Not Forthcoming: California Split

Discuss releases by Indicator and the films on them.

Moderator: MichaelB

Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Forthcoming: California Split

#26 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed May 13, 2020 4:27 pm

Agreed, I really enjoyed reading that breakdown. Under all the fun shaggy-dog antics rests a desperation each man has for the 'chase' in protecting their vulnerabilities with consistent action, fighting impermanent satisfaction by drowning in adrenaline. There is a kind of romanticism about their relationship, finding that core person who speaks your language and becomes a running-buddy, due to behavioral patterns and a similar feeling being chased that can be shared. This is common in active addicts and one of the many things this film gets so right is how these relationships are more honest and complex than people want to believe in hindsight. I can't stress how many people will talk about these relationships they had in the heat of addiction as inauthentic and invalidate any value that they held through a rigid separation as a kind of defense mechanism in organizing their past from present in recovery. Yet there are real bonds in many of those relationships, and this is one of the rare films to encourage such a compassionate reading.

The analysis on the end is succinct but scratches the surface of why this is my favorite movie about addiction - the 'spiritual awakening' initiated by an unexpected numbness that forces a mirror in, and an opportunity is taken to sit with this acute moment of clarity rather than brush it off as he has likely done many times before, and thankfully, hopefully will not do anymore going forward. The camaraderie between the men is so beautiful I think it may be my favorite cinematic depiction of adult male friendship, which is why the finale -a necessary separation between one who is ready to depart the life and another fatalistically still bound to it- is so deeply tragic and quietly optimistic at once, with said hope appropriately resting in a place of measured banality-as-serenity. Perhaps this loss will initiate one notch towards a wakeup call for Gould as well.
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Forthcoming: California Split

#27 Post by tojoed » Thu May 14, 2020 2:34 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 4:27 pm

I can't stress how many people will talk about these relationships they had in the heat of addiction as inauthentic and invalidate any value that they held through a rigid separation as a kind of defense mechanism in organizing their past from present in recovery.
I was in rehab 13 years ago, and this was encouraged by counsellors,
which appalled me. I left quite quickly, but I am still clean/sober all
these years later.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Forthcoming: California Split

#28 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu May 14, 2020 8:57 am

Congrats tojoed, thanks for sharing that. I do think there is a protective purpose to the instruction and I’ve recommended it myself to people on a case by case basis, but I think over time you can discern the complexity in those traumatic histories that most want to keep black and white. Though they can be left that way for fair and sometimes correct reasons. From a harm reduction morality, some kind of detachment is the best practice to preach for people on early recovery, even if only based on subjective triggers for the recovering person and not the merits of the relationship or environment itself in absolute terms.

User avatar
Reverend Drewcifer
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:16 pm
Location: Cincinnati

Re: Forthcoming: California Split

#29 Post by Reverend Drewcifer » Thu May 14, 2020 9:42 am

The OOP Columbia disc has one of my favorite typographical errors ever on the back of the slipcase.

The strange saga of Ann Prentiss, sister of Paula Prentiss:

"Ann's acting credits between 1962-1988 total 30 but then she kind of fell off the radar until 1997 when she was arrested for assaulting her 86-year-old father, Thomas Ragusa. The two were at his Beverly Hills apartment and while struggling with each other, Ann hit Thomas on the head with a flashlight and discharged a weapon, a .38-caliber handgun. She was arrested for battery and assault with a firearm. While being held on those charges (and here comes the confounding part), Ann tried to hire a fellow inmate to kill three people - Thomas Ragusa, Paula's husband Richard Benjamin and Paula's son 23-year-old Ross Benjamin. The District Attorney could now added solicitation to commit murder to the list of complaints which included making terrorist threats. On June 25, 1997, after two days of deliberations, Ann was found guilty. On July 23, 1997, Ann was sentenced to 19 years in prison of which she served 12. Ann Elizabeth Ragusa Prentiss died on January 12, 2010 while still an inmate at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, California. Cause of death was arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease and pulmonary emphysema. She was 70-years-old."

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Forthcoming: California Split

#30 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:00 pm

Really strong interview with Segal, Gould, and Walsh in three parts for the film's 40th anniversary several years back:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

Re: Forthcoming: California Split

#31 Post by senseabove » Thu May 20, 2021 3:57 pm

Joseph Walsh, the movie's writer and producer, has uploaded a short piece on the movie and Segal's death, and shared a sequel script he apparently finished on the day Segal died: http://josephrwalsh.com/jrw/

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#32 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 17, 2022 7:34 am

This probably won't be a surprise, given that it's been in music rights clearance limbo for some years now, but...
Some followers of the INDICATOR label may be aware that, some years back, we teased Robert Altman’s CALIFORNIA SPLIT for a future release. Sadly, and despite a great deal of time and effort, legal complications have proven too much of a hurdle and we can now confirm that this release will not be happening. We are, of course, as upset with this news as you are, but hope to make up for it with many exciting releases of other great films to come.

