Nine Lives

The first two Best Foreign Language Film Oscars ever awarded were both won by Italy, through Federico Fellini, for LA STRADA (1954; awarded in 1956) and NIGHTS OF CABIRIA (1957); the other nominees competing against the latter emanated from France (Rene' Clair's GATES OF Paris), two I plan on catching up with presently (from India, Mehboob's MOTHER India and, from Germany, Robert Siodmak's THE DEVIL STRIKES AT NIGHT) and, from Norway, the film under review. Incredibly enough, Ingmar Bergman's art-house phenomenon THE SEVENTH SEAL was unsuccessfully submitted for Oscar consideration! Incidentally, NINE LIVES was also entered in that year's Cannes Film Festival where it rubbed shoulders with (among others) Mikhail Kalatazov's eventual Palme D'Or winner THE CRANES ARE FLYING, Jacques Tati's MON ONCLE (1958) and prestigious Hollywood fare like THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV (1958) and THE LONG HOT SUMMER (1958).

While the film's title and heritage might suggest a historical chronicle of some tragic national expedition, the story actually deals with a real-life WWII manhunt for a Norwegian spy – engaged with the English forces on an obscure sabotage mission of which he is the only survivor – on his way to sanctuary in neutral Sweden. The film starts with the dispatching of Jan Baalsrud's ten comrades-in-arms during a skirmish with a German patrol boat. Soon enough, our protagonist is on the run from the Nazis while facing the harsh natural elements of the Norwegian snowscape. Despite the inherent danger to themselves, the local communities (especially a young family and an elderly schoolteacher) he comes in contact with all go out of their way to help the heroic fugitive. In fact, the title is a specific reference to Baalsrud's feline-like penchant for survival against all odds: going snowblind; hacking off his own frostbitten toes; being literally entombed in snow for several weeks, etc.

For the most part, the treatment is pretty matter-of-fact (and no less effective for that) with the only stylistic flourishes on display being the intermittent fast cutting whenever impending danger ensues, the repeated panning suggesting the upward direction of the flight and a striking ellipsis that goes from a man picking up the receiver to 'rat' on the hero and his comrades to a ship's cannon firing at their boat; however, there is also some confusion here as well: they are shown being shot at as they reach land – presumably in a flashforward – followed by them still out at sea! For the record, this might well be the first Norwegian film I have watched and, as far as I know, the only other one I own is the intriguing horror film LAKE OF THE DEAD (1958)...

This movie is a true story!

If you are a Norwegian and know your history, you know the enormous sacrifices ordinary Norwegians (sivilians) put them self through throughout the war, but you still may want to know more about Jan Baalsrud (search Wikipedia). MANY like him fought and died with the goal to free Norway.

Another well known Norwegian story from WWII, is the sabotage mission against Norsk Hydro, manufacturing heavy water, to be used by the Germans. Two movies was made:

Norwegian version: "Kampen om Tungtvannet" (1948). The actual saboteurs play the roles themselves. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040504/

American version: "The Heroes of Telemark" (1965). Starring Kirk Douglas. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059263/

For you who may not know what kind of people these movies is about, I will try to explain:

Norwegians has always been a proud population, and have always been known to fight for our freedom. We have our history with Denmark and Sweden, but that is another story. In WWII we were invaded by the Germans. It happened fast. But, we never would except this and civilians got together secretly, often called "Gutta på skauen", in English; "The boys in the woods" - The Resistance Movement", to start to fight against the Germans. Some did minor sabotage jobs and other went to England for further training, and bigger missions.

This movie is based on one of those people, Jan Baalsrud, who went to England for training for missions in Norway.

Directly related to this movie: He and many other Norwegian commandos was on a mission to destroy a German air control tower. Under this time they also tried to recruit for the Norwegian resistance movement. And, it's here the movie begins. One civilian they contact, betrays them, and contact the Nazi's. The mission fails because of this.

Jan Baalsrud survives the failed mission and must escape to Sweden (a neutral country).

This escape IS the movie, and he needs all the lives he can get to survive this trip (that's why it's called "Nine Lives").

It is quite a fantastic and horrible journey, and we get a insight on how much these people are willing to sacrifice (pain/death) to save this man. Jan Baalsrud himself, goes trough as much pain a human being can stand.

I will not tell the story, watch the movie. Just remember, it's a true story!

Verdict:

7/10 for the genuine performance. The movie is a little dated, but still quite watchable.

When walking in my local video shop I saw a copy of this incredible movie. I didn't have high expectations before watching it since Norwegian cinema is, well... But thankfully I was proved mistaken, very mistaken.

The movie is a true story about Jan Baalsrud a Norwegian resistance fighter. It takes place in 1943 in a Nazi occupied Norway. The movie starts of slow, but when something goes horribly wrong all his comrades are killed and Jan must alone find his way to the Swedish border. Along his way hes assisted by many common people. And in the end, the enemy is no longer the Nazis, but the cold nature.

Ni Liv is a tale of mans strength. You can't believe it when you see all Jan went through and if this movie doesn't leave you impressed, very few tings will. It's sad this movie isn't better known because it truly is a masterpiece! I recommend it highly.

The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to see a great survival movie, accept no substitutes. I've seen this movie 4 times. i never grow weary of it, because to this day it still entertains the hell out of me. the superb direction and supreme thrills made this movie stand the test of time. 50 years since it's release, it has a strong following of fans that love this movie for all that its worth. i would be heartbroken if i didn't have this movie in my DVD collection! every movie collector should have this, because it is really one of a kind! Jack Fjeldstad portrays Jan Baalsrud in a truly great fashion. The movie was nominated for an Oscar in 1958, but lost to "Notti di Cabiria, Le" (1957). i haven't seen it. but to win over "Ni Liv", it has to be great!

After having watched the 2017 movie "The 12th Man" about the mythical figure of Jan Baalsrud and his struggle for survival at the limits of human endurance, I wanted to see this 1957 film on the same topic, of which "The 12th Man" is an obvious remake.

In both movies, undoubtedly the most interesting aspects are the snowy landscapes, of spectacular beauty, and the photography that perfectly captures the magical atmosphere of these desolate mountains. One in dramatic black and white and the more recent one in stunning color photography. Filming in snowy landscapes with a predominance of pure white snow is undoubtedly a challenging and very difficult task.

Furthermore, the movie, aside from the underlying story, is rather flat and at times boring. However, the monotony of the unchanging landscapes and the days passing one after another can't help but be boring. In this aspect, the film succeeds in conveying this general sense of boredom, which here appears to be intentionally sought.

In terms of narrative, there are some consistency errors, and it's not very clear how, despite the protagonist's continuous movements, he always seems to be in the same cave.

It should also be noted that in terms of the use of weapons and explosives, the movie lacks credibility, and it doesn't seem like there was any expert in the field consulted. Jan shoots his pistol in such an unnatural way that it detracts from the credibility, especially in those sequences where the film breaks away from its monotonous tone for climactic moments.

Clearly, it's a low-budget film. In fact, the main episode of the film, the sinking of the ship, is not visualized in the film. On the other hand, it is an experimental cinematography, relying more on visuals than narrative, which makes it an interesting film for its time and, in some way, a hallmark of Nordic filmmaking, which thrives on silence rather than extensive dialogues.