The Horror Dads vs. THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE

The Horror Dads are taking a break from untangling Christmas lights, assembling bikes and scooters, spiking the eggnog and catching up on THRILLER episodes to discuss the Val Lewton-produced THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE (1944), one of the strangest sequels ever burned to film.

Joining in on the discussion are five-sixths of the usual suspects: JEFF ALLARD, DENNIS COZZALIO, PAUL GAITA, NICHOLAS MCCARTHY and yours truly, RHS.  Conspicuous in his absence this time out and greatly missed is GREG FERRARA, who had his Christmas shopping to finish. Before we begin, a brief synopsis:

In this follow-up to RKO’s CAT PEOPLE (1942), dead changeling (or was she?) Irena Dubrovna (Simone Simon) materializes years later in the Tarrytown back yard of her remarried former husband Oliver Reed (Kent Smith), giving a face to the imaginary friend of Oliver’s lonely young daughter Amy (Ann Carter).  As Ollie and second wife Alice (Jane Randolph) worry about Amy’s escalating flights of fancy, Amy’s curiosity about a reclusive elderly neighbor (Julia Dean) pushes that woman’s unbalanced and alienated adult daughter (Elizabeth Russell) to thoughts of murder.


RHS:  Why isn’t CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE (1944) a holiday perennial, like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) and MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (1947)? It’s got everything: snow, a Snow Queen (kind of), jolly carolers, presents under the tree, a creepy old house and an angry middle-aged woman who wants to strangle a child.  Why is this movie Christmas’ best kept secret?

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: I think the key is “best kept secret.”  It’s hard to identify the film as a horror movie, much less a sequel to CAT PEOPLE.  Lewton’s agenda here feels as though it falls outside the bounds of any familiar genre.  It has its share of holiday mirth — and a happy, snowy ending — but it’s certainly not a ‘feel good’ movie for the holidays.  Each time I’ve watched it I find myself saying “What is this movie?”  Which, personally, I think is what makes it so special.

DENNIS COZZALIO: “What is this movie?” Absolutely right, Nick. I love the fact that, multiple viewings removed from my first time with it, it still feels that way. I really hope that it’s one my girls will remember and want to see again as they grow up. If they don’t, it won’t be for lack of me trying.

JEFF ALLARD: For people who aren’t horror fans, the title is a turn-off. And for horror fans, the reputation the movie has of not really being a horror film and not really being connected with the first film is enough to cause disinterest.  For a lot of horror fans, movies that fly in the face of holiday cheer, like BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974), are always going to be the go-to choice.

RHS: I would at this point like to go on record to say that I’ve never seen SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1984) or any of its sequels. Though I do think very highly of SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT (1974).

JEFF ALLARD:  Even if more people were familiar with CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE, I still don’t think it would be a annual tradition in many households. It ends on an upbeat note but for most of its running time, it’s too melancholy to be much fun to revisit. Amy’s home life is depressing, with her dad being so belligerent about her inability to make friends and even Irena’s visits are more sad than anything else because they’re reminders of what a lonely kid Amy is.

RHS: I agree but would substitute “heartbreaking” for “depressing.”

PAUL GAITA:  Jeff makes a good point.  It’s neither fish nor fowl, neither heart-warming enough nor frightening enough to make it a favorite for either audience. However, it does have enough of both to make it intriguing for curious viewers, or those looking for offbeat fare. For me, it floats in the same soup as NIGHT TIDE (1961), LEMORA: A CHILD’S TALE OF THE SUPERNATURAL (1973) and LET’S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH (1971) — movies with horror elements, but really, genres unto themselves.

DENNIS COZZALIO: What a perfect world it would be if somehow CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE managed to make it into the holiday pantheon, eh? It’s got the atmosphere down perfectly and certainly dark undercurrents have never been a problem in beloved Christmas tales. But don’t you think the holiday atmosphere here, though eerie and beautiful and effective, could conceivably be transfused with another kind of atmosphere so that it could work entirely as a movie not set in the Christmas season? My thought is that, it works as a psychologically acute fairy tale, and my kids were held by it, especially since it was a little girl at the center, but it’s not a tale where Christmas is central to how the story works. Or is it?

