It’s kind of funny that I love love love the aesthetic of the new Captivity movie, yet I’m kinda not cool with the subject matter. I’m not too comfortable with it being censored either, though.

I know people have been complaining, since before I was born, about violence in movies being okay, while sexuality is censored. But I have to say, why is it that if someone puts their cock in a beautiful woman’s mouth, the movie is probably going to get an X and thus limited distro and thus limited financing and production values? But dismember the same woman slowly and the discussion becomes R or NC-17? Is it really okay to broadcast horrors, the likes of which most people will never ever see in person, to seventeen-year-olds, but healthy sexuality, of a sort most people will experience, takes another year of maturing for audiences to be able to handle it? What kind of a society are we going to have when we show teenagers torture porn like Hostel before we let them see, if you can forgive me for invoking normalcy, normal sex?

Full disclosure: Obviously, you all can’t have missed the advertisements Captivity bought on a number sites I work on, including this one. And, yes, if you went to the premiere party at Los Angeles meat market Privilege, you probably spotted around half a dozen hotties you recognized from BlueBlood.com, along with various other contributors.

It bums me out, on a number of levels, that the premiere party was billed as ground-breakingly outrageous and nasty. This seems to show a simultaneous lack of respect for the performers and desire to profit from them. Although the cigarette smoke-stained off-white interior of Privilege generally plays host to more vanilla smutsters, Los Angeles has seen tattooed hotties doing BDSM once or twice before. In point of fact, the club is essentially a tent erected by where the Coconut Teazer nightclub used to stand. So that very location has probably been host to more than its share of tattooed hotties with fetish gear over the years. The most ground-breaking aspect was probably that it is unusual for a movie to not screen at its own premiere.

Anyway, both the MPAA, which rates movies, and a variety of watchdog groups have objected to Captivity’s presentation well before they started planning a premiere. After Dark Films pulled thirty of their billboards from Los Angeles and more than fourteen hundred taxi cab adverts, the creative for which featured the slogan “Capture, Confinement, Torture, Termination.” over very beautiful stylized photos of a very small portion of a scene involving a woman. I can’t emphasize enough how great the color scheme of those advertisements was. Meanwhile, the MPAA jerked the movie company around on when the film was even going to be rated. After Dark Films co-founder Courtney Solomon claims the MPAA rigmarole with Captivity is just about the MPAA maintaining their position of power. “They needed a whipping boy. They’re not about protecting parents or kids. They’re about keeping their power in Hollywood.” The upshot of this was that a schedule May 18 release date became a July 13 release date. While releasing a horror flick on Friday the 13th is always nifty, any organization which can keep audiences away from a product is scary. And not scary in an entertaining way, scary in a bad way.

A quick history lesson: The Motion Picture Association of America was founded in 1922 as a trade association. Although the initial industry concerns it dealt with had more to do with copyright and contract standardization, over the years, it has become almost synonymous with the ratings system it devised. Many industries choose to police themselves, partly out of decency, and partly out of a desire to take care of it internally before outsiders do it for them. So the MPAA ratings board determines whether a movie will receive wide release as a PG flick or the financial death knell of an NC-17. Representatives of the six major studios sit on the board. These studios includes Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Brothers.

Now, the opening weekend gross for Captivity was only a bit over a million bucks, which is pretty terrible for a major studio release and brought the movie in at a ranking of #12 for domestic releases that weekend. In all fairness, the flicks Captivity was beaten out by were Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Transformers, Ratatouille, Live Free or Die Hard, License to Wed, 1408, Evan Almighty, Knocked Up, Sicko, Ocean’s Thirteen, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Had the movie been able to open as planned, if the MPAA had not hung them up, then it might have been able to do better against the movies opening that weekend. Although a $1.4 mill opening is lackluster for any theatrical release, especially a heavily advertised one, had Captivity opened May 18 with the same total, it would have ranked #8. Then again, maybe it would have gotten its ass kicked by Shrek and Spider-Man, just like everybody else.