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#33 Post by yoloswegmaster » Thu Feb 17, 2022 7:44 am

MichaelB wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 7:34 am
This probably won't be a surprise, given that it's been in music rights clearance limbo for some years now, but...
Some followers of the INDICATOR label may be aware that, some years back, we teased Robert Altman’s CALIFORNIA SPLIT for a future release. Sadly, and despite a great deal of time and effort, legal complications have proven too much of a hurdle and we can now confirm that this release will not be happening. We are, of course, as upset with this news as you are, but hope to make up for it with many exciting releases of other great films to come.
This sucks to hear. Didn't Criterion have the U.S. rights for this or was just that a rumor? I guess this means that they won't be releasing this as well.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#34 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 17, 2022 8:01 am

The barriers are financial, and Criterion has access to a much bigger market, so they have a better chance of recouping that investment.

That said, the financial bar may be higher for them because they have access to a much bigger market...

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#35 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:56 am

yoloswegmaster wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 7:44 am
This sucks to hear. Didn't Criterion have the U.S. rights for this or was just that a rumor? I guess this means that they won't be releasing this as well.
Someone using a very similar username ("yoloswegmaster420") has just made this oddly entitled post on Blu-ray.com:
Indicator is going to have to be more transparent here since they were the ones who had originally announced that they were going to release it, whereas I'm pretty certain that Criterion had never announced or even hinted that they had the rights to it.
In what way have they not been completely transparent? Obviously they're not going to upload PDFs of the relevant contracts and correspondence, but surely the basic situation is clear enough?

Sadly, it's sometimes the case that complications arise with licensing deals that weren't apparent at the time that the contracts were originally signed and the title initially teased. It doesn't happen very often, thankfully, but I'm sure you yourself can think of other examples.

(The most common situation is when more than one label claims to have the contractually-agreed rights to a particular territory, and I believe there's just such a situation being publicly thrashed out right now, although not involving Criterion or Indicator.)

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#36 Post by swo17 » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:06 am

MichaelB wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 8:01 am
The barriers are financial, and Criterion has access to a much bigger market, so they have a better chance of recouping that investment.

That said, the financial bar may be higher for them because they have access to a much bigger market...
How is this still true when both labels are in both the.US and UK now?

EDIT: I suppose Indicator only ever secured UK release rights?

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#37 Post by yoloswegmaster » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:08 am

MichaelB wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:56 am
yoloswegmaster wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 7:44 am
This sucks to hear. Didn't Criterion have the U.S. rights for this or was just that a rumor? I guess this means that they won't be releasing this as well.
Someone using a very similar username ("yoloswegmaster420") has just made this oddly entitled post on Blu-ray.com:
Indicator is going to have to be more transparent here since they were the ones who had originally announced that they were going to release it, whereas I'm pretty certain that Criterion had never announced or even hinted that they had the rights to it.
In what way have they not been completely transparent? Obviously they're not going to upload PDFs of the relevant contracts and correspondence, but surely the basic situation is clear enough?

Sadly, it's sometimes the case that complications arise with licensing deals that weren't apparent at the time that the contracts were originally signed and the title initially teased. It doesn't happen very often, thankfully, but I'm sure you yourself can think of other examples.

(The most common situation is when more than one label claims to have the contractually-agreed rights to a particular territory, and I believe there's just such a situation being publicly thrashed out right now, although not involving Criterion or Indicator.)
I didn't say that they need to be more transparent, I just said that they have to be more transparent since they had announced the title as a forthcoming release. This was in response to a comment made by someone else saying that Indicator were being more transparent about this, unlike Criterion, though admittedly I could have phrased my comment better. I already posted this same comment in the other forum, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up here. However, I'm glad to see we have a new KL Insider posting here. :roll:

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#38 Post by Ribs » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:12 am

Something else is it remains the case not one title has been licensed to Indicator by Sony that Criterion had also licensed, presumably as they got first dibs to bring these titles to the UK market and if they had previously licensed just in the US the preference was just to replicate that edition in the UK. The only exception is Watermelon Man, which clearly only came about after Indicator’s release when the set it was part of began coming together and possibly with the assistance of the filmmaker and family. So I would say we can extrapolate that at least as of its initial licensing Criterion was not planning a releaae. Whether this means anything when Indicator’s had this title under licence for five years is another story, I guess. I’m sure it’s a title that did well on the channel for Criterion and maybe that they would be able to do a dual territory release could help alleviate the financial barriers from any releaae altogether.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#39 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:36 am