PAUL GAITA: I do think that the stigma of the title has much to do with the reason it’s not thought of as a Christmas movie. Didn’t Lewton himself want it titled “Amy and Her Friend” after Simone Simon’s line of dialogue?

RHS: The title CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE came from the RKO brass and Lewton was obligated to use it.  He didn’t want to make a sequel to CAT PEOPLE and preferred to makean unrelated stand-alone film.  The only reason he brought back the original cast of CAT PEOPLE was to use them as a sort of bait-and-switch, so he could do whatever the hell he wanted and it would still play as a sequel.  Mind you, “Amy and Her Friend” is an awful title.  Sounds like a high school hygiene short about the menstrual cycle.

PAUL GAITA: Yeah, a movie titled “Amy and Her Friend” would not get me to skip Rudolph.   It’s simply not a traditional horror movie – it’s not a traditional anything, really.  It’s also not much of a family movie. I was particularly disturbed by Kent Smith’s blunt force approach to rearing his daughter.  His concern about Irena’s bloodline passing to his daughter is about as wingnutty a theory as possible, and giving the belt to his kid for not playing with children (who are all, to a person, the most appalling little brats) or exhibiting an imagination, doesn’t exactly paint a warm portrait of a family that can cope with challenges. Sure, he comes around in the end, having ignored Jane Randolph and Ann Carter for the entire picture, but did he need Amy to run away and nearly get throttled for him to see the light? I understand that parenting rules and regs have changed quite a bit over the last half-century, but Smith is a jaw-droppingly Bad Dad, no matter how you slice it, and I imagine that children might raise an eyebrow over his behavior.

RHS: CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE seems to me to be a story about the birth of the American middle class.  In the first movie, it was all inner city, partly the story of an immigrant trying to make it in the New World.  Even Kent Smith’s and Jane Randolph’s characters are connected to the merchant class of past centuries via their work as nautical engineers.  CURSE moves the characters to the suburbs, where Smith’s character seems very much bent on maintaining the kind of social conformity that people thought was the backbone of suburban life, a sort of Arrow Shirt acquisitiveness, keeping up with the Joneses.  But his memories of his first wife and the anarchic behavior of his daughter keep dragging his four-square suburban dream through the mud of passion, mystery and imagination.  Of course, the myth of suburban normalcy is as big a pipe dream as the one about the fairy princess who wants to be your best friend.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: I don’t know whether Lewton was conscious of that connection or not, or whether the backdrop is simply trying to evoke an idyllic childhood in a then-contemporary context.

DENNIS COZZALIO: This is a movie that is visually poetic and evocative of a dream of family unity but also one that you can almost literally feel struggling with the boundaries placed on it by the realities of its production and the expectations of the studio.  I hadn’t thought about Richard’s notions that one of the things the movie is about is the birth of the modern suburban sensibility, but I like the idea and how it adds richness to the whole fabric of the movie. It’s a good entryway into thinking about why Kent Smith is, as Paul says, such a Bad Dad. He’s struggling against the reality of what it takes to be a family in trying to box everything into this bright, shiny, wrinkle-free package, and having to deal with his daughter’s “strange behavior” alienates him even further. Of course, being even pre-Ward Cleaver (no one’s idea of a modern dad, but still a pretty good standard bearer for the kind of suburban ideal Smith aspires to), this kind of father figure, one who is there to win bread and administer authority while the mother provides the emotional stability, was more the norm than not. So is it a failure of the script that Kent Smith seems so clueless in the role of being able to relate and understand his daughter– something that comes more naturally to us — or is it a more accurate reflection of the role of fatherhood that was prevalent at the time?

PAUL GAITA: I wonder, though: does Kent Smith have very many expectations put upon him? We almost never see him working or worried about finances. He spends more time futzing around in the workshop than at a job. His domestic needs are taken care of by Jane Randolph and Edward (the great Sir Lancelot). It’s a pretty cushy life. Smith appears to draw a check from the same Suburban Dad Union that paid Ozzie Nelson to drink Cokes with his neighbors every week.  I suppose, in that regard, that placing his worries over Amy’s “odd” behavior in his past seems entirely understandable, at least from his limited perspective.

