own defined arcs / stakes) - fitting together jarringly, akin to pieces of a puzzle that coalesce unconvincingly (not quite sliding in to place) - his concentration is diluted & spread irritatingly thin over each. Thus, to balance the disjointed narratives individually (which the feature's unable to do anyway), he relies heavily on the rapidly suggested implication of violence (shots framed symbolically - without truly expressing the repugnance), inadvertently doing a disservice to the vulgarity of the genocide he's tasked with capturing by frustratingly trivialising it - carelessly withholding the extra minutes (at least) the story is surely obligated to provide, reinforcing the severity of the systematically enforced massacre we're witnessing.

    Then we have the immensely dissatisfying thematic exploration of the drama's "moral ambiguity"; protagonist Harry Haft (played skilfully by actor Ben Foster - whose talents are wasted on the project - based upon a man of the same name, who this biopic is inspired by) survived Auschwitz by boxing fellow inmates for the entertainment & financial betterment of his captors, who disgustingly placed bets & gambled on predicted outcomes of his matches during their free time (killing the defeated opponent), whilst running the ominous concentration camps & pursuing their ideological ambitions of perceived "purity" via mass extermination. Anyone with common sense will resultantly be able to see that he is as much of a helpless victim as the other hundreds of thousands (an estimated 1.1 million, the vast majority comprised of Jews) sent to that godforsaken place, never to return - held to ransom as a hostage by exploitative monsters who capitalised upon his reasonable desperation for their sadistically wicked amusement. Stripped of a name, identity, property, rights, freedom, family, basic sanitation & food etc. He was reduced to acting as their play-thing (nothing more than a disposable pet to throw in macabre dog fights), utilised (& weaponised against his own people) by unfeeling villains who gleefully abused their positions of power to inflict indescribable maliciousness upon him & those he was forced to reluctantly vanquish - for no other reason, other than for the sheer sake of it. Thus, if anyone should be held accountable, it's the men & women who served at the behest of the tyrannical Third Reich & thrust him in to those bloody brawls, yet his personal predicament is likened (in the context of one exchange) to a hypothetical scenario he watched unfold in the midst of his brutal internment, as justification for acting in the way that he did (as if he owes an explanation?); prisoners were apparently ordered to stand in a line regularly by soldiers, anyone missing a hat would be coldly executed on the spot & according to his testimony, occasionally (if one had misplaced their own) captives would steal each other's - to ensure their own survival, even if self preservation came at the expense of someone else's. Consequently, a question is raised; could we (as audience members) really condemn their behaviours when they were merely performing in such a way, to make it through the day?

    To me, this gives shockingly too much agency to his character (verbally reminding viewers "we always have a choice" in one moment - words shamelessly written by Justine Juel Gillmer from the safety of her own home, sat at her computer, typing out the screenplay - when confronted with the indisputable fact that he didn't) & feels like an insultingly disingenuous over-simplification (excused with impressive levels of mental gymnastics) employed by those at the helm to inorganically manufacture on-screen conflict, fuelling the journey's progression. By all means, I can sympathise with why he'd be tormented by PTSD with notions of guilt (weighing on his conscience) but honestly, decent folk could see the blame's misplaced because the fault lies entirely at the feet of those who enslaved him & that (in my opinion) should've been the way in which this was lensed - absolving the poor man of any accountability & vociferously assigning sole responsibility to the vicious creatures who housed him within the walls of a death camp he was involuntarily kept behind.

    Moreover, since the memories that plague his waking thoughts are re-lived in hindsight (a mistake compounded massively by the numerous time jumps), we're not rooted deeply in the instants where he was subjected to dancing around a ring, sparring with fellow detainees for gross spectacle - as they take place in the past tense, even for Harry. Due to this, neither are we granted the opportunity to fill his head-space, witnessing the complexity for ourselves as they happened, in those pivotal moments - for he's peering back (from a destination where the anger has faded & wounds are less raw). No, only when the film inexplicably wishes to show-case an action sequence (between two malnourished Holocaust victims - almost as though we're supposed to find that somehow engaging?) are these human cockfights revisited... Perhaps an accidental ramification is this; the filmmaking arguably partakes in the same depraved, voyeuristic evils it ironically seeks to condemn?

    Subsequently, I haven't mentioned the ensemble of supporting roles whose introductions (& where they're placed in the overall structure - lazily, whenever's convenient) make no discernible sense too (adding to the haphazardly built impression), often disappearing & then reappearing inconsistently throughout...

    The shoddiness is so unedifying & messy.

    Furthermore, my viewing has made me feel as though it's additionally important emphasise the necessity of complying by this extremely easy rule, behind the camera: accounting for the little margin for error here (& the remaining sensitivity of the subject), if you (an artistic creator) are not unwaveringly committed to getting things utterly perfect, simply do not attempt this endeavour at all. Don't.

    Seriously, leave it be - for (as evidenced here) even the slightest (well-meaning) mistake can result in the most disastrous of outcomes.
  • eddie_baggins - 17 July 2022
    Foster and this true story deserved better
    Based purely off pedigree, one would expect HBO Max release The Survivor to pack quite the dramatic feature punch.

    Directed by the Oscar winning Barry Levinson, starring a transformative Ben Foster in one of his beefiest lead roles yet, scored by everyone's favorite composer Hans Zimmer and based off the incredible true story of Auschwitz survivor and boxing figure Harry Haft, The Survivor has all the ingredients of a heavy hitting product but despite its various success found throughout, Levinson's film is a strangely disjointed and workmanlike affair that may not lay flat on the canvas, but doesn't exactly command the ring either.

    Centered and in turn built around Foster's all in performance, one that see's the well-liked if not exactly household name actor go all out inhabiting both the beefed-up Haft and the struggling war prisoner Haft, The Survivor has up its sleeve a commanding lead presence but nothing else about Levinson's film elevates itself to Foster's level as Levinson's disjointed storytelling, in and out supporting characters and dull directional decisions often halt the should be gripping story of Haft in its tracks.

    Never able to fully come to terms with the various elements of Haft's story, from his career in the ring, his against the odds survival of the horrors of World War 2 and most importantly to him but not this film, his quest to be reunited with his long lost love after they were separated during and after the war ended, Levinson seems unable to steady the narrative ship of The Survivor as the films two hour running flirts between awards worthy and amateur hour far too frequently.

    For such an emotionally challenging and ripe tale you can't help but feel disappointed you don't feel more for Haft and his tale, with the likes of the talented Bill Magnussen, Vicky Krieps, Peter Sarsgaard and a scene chewing (and spitting) Danny DeVito jumping on board at various points, the story and Foster deserved better from a filmmaker that has well and truly delivered in the past with the likes of Rain Man, Good Morning, Vietnam and Paterno that he is a gifted storyteller, just one unable to give Haft the unforgettable feature his life deserved to receive.

    Final Say -

    With all the trademarks of a prestigious and gripping feature, it's hard not to have expected more from The Survivor and while its far from a complete non-event, there's nothing going on here outside of Foster's committed performance and true life interest to recommend a viewing.

    2 1/2 spiting boxing coaches out of 5.

    For more reviews check out Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)