Part of the difficulty I have parsing out my feelings on the brouhaha is that it is difficult to figure out whether an After Dark Films release counts as a major motion picture or a plucky little guy trying to make it. Captivity is “co-released” by Lionsgate, but Lionsgate leaves all the responsibility for potentially problematic promo on After Dark’s doorstep. I’m not sure what “co-releasing” means exactly, but Lionsgate has a market capitalization of one point three five billion dollars and an estimated four hundred full time employees. Which I would not categorize as small or independent. I think it is important to note that the distro on a partner-produced movie like Captivity is a microscopic portion of the business of a behemoth like Lionsgate, which is responsible for very enjoyable and successful projects such as the Academy-award-nominated The Cooler and innovative DVD packaging and distribution for projects ranging from cutting edge fare like Weeds to cult classics like King of New York. Then again, if you inflicted the Care Bears movie on your kids, that is partly Lionsgate’s responsibility too.

According to the New York Times, Courtney Solomon, who put himself on the map by optioning Dungeons & Dragons and parlaying that into a much-lambasted directorial turn, “persuaded the director of Captivity, Roland Joffé, the much-honored filmmaker behind The Mission and The Killing Fields, to undertake reshoots. These added explicit torture, including a so-called “milkshake” scene that involves body parts and a blender, to a picture that was largely psychological in its thrust when After Dark acquired the rights to it.” Both to the New York Times and in other media outlet, Solomon chortles about what a freakshow his premiere is going to be and how upset he hopes women’s groups get about his movie. The National Organization for Women said, on the record, that they were not going to protest to give him press.

So, having delved into the issues involved, here is my summary take on it. First, if After Dark Films is looking for a modern audience for their movies, it is a bit antiquated to act like BDSM and tattoos are outrageous fringe culture. I’m sick of this sort of marginalizing nonsense from people who would like to make a dollar off of my scene. Secondly, because of the major studio makeup of the MPAA, I feel it can’t really be objective. I like having ratings on things as a viewing guide, but I dislike the way the ratings system leads to unwarranted limitations on distribution and I particularly dislike the way the current rating system encourages violence against women in place of human sexuality. It will be a chilly day in Hellywood before I deliberately view torture porn like Captivity, but I don’t think a project like that should have its success determined by whether or not its producers can convince a half dozen really biased businesspeople that violence against women is appropriate viewing for teens. Thirdly, although I kind of liked the Captivity billboards, I was personally revolted by the Saw signage at the San Diego Comic Con and I think movie producers, and everyone really, should pay attention to what they put in an advertisement people will not be able to avoid. I do not want strangers telling me what I can see in my media. I deeply believe that that becomes a slippery slope to total destruction of the free speech rights granted to all Americans by the First Amendment, but I also do not want strangers forcing me, or forcing children, to see things they do not wish to see or should not see. This means that adverts, in public places, for potentially upsetting products, should be honest about what the products are, without ramming the product down the throats of the unwilling.

I admit that, although I loved Elisha Cuthbert’s performance and character in the surprisingly awesome The Girl Next Door, I loathed her Kim Bauer character she played on 24. I thought about kicking off this article with a joke about how I thought Kiefer Sutherland’s Jack Bauer should have just let her be kept captive and tortured. Heck, that was probably the inspiration for Captivity. For me to want to watch that, however, it would really have to be one of the dungeons on Fucking Machines, where the action is consensual and female pleasure might actually be involved too.

Shortly after I first moved to California, I got an account at Washington Mutual. I went with them because they had a no interest/no fees/no math/no hassle account and they gave me overdraft protection. I’ve banked with them for a long time, but it appears that one of their goals for this year is to get rid of all their long-time customers.