JEFF ALLARD: What does Jane Randolph’s character do with her time, exactly? They’ve got a butler who spends more time with Amy than either of her parents but yet Alice Reed doesn’t seem to work. She’s always around the house entertaining her friends. Between her angry dad and a mother who doesn’t devote much time to her, it’s no wonder Amy’s looking for imaginary companionship.

RHS: Watching CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE again recently, I kept flashing on Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (1960) as a kind of cinematic kin.  Not that I think that Amy Reed and Norman Bates are kindred spirits but there is embedded in both movies a sort of grieving for mismanaged childhoods, childhoods caught between repressive Victorian attitudes about innocence.  Let’s not forget the character of Barbara, Julia Farren’s embittered daughter, who creeps through her mansion with this mosquito-in-aspic quality, frozen out of her mother’s affections as she has been since she was six.  Or so we deduce – we don’t get the full facts, just references about an accident.  Was there a twin who died, or another child?  Does Julia hold Barbara responsible?  Is Julia projecting her own guilt upon her surviving child?  Whatever the backstory,  he alienation factor here is sky high, as in PSYCHO, although in this setting it’s the distance between family members rather than the oppressive maternal grasp that keeps Norman Bates at a distance from the rest of the world.  Throw THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (1945) in as well and you have these glimpses of pained childhoods, maybe not so much painful childhoods as the pained remembrance of a childhood innocence that is, like all those web-strewn nurseries you see in horror movies, a locked room.

PAUL GAITA:  Is the movie saying that Barbara’s life is the fate awaiting Amy if she doesn’t pull it together? Or is it just the roll of the dice – it’s too late for Barbara and her mother, but Amy and Oliver might be able to find a familial bond?

RHS: The movie strikes me as fundamentally confused.  I don’t mean that as a detriment, as the film does deal in irreconcilable issues or non-complementary worldviews.  And that’s okay…  too often we want movies to give us a clean equation, a teachable moment, from which we can distill a life lesson, but movies that offer us nothing more than fortune cookie bromides or emotional unguent tend to have a short shelf life, at least for me.  There is a plea here for tolerance encoded within THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE but it’s hard to really extract a clean moral.  In the end, Oliver accepts Amy with a well-meaning lie; Amy asks if he can see her friend and Ollie says he can but we can see he’s looking at Amy, not where Amy is looking.  He’s has entered a blind faith phase, based on the fear of losing his daughter, which isn’t necessarily what Amy needs going forward.  Parents shouldn’t be led by their kids’ imaginations so much as become partners in it.  My kids are constantly offering up fanciful spins on What Just Happened.  To hear my son tell it, “The ‘Visible Man” is responsible for everything that goes wrong on his watch and I can’t imagine myself actually buying into that.

PAUL GAITA: As parents, we do bend the rules of reality according to a variety of external and internal factors, including (more often than not) our own inner discomfort or desire. What sort of effect that will have on our children in the future is a subject of endless debate.  In this case, one wonders if Oliver will go back to his old sourpuss routine if Amy continues to insist that her “friend” is hanging around the backyard a year after the events in this movie, and thereby throw her into deeper confusion.

JEFF ALLARD: Going back to the question about Barbara… I don’t think that she is supposed to foreshadow a possible future self for Amy. If anything, it’s Julia that Amy might turn into – with her loose grip on reality and her inability to embrace the real family member that’s craving her attention. Maybe the angry, inflexible Barbara is a reflection of the exasperated Oliver and with her and Julia we’re seeing a reverse version of Oliver and Amy’s relationship. Instead of a parent frustrated with their child’s immersion in a fantasy world, we have the child feeling that frustration towards the parent.

