MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Eye of the Cat

OT: Eye of the Cat

posted 5 years ago by MizhuB (165)
12 replies | jump to latest

Hi all. I remember a while back I was part of a discussion about 'Eye of the Cat'. Mostly with ecarle.

I found the movie on YouTube, in a glorious print. Actually, better than the DVD I have.

We'd discussed at length the scene where Eleanor Parker goes down the street in her wheelchair.

As I've said, it's a guilty pleasure flick of mine, but if you only want to see that scene, here's the link. Go to about 1:14 to see that scene in its entirety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=190&v=FdhE3qHwejw

[–] swanstep (2628) 5 years ago

@Miz. I've never heard of this film before. Having watched up to the credits, it looks like (proto-De Palma-ish?) fun although I wasn't actually sure what happened: fatal cat allergy?

Anyhow, it's always great (certainly for anyone who reads this board!) to see things shot in SF during the post-Vertigo, pre-Dirty Harry period. EOTC must have been shot after Point Blank and Bullitt but before Harold and Maude and around the same time as Una sull'altra, a crazy,Vertigo-besotted Giallo. I am *so* watching this movie even just for the location (in time as well as space).

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

Hi swanstep. Although that opening sequence is DePalma-esque, that is the only sequence in the entire movie with that much style. The scene with the wheelchair I guess would be a set-piece though (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly). The camera work is good, not spectacular.

Keep in mind, I never considered this movie to be 'good'. It isn't. Like I said, a guilty pleasure. It's just something I pop in occasionally when I want some fluffy entertainment.

Heh. No, not fatal cat allergy. She has severe emphysema. That's not really a spoiler, you find that out right away.

It WAS written by Joseph Stefano, with music by Lalo Schifrin. And, of course, the SF location.

[–] swanstep (2628) 5 years ago

The Stefano & Schiffrin connections are interesting - EOTC had a top DP too, Russell Metty, who did everything from Bringing Up Baby to Touch of Evil and Spartacus to all the great-looking early eps of Columbo (probably what that opening sequence of EOTC most reminds me of now I think about it). Let's face it, with those collaborators a director *should* be able to come up with *something* interesting or at least with a certain polish.

Looking up the director, David Lowell Rich on IMDb reveals that he mostly had a TV (inc. a couple of A. Hitch Hours) and esp. TV-movie career. I have a weak-ness/fond-ness for '70s TV-movie horror so I'll probably try to watch his 'Satan's School for Girls' TV-movie sometime (it's on youtube).

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

I didn't know that about Russell Metty. That explains why the film is mostly well-shot. And well-polished would be a good way to describe it too.

Interesting that the director was mostly a TV director. I have thought that some scenes have the look of a well-filmed TV movie.

I was also a fan of those 70's horror movies of the week.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Although that opening sequence is DePalma-esque, that is the only sequence in the entire movie with that much style. The scene with the wheelchair I guess would be a set-piece though (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly). The camera work is good, not spectacular.

---
ecarle here. As I recall, MizhuB, our discussion about Eye of the Cat centered on the wheelchair scene playing much like Arbogast's fall (process shot), and given that Eye of the Cat was written by Joseph Stefano, one could suspect he was "borrowing from himself" (though it was HITCHCOCK who literally re-wrote the staircase murder in ink on Stefano's screenplay pages to include that long fall -- in the script Arbogast falls out of the shot during the overhead attack.)

They showed that wheelchair scene for a few seconds during commercials for the debut of "Eye of the Cat' on NBC Monday Night at the Movies in the 70s. (Universal fed its B-ish product to NBC on a regular basis.)

As for Joseph Stefano, a tough career at times. He could be "responsible" for something as great as Psycho and as "meh" as Eye of the Cat. Having Hitchcock as a story editor and Robert Bloch's novel for inspiration (much as Stefano hated it) made all the difference.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I didn't know that about Russell Metty. That explains why the film is mostly well-shot. And well-polished would be a good way to describe it too.

---

There seemed to be a surfeit of great cinematographers available to film pretty marginal product in Hollywood . A script might not be good(sorry, Joe Stefano) but it sure could look good.

---

Interesting that the director was mostly a TV director. I have thought that some scenes have the look of a well-filmed TV movie.

---

Universal released some "borderline" movies that seemed better suited for TV. I can only suppose that Eye of the Cat was bit better budgeted(and shot, and scripted) than the usual TV movie. Longer, too. (Take the commercials out of a 90 minute Movie of the Week and you don't have a movie - you have an hour-ish TV drama.)

A famous movie that was meant to BE the first "Made for TV movie" ended up going to theaters instead -- it was deemed too violent for TV uncut -- and its a corker: 1964's The Killers, with Lee Marvin and Clu Culager ultra-cool as two hitmen(a father/son team, or maybe brothers -- in type, not reality), John Cassavetes and Angie Dickinson as ill-fated lovers, and Ronald Reagan famously a crime boss villain in his last role before politics. Directed by Don Siegel (Dirty Harry, Charley Varrick).

--

I was also a fan of those 70's horror movies of the week.

