MovieChat Forums > The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) Discussion > Regarding the fate of the cat

Regarding the fate of the cat

posted 13 years ago by Deluge69-663-991830
18 replies | jump to latest

Some posters were mentioning what should have been done to the cat who "ate him".

If you recall, in the next scene, a TV News Announcer mentions the "passing of Scott Carey" was due to an attack by an ordinary house cat. He then states that the cat was "a former pet of the Carey family".

A former pet. Meaning the cat is no longer.

Sad, because I always had a fondness for those cute little furry creatures.

Tragic, indeed.

This film never fails to disturb me. And to think that it was originally promoted as a kids' Saturday Afternoon Matinee. "Experts" claim that films like ISM helped to contribute to juvenile delinquency, like rock n roll and comic books. What a wonderful world we live in.

[–] abepaulx 13 years ago

More disturbing is having a cat run around the house when your one-of-a-kind husband is as large as a mouse.

[–] InsanelySane 13 years ago

"a former pet of the Carey family" doesn't simply mean the cat has died, maybe the cat was given away to an animal shelter?

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 13 years ago

I hope so. After all, the cat didn't eat him, but did cause him much grief.

[–] dodgercodger 12 years ago

"a former pet of the Carey family" doesn't simply mean the cat has died, maybe the cat was given away to an animal shelter?

Possibly, but in 1957 the chances were that the cat would have been killed.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] klules664 12 years ago

The cat simply did what cats do, it saw prey and went after it, the wife was the one at fault here

"Oh Blanche? You know we got rats in the cellar"

[–] toonce62 9 years ago

Orangey the cat was the most famous actor in the whole dam movie. He played Cat in Breakfast at Tiffanys.

[–] rricci 11 years ago

a former pet of the Carey family" doesn't simply mean the cat has died, maybe the cat was given away to an animal shelter?

That's how I took it. The cat NO LONGER RESIDES at the residence. No mention of the cat being being put down.

Now I have a question for you all: Imagine you are in the movie's dimension where this is real. Would you take a cat knowing there is a possibility, no matter how small (pun not intended) that you too, could begin to shrink?

[–] eholzapfel26 12 years ago

Since Scott was now famous & being studied by a team of scientists, they would've disected the cat looking for Scott's remains (ya know, like they did with that first shark they caught in "Jaws") to make sure he wasn't still alive some where... which he was.

[–] Two-Spacer 12 years ago

^^^ This.

Let us all beware of resting satisfied with head-knowledge. - CofE Bishop J.C. Ryle

[–] gribfritz2 12 years ago

Doubtful. If the cat were dissected, they would know it did not eat Scott. By the end of the movie, they still didn't know for sure if the cat did or didn't, implying that the cat was never dissected to check.

[–] eholzapfel26 12 years ago

The OP posed the question of what "should have" been done to the cat.
The movie never revealed it's fate, but I was only responding that in real life, the logical thing to do would be for the team of scientists to dissect the cat to confirm whether Scott had been killed or not. (But then, this isn't real life, nor is the whole scenario real in any way, plus if they did dissect the cat then there would've been a tiny-manhunt within the house and we wouldn't have had a final act to the movie!)

[–] vestdennis 12 years ago

I assume his wife gave the cat away (maybe to an animal shelter). I never took it to mean she had it put down. Although they could have checked out his/her tummy to to verify he was eaten. I always thought it was wrong to jump to the conclusion that the cat ate him. Or check his litter pan later?

[–] rricci 11 years ago

"This film never fails to disturb me. And to think that it was originally promoted as a kids' Saturday Afternoon Matinee."

Can you cite a source that says that this was promoted as a kid's movie? I think this movie is too intense for kids (I could (probably) be wrong).

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 11 years ago

According to my uncle (who saw it at a Sat. Matinee in the early 60's), the local theatre did convey the standard impression that ISM was a "kids' movie", complete with a giant housecat and spider. He was shocked to learn that it wasn't.

You know how distributers and promoters are, always judging the books by their covers, and lumping all the 'B films' into the same generic catagories. Without even knowing that it was way more deep and intense, but you know Hollywood and their 'procedures'.

When I first saw it, I never expected it to end the way it did. It haunted me for so long, that I never saw it again for nearly a decade, because it disturbed me so much. Matheson sure knew how to write, and it obviously impressed Serling so much that he hired him later for Twilight Zone.

[–] Iridescent_Phantom 11 years ago

======================================================================
"Experts" claim that films like ISM helped to contribute to juvenile delinquency, like rock n roll and comic books.
=====================================================================

They were the "experts" who saw no difference between The Incredible Shrinking Man and bad films like Devil Girl From Mars and Killers From Space.

The Jack Arnold movie was clearly made for a more mature and discerning audience, compared to the juvenile cheapies churned out by Roger Corman. It played first run houses on its original run and only later was relegated to the Saturday matinee hours.

I saw the film in '57. It resonated deep in my mind for years afterwards, especially Carey's beautiful and poetic final speech, one of the finest ever written for a science fiction film.

Oh, yeah, The cat. In the real world Butch would have been dissected. Fortunately, in the cinematic world, Butch was given to a needy family and lived a long happy contented feline life.

What Is Essential Is Invisible

[–] Ten-Inch-Toni 11 years ago

That cat would have gone in for a quick shot and an autopsy to see if it really had my husband in it's stomach.

On the other hand, the cat would have been given away, far away long before my husband became a bite size morsel. That and the doll house would have been put up on higher ground, etc.

Oh, well, it's still and interesting movie. When I watched it as a kid in the 60s it scared the hell out of me. Especially the spider scene and then I worried about what was going to happen to him after he walked thru the screen.

All the 'nuclear' or 'Eisenhower' era films had some element that scared the hell out of me, because a kid growing up in the 50s and 60s and going thru air-raid and fallout shelter drills in school, not to mention the 8mm reels we had to watch about what to do incase an atom bomb landed in our back yard was very real and scared the holy hell out of all of us.

[–] astridmoon 8 years ago

I don't think they ever ''dissected'' the cat. Or they would have gone right away to look for Carey, once it turned out there wasn't a tiny victim in the feline's body.

But I do believe it was put down, the way they always kill wild animals or pet dogs that have killed a human being.