DENNIS COZZALIO: I think Jeff is onto something. I had always drawn the easy parallel between the two daughters but Jeff was clearly paying closer attention than I all these years. It’s pretty easy to see that, without the emotional correctives and support in place, Amy could turn inward, as does Julia, and ward off attention and love from those around her in favor of fantastical and idealized representations of that love. That said, it has always struck me in watching the movie over the years that the most feline presence is clearly Elizabeth Russell’s Barbara. With those slits for eyes and her sour facial expressions, everything in her body language suggests claws out and ready to swipe. In this regard, I think Jeff’s observation that her true corollary is Oliver is spot-on. But we’re encouraged to see the elements in each character that might reflect back on the whole, no just simple A-is-to-B as C-is-to-D comparisons, which gives the movie’s portrait of the ways in which fantasies can muddy the natural connections between people a much more rounded and less schematic quality.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY:  I would agree that the film feels confused.  It’s hard to really feel that Oliver accepting his daughter’s fantasies is truly some kind of triumph, because there are so many loose ends hanging around inside this very unusual story to begin with.  As typical with Lewton, the women are great – I love Ann Carter’s performance and I have a soft spot for Jane Randolph’s loving but only functional mother character.  I also adore Elizabeth Russell, the woman who plays the tormented daughter in the old house – she has the most incredible face.  But Kent Smith’s awesomely generic acting chops creates this cloudiness as to how we should exactly feel about his character.  I have to believe Lewton would’ve wanted something more nuanced.  But, in some odd way, it ends up working, maybe because it’s just so strange the way he seems to lurch from emotion to emotion with nothing in between.  That blind faith Richard describes at the end might just be a symptom of Smith’s blandness versus the intention of the script.

RHS:  There’s something very modern about Ollie, in the way he doesn’t seem fully grown up.  He spends a lot of time feeling sorry for himself.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY:  Something I responded to watching the film this time was Oliver’s conflicted actions over Irena’s memory.  He throws out all of her pictures in a gesture that says she means nothing to him, yet he secretly hangs on to one.  Besides the obvious shape-shifting stuff, the conflict in the original CAT PEOPLE was that he wasn’t able to have sex with Irena.  Are we to believe here that Oliver is still carrying a torch for this never-consummated relationship?  He’s stashing away pictures of her, after all.  Is he transferring this angst on to his daughter?  I don’t think we can clearly say, but it’s this sort of real meat in Lewton’s work that makes his films so sophisticated in comparison to nearly every other horror film of the period … and many non-horror films as well.

RHS: You have to admit there’s something deliciously perverse about the notion of a man’s dead first wife – not even taking into account that she could or thought she could transform into a cat and kill people – becoming his young daughter’s imaginary friend… and maybe that perversity appealed to Lewton as well as he tried to justify the studio-mandated title THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE.  Yet beneath the superficial “wouldn’t it be funny if…” aspect of that logline is something uncomfortably real and knowing about the way kids glean bits and pieces of their parents’ past lives and work them into their own mythologies and worldviews.  And how could they not?  We’re born with these magnet-like brains, to which are pulled all kinds of scraps of history and theology and rumor and speculation and we strike our own balance at an early age between the official story and the alternate reality we cobble together with our brains.  I think Irena exerts a hold over Oliver because she’s dead, because she’s imaginary, and his memories of her are bound up in his fantasies of the marriage they could have had.  If you want to err on the clinical side of speculation, you could easily imagine that Jane Randolph’s character is loving and passionate in her own way but perhaps there’s something too reciprocal, too decent about the Reeds’ lovemaking, edging Oliver towards a dangerous fantasy that has the attractive allure of consuming him whole.  I think that kind of transgressive pull is something we’ve all felt on some level, at some point, as the dark flip-side of a child’s storybook fantasy of communion and transformation.

NICHOLAS MCCARTHY: Lewton had an one-of-a-kind voice as a writer and producer, with a great gift for choosing actors and an incredible three dimensional sense of detail to his storytelling but here these elements never exactly congeal in the way they do with his masterpieces like CAT PEOPLE and THE SEVENTH VICTIM (1943).  But, the fact that it’s hard to say exactly where the film is pitched is one of the things that makes it exciting.  In a way it reminds me of ISLE OF THE DEAD (1945) — one of the least perfect of his horror movies but containing some awesome peaks.

RHS: On a more pedestrian level, how cheesed off would any or all of us have been in May of 1944 – a May release for a movie set at Christmas! – when this was the sequel RKO offered for CAT PEOPLE?  I’m asking for honesty here… the honest of an unforgiving 12 year old boy’s heart.