---

They could be effective. Anthony Perkins did one called "How Awful About Allen." And Joe Stefano wrote one for Sally Field and Walter Brennan(THERE's an odd couple) called "Home for the Holidays." Unfortunately, these TV movies couldn't be bloody/gory horrifying, even in a light manner, given censorship. (That's why Hitchcock's Frenzy, released at the height of TV movies, played so effectively as a theatrical -- it went all the way.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I've looked at the clip of the wheelchair set-piece. This was a great opportunity; I realize that in retrospect, all I ever saw was the Monday Night at the Movies TV commercial -- a few seconds of it. Indeed it does NOT seem to fully mimic Arbogast's fall because Eleanor Parker seems to be being filmed "on location" on that San Francisco street during the run, and not against a process screen.

"Studying it," one can see where Stefano and director Rich were clearly students of the Hitchcock style(Stefano -- but of course) -- the close-ups on key parts of the wheelchair, the "travelling POV shots" from one character's vantage point.

But alas, the good borrows of Hitchcockian technique are in the service of a scene that lacks Hitchcockian precision. It goes on too long setting up and starting on the action. Parts are contrived -- Parker electing to back her chair down that steep hill voluntarily; the cat arriving "just on time." But mainly: a lack of Hitchcock's well-timed inevitability. Everybody is straining in this scene, it just doesn't flow.

But it sure looks good -- SF back in one of its days, Parker in an arresting purple outfit that dominates the scene and the eye.

The emphasis on a "woman in the window" seems a puckish nod to Psycho, though the woman is a big haired 1969 beauty(Gayle Hunnicutt).

And how about the young man in the center of the action: Michael Sarrazin. He's one of those guys who got a little bit of stardom for a few years, but nothing that really "stuck." Maybe he had fans who swooned for him, but he always seemed like "some guy who was available for work" to me. (Perhaps his biggest lucky break was to get to co-star with Streisand around the time when Redford, O'Neal, and Caan were -- but that made THAT Streisand movie -- "For Pete's Sake" -- seem cheap.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Sarrazin's biggest claim to fame was being Jaqueline Bisset's long-term boyfriend(honestly, he lasted a LONG time) when she was at her young hottest. As I recall, Bisset bonded with Sarrazin to fend off all the vulgar Hollywood producers coming after her; he was " a sweet kid."

But not much of a star....

[–] swanstep (2628) 5 years ago

And how about the young man in the center of the action: Michael Sarrazin.

He was excellent as Jane Fonda's dance partner in The Shoot Horses Don't they? He was pretty great too as The Creature in a superior, early '70s TV-event-movie two-parter: Frankenstein: The True Story (w James Mason, Jane Seymour & other high price talent). In a shocking scene, Sarrazin's Creature [spoiler]rips Jane Seymour's Female Creature's head clean off[/spoiler]! But, yeah, he doesn't seem to have connected enough with audiences to have much of a career once his studly youth years were gone.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

He was excellent as Jane Fonda's dance partner in The Shoot Horses Don't they?

===

There ya go....when I think about some long-ago actor off the top of my head, I seem always to forget a "big one" they were in. They Shoot Horses Don't They has always intrigued me. I saw it on release as a teenager, and I found it pretty damn depressing. As did a lot of people. LA Times critic Charles Champlin, noting that the film was an Xmas release(for Oscar consideration) ended his review with a wry "Holiday fun for the entire family."

The film was directed by Sydney Pollack, who looked to be an auteur of the basis of it in 1969, but seemed to divert off into being "Robert Redford's pet director" and the maker of very starry entertainment(Fonda opposite Redford in The Electric Horseman is eons away from her hard-bitten Depression survivor in horses.) Gig Young won a deserved Oscar for playing the boozy MC of the horrifying dance contest(which physically ruins and in one instance, kills the dancers), but as I recall the rest of the Oscar heat dissipated and soon Pollack was a very highly paid maker of expensive Hollywood hits(surprise: when he ditched Bob Redford for Dustin Hoffman, he got his biggest hit, I think: Tootsie. But then Redford helped get him a Best Picture Oscar for Out of Africa.

---

He was pretty great too as The Creature in a superior, early '70s TV-event-movie two-parter: Frankenstein: The True Story (w James Mason, Jane Seymour & other high price talent).

---

I recall the Frankenstein TV event, didn't watch it, was curious as to how Sarrazin ended up in THAT part. But not that interested.

---

[–] swanstep (2628) 5 years ago

I'll probably try to watch his 'Satan's School for Girls' TV-movie sometime (it's on youtube).

Ugh! S'sSfG is pretty terrible and in no way a 'forgotten gem'.

In the past I've enjoyed TV-movie horrors such as Don't Be Afraid of The Dark (w. Kim Darby), Satan's Triangle (w. Kim Novak & Doug MacLure at sea!), above all Duel (which of course got a cinema release outside the US), the first Night Stalker ep., and a few others.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But, yeah, he doesn't seem to have connected enough with audiences to have much of a career once his studly youth years were gone.

---

Between the actors who become lasting stars(Newman, Nicholson) and the actors who never make it in movies even once, we get these fellows like Michael Sarrazin. Just enough years, just enough good roles, to be known for awhile and then....not.

I sometimes think Anthony Perkins could have ended up that way had not Psycho made history for him personally.