yoloswegmaster wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:08 am
I didn't say that they need to be more transparent, I just said that they have to be more transparent since they had announced the title as a forthcoming release.
Why do they have to be more transparent? Even if a release has been formally made available for pre-order (which this one wasn't) and then cancelled, as was the case with Ishtar, Indicator is under no obligation to do any more than confirm the cancellation and issue full refunds - and in this case they don't even have to do the latter.
This was in response to a comment made by someone else saying that Indicator were being more transparent about this, unlike Criterion, though admittedly I could have phrased my comment better. I already posted this same comment in the other forum, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up here.
Because I'm unable to post in the other forum, which notoriously bans people at the drop of a hat, including a fair number of regulars here. In fact, it's quite interesting re-reading threads from several years back and seeing just how many of the original participants have since been banned, often for absurdly trivial reasons. I daresay the banhammer will fall on you at some point too, but when it does you can at least reassure yourself that you're in excellent company.
However, I'm glad to see we have a new KL Insider posting here. :roll:
A case in point: had you addressed a Blu-ray.com moderator like that, you'd have been banned without a second's thought. But because my fellow Criterion Forum moderators are generally more contextually sensitive, as well as possessing a keen sense of humour, I trust that you gave them as big a chuckle as you've just given me, and that they'll let this one slide.

(And, for clarity, I'm posting as a freelancer who works for multiple labels, and nothing that I say here should be indicative of any kind of insider info or official statement on a particular label's behalf, unless I make it clear that that's what I'm posting. Everything that I've said about the California Split situation is already in the public domain.)

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#40 Post by MichaelB » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:42 am

Ribs wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:12 am
The only exception is Watermelon Man, which clearly only came about after Indicator’s release when the set it was part of began coming together and possibly with the assistance of the filmmaker and family.
I suspect Criterion never had any plans to bring the Melvin Van Peebles set out in the UK anyway because they'd have had to censor Sweet Sweetback for unavoidable legal reasons. The BBFC initially passed it uncut, but when it transpired beyond any doubt that Van Peebles had lied about his son's age, they had no choice but to cut it thanks to the 1978 Protection of Children Act - which, unlike the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, doesn't permit context or artistic merit as a defence in law. And I'm sure Criterion's Ashley Clark at least would have been fully aware of this.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#41 Post by swo17 » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:54 am

Does "have to be more transparent here" mean: "Given that Indicator chose to be transparent about acquiring the rights, they have to be more transparent about abandoning the release than would otherwise be the case"? In other words, not requesting any more transparency than has already been offered?

User avatar
yoloswegmaster
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#42 Post by yoloswegmaster » Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:00 am

swo17 wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:54 am
Does "have to be more transparent here" mean: "Given that Indicator chose to be transparent about acquiring the rights, they have to be more transparent about abandoning the release than would otherwise be the case"? In other words, not requesting any more transparency than has already been offered?
Yes, that is what I meant. The explanation originally given was suffice, and I admittedly misworded my original post on there.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#43 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:43 pm

Pardon my ignorance, but is there any benefit to a label going the route of crowdfunding for a release like this or Ishtar, in order to bypass some of those financially-handicapping legal issues and remain in the black? I’m not a rich man, but I would happily pledge five times the price of a single copy to help birth one of my all-time favorites into being, especially from a label that would put great care into extras and restoration work. This is a cult film, and I imagine others would do similarly, so I wonder if this kind of roundabout option was ever even being considered (and if it would violate Indicator’s ethos of private strategy, would powerhouse films be open to trying this subtly on the side under a separate banner)?

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#44 Post by Ribs » Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:47 pm

Ishtar was not a money issue, just that the release had to be barebones to get approval from everyone involved. I just think whatever the sum needed is probably so high that such a campaign is just as fruitless as Criterion or anyone managing to raise the funds themselves.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#45 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:54 pm

So then how does the uncut version pop up on Amazon Prime for a stint? I understand that streaming vs physical rights are different (though not exactly ‘how’), but did that cost Amazon an arm and a leg more than other streaming titles to do so- and if so, how were the figures calculated in rationalizing that? It sure would be cool if Criterion used their business relationship with the big streamers who do have that kind of capital to help finances releases like this in addition to brand new mediocre movies distributed by said streamer services

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#46 Post by senseabove » Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:03 pm

Streaming rights are usually considered in the same category as "broadcast" rights, and TV/broadcast rights would have been negotiated in the original music licensing deal, but that was before home media rights were a thing people negotiated for.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#47 Post by swo17 » Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:03 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:43 pm
I’m not a rich man, but I would happily pledge five times the price of a single copy to help birth one of my all-time favorites into being, especially from a label that would put great care into extras and restoration work
Same, although if they happen to know behind the scenes that someone like Criterion is able to make the numbers work and is planning a release, then there would be no point

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#48 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:11 pm

We can only hope

User avatar
ChunkyLover
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:22 pm

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#49 Post by ChunkyLover » Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:38 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:43 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but is there any benefit to a label going the route of crowdfunding for a release like this or Ishtar, in order to bypass some of those financially-handicapping legal issues and remain in the black?
It's very unlikely that a major studio would allow crowdfunding.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Not Forthcoming: California Split

#50 Post by MichaelB » Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:20 am

It's a really bad idea anyway, as it'll only encourage other rightsholders to charge full whack instead of lowering their fees to something commercially viable.

Post Reply