PAUL GAITA:  I know exactly how my 14-year-old self would react: stony silence throughout the entire running time, and then, as the credits rolled: “What the f… was THAT? Where were the Cat People?”

DENNIS COZZALIO:  Yeah, as much as I would like to believe that I’d have been the one 12-year-old with enough sophistication and patience to understand the perverse artistic choices of one Val Lewton in making a not-sequel, truth is I would have been muttering the same things Paul would have. I think all we have to do is remember either our own reactions, or those of the fanboy community at the time and down through the Internet age, to the release of HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH (1982) to access a set of real-life circumstances that probably echo pretty strongly how people came away from Lewton’s movie, if they came at all. Of course, CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE has the advantage of actually being a good movie, which may have ended up as some sort of balm for those who were able to put away their expectations and enjoy it on its own level. HALLOWEEN III is, perhaps, not such a good movie, and though enjoyable on a certain level it certainly is, I do remember a lot of grumbling and items being thrown at the screen when the first night screening I saw back in 1982 finished up.

JEFF ALLARD: I can’t blame anyone – young or old - who felt put out by CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE on its original release. It’s not easy to appreciate a movie’s artistic merit when you’re seething over the lack of both curses and cat people in a movie called CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE. I know I wouldn’t have been happy.

DENNIS COZZALIO: We should remember too that in all likelihood those of us who ponied up on the first weekend for HALLOWEEN III probably did so with considerably higher awareness of how the movie was going to deviate from the expected than did those who paid to see CURSE back in 1945. So if audiences were disappointed out of ignorance back then, what excuse did we have in 1982?

RHS: That we’re pathetic?

PAUL GAITA: No Michael Myers. That was pretty upsetting. Also, not enough Silver Shamrock commercials.

RHS: Pro: Stacie Nelkin naked.  But maybe we’re getting off-topic.

RHS: I think one of the biggest reasons the Val Lewton movies endure is because they’re all sort of “tweeners,” to borrow a phrase from the contemporary writer-director Larry Fessenden.  They exist in the interstices between genres and they’re just as interested in talking about the way we live as they are in giving us a little chill. Unlike the Universal horror films, the ones Lewton produced at RKO are less archetypal and more nuanced.  Lewton’s madmen — Karloff in ISLE OF THE DEAD and THE BODY SNATCHER (1945), Richard Dix in GHOST SHIP (1944), the Satanic cult in THE SEVENTH VICTIM — are half reasonable and a lot of what they say about life is true and well-reasoned.  The whole Lewton canon has these wonderful contradictions: Tom Conway’s Dr. Judd is a lecherous, manipulative shit in CAT PEOPLE and yet he’s a voice of goodness (however sardonic) in THE SEVENTH VICTIM (even though he dies in the first movie)… and yet we accept that contradiction, that Judd can have both those qualities.  And in CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE, we accept that the either psychologically damaged or genuinely monstrous Irena Dubrovna can be a wise and protective friend tp an impressionable girl.  Lewton’s cycle of horror films are not only dream-like in their execution but in their understanding of our conflicted human psyches, the way we desire both security and and a measure of danger, and the way that sanity and madness are not polar opposites but closer on the same continuum than we’d like to believe.  Despite aspects of the stories that feel dated in regard to the relationships of men to women, of adults to children or between the races, the Lewton canon has held up remarkably well at the distance of sixty years.  I think we can all agree it’s a pleasure to get a chance to talk about CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE and to point new viewers its way, both during the long calendar of the year and especially at Christmas.

On behalf of the Horror Dads, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Today’s Horror Dads roundtable is dedicated to the memory of Cliff Doerksen.  A gifted writer, teacher, a published authority on media history, a former film critic for Time Out Chicago, a frequent contributor to The Chicago Reader, a blogger with a passion for history and food (and the history of food) and a May 2010 recipient of the James Beard Foundation Award, Cliff died unexpectedly last week at the age of only 47, leaving behind his grieving parents, his brothers, his wife Elspeth Carruthers and their 6 year-old daughter Gladys (pictured with Cliff on the right).  I didn’t know Cliff personally but the particulars of his life (and I don’t mean just the end of it) touched me as I came to know them over the past few days.  All I know about Cliff is taken from the public record (he was from Canada, the son of a Mountie) and I don’t have any personal insights to share with you by way of eulogy.  Maybe all that needs to be said, at least in this company, is that Cliff Doerksen loved  VAMPYR (1932) and THE BIRDS (1932) and QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (1968) and THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974) and PAN’S LABYRINTH (2007) and he was a Dad.