March 13, 2006, they launched a media blitz campaign which is theoretically about how opposed to traditional stodgy bankers they are. The television spots and billboards show paid-looking guys in pinstriped suits chomping cigars and being penned up in what is apparently WaMu’s basement. The ad campaign is designed by advertising powerhouse Leo Burnett and directed by Martin Granger, of the Moxie Pictures production company, who is also apparently responsible for the creepy Burger King ads. The main thrust of the supposedly humorous spots is, according to a Business Wire press release, intended to point out how non-traditional WaMu is in the normally stodgy banking world. This is just my opinion, but it strikes me that the message comunicated is that only losers bank at WaMu, that people with any clue how to handle their dough put it some place else.

I’d like to say that there are many areas of my life where I follow the excitement. I want to hang out with people who take risks and look for adventure. But I don’t necessarily want them handling my dough. Think about who you would most like to go on a bender with in Vegas. Now imagine that person holding all of your money. Doesn’t exactly give you the FDIC-insured warm fuzzies, does it?

Now it might be humiliating to pull out the loser-branded bank card when shopping in Los Angeles, but I’d probably get over it, if Washington Mutual hadn’t simultaneously started to do seemingly everything in their power to irritate long-standing customers.

First, WaMu took most of their customers in California and I believe also Washington and Oregon and turned off their Visa cards and send them Gold MasterCards in place of them. On the phone, a WaMu rep told me to just tell her what my recurring transactions on the Visa were so they would know to honor them. Needless to say, ‘cause I’d hardly be writing this article if they’d taken care of me, WaMu failed to honor any of my recurring transactions. This included nonessentials like my car insurance, warehouse space, and videos-by-mail subscription. WaMu personnel assured me that, despite the numerous inconveniences, there were many advantages to having the new MasterCard they had forced on me. The first half dozen or so WaMu people I complained to directed me to consult the literature they had sent me to discover the advantages they were sure existed, even if they couldn’t think of them. Turns out, the Gold MasterCard is, you know, sorta sparkley yellow-toned instead of blue. I like the color blue better. (Forrest Black wishes for Blue Blood readers to know that those with Platinum Visa debit cards didn’t even get a color change when forced to switch to MasterCard.) After extensive complaints research, I found a supervisor who advised me that the MC has a higher spending limit for accessing my own money for a day’s purchases. That seems like it would be a WaMu limit, rather than a Visa vs. MasterCard thing, but, okay, that is a plus. Then they tried to claim that MasterCard is accepted at more locations worldwide than Visa. Now, I won’t pretend to having been to every corner of the earth, although I have lived on three continents and in five countries, so it is possible that there is some godforsaken territory, unfamiliar to me, where MasterCard is the preferred mode of payment for machine guns and gruel. But I’m pretty sure that I know the main arena in which MasterCard would be accepted more places than Visa. You see merchants who are purveyers of adult material and gambling and similar products have to pay a hefty fee to Visa each year, so some opt to solely accept MasterCard. I’m not much of a gambler though. Supposedly, despite rising fees, there might be a few other benefits to the MC, but they are not available to longtime customers. Yes, you read that correctly. WaMu is giving preference to new customers over loyal ones. I really think WaMu needs to come up with something to offer as compensation to all their customers who had to deal with having their perfectly good debit Visas turned off.

Second, Washington Mutual stopped accepting a large percentage of deposits made at the ATM. I get a lot of little checks and it is difficult to keep track of who has paid me, both for my own records, and for tax purposes, unless I have a separate record for each deposit. Part of the original appeal of WaMu to me was, as I said, the ease of no fees. I prefer to bank this way and banks which charge for every deposit make me feel profligate for doing so. I’m willing to give up the interest on that account for this convenience. Welll, no dice any more. Washington Mutual ATMs now accept only a couple of envelopes before displaying a message saying the customer is over the $100,000 daily limit. I’m not saying I’d mind if my checks added up to that, but as these sorts of desposits don’t, the first time it happened I thought the ATM was broken or or perhaps possessed. Turns out this is WaMu’s oblique way of saying that they want to limit how many deposits any customer can make in a given day. None of their phone personnel or in-bank customers service workers appear to be briefed on this policy, so I get a different answer every time. Although their tellers are extremely irritated by the longer lines inside the bank and the grumpier customer base. The phone people suggest that it is Federal law that the