12 Responses The Horror Dads vs. THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE
Posted By dukeroberts : December 24, 2010 11:41 am

This movie sounds kind of interesting. I may give the double feature of it and Cat People a whirl. The added benefit of that would be to see super cute Simone Simon. The scene where she first appears in The Devil and Daniel Webster is suitable for framing.

Posted By dukeroberts : December 24, 2010 11:41 am

This movie sounds kind of interesting. I may give the double feature of it and Cat People a whirl. The added benefit of that would be to see super cute Simone Simon. The scene where she first appears in The Devil and Daniel Webster is suitable for framing.

Posted By Bob Gutowski : December 24, 2010 1:14 pm

Fascinating, as always! Many angles discussed, and a truly profound realization as to Lewton’s (and his writers’) explorations of the multitudes of selves each of us contains. Also, Collazzo’s linking of Amy and the old lady is eye-opening. Keep it up, dads!

Posted By Bob Gutowski : December 24, 2010 1:14 pm

Fascinating, as always! Many angles discussed, and a truly profound realization as to Lewton’s (and his writers’) explorations of the multitudes of selves each of us contains. Also, Collazzo’s linking of Amy and the old lady is eye-opening. Keep it up, dads!

Posted By franko : December 24, 2010 3:34 pm

Both movies are incredible, alone and/or together. Happy Holidays to you all as well! So sorry to hear about Cliff – didn’t know the fellow, but the pic makes me want to cry . . .

Posted By franko : December 24, 2010 3:34 pm

Both movies are incredible, alone and/or together. Happy Holidays to you all as well! So sorry to hear about Cliff – didn’t know the fellow, but the pic makes me want to cry . . .

Posted By Greg Ferrara : December 24, 2010 9:36 pm

I will not miss the next one. Seriously, there’s no way I’m missing out on our discussion of PIPPIE LONGSTOCKING. It’s going to be the BEST HORROR DADS EVER!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : December 24, 2010 9:36 pm

I will not miss the next one. Seriously, there’s no way I’m missing out on our discussion of PIPPIE LONGSTOCKING. It’s going to be the BEST HORROR DADS EVER!

Posted By Paul Gaita : December 25, 2010 10:11 pm

PIPPI LONGSTOCKING?!? It’ll be our most horrifying discussion yet!

Posted By Paul Gaita : December 25, 2010 10:11 pm

PIPPI LONGSTOCKING?!? It’ll be our most horrifying discussion yet!

Posted By Paul Duane : December 27, 2010 7:34 am

Just re-watched this last night as part of a personal crusade to reclaim the great unwatched Christmas movies – then stumbled across your illuminating discussion via SLIFR, and I’m glad I did. What a one-off the movie is, in a Night of the Hunter sort of way – a genuine cinematic fairytale, with an atmosphere unlike almost anything else I’ve seen, though Lemora and Night Tide are excellent calls.

Posted By Paul Duane : December 27, 2010 7:34 am

Just re-watched this last night as part of a personal crusade to reclaim the great unwatched Christmas movies – then stumbled across your illuminating discussion via SLIFR, and I’m glad I did. What a one-off the movie is, in a Night of the Hunter sort of way – a genuine cinematic fairytale, with an atmosphere unlike almost anything else I’ve seen, though Lemora and Night Tide are excellent calls.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

We regret to inform you that FilmStruck is now closed.  Our last day of service was November 29, 2018.

Please visit tcm.com/help for more information.

We would like to thank our many fans and loyal customers who supported us.  FilmStruck was truly a labor of love, and in a world with an abundance of entertainment options – THANK YOU for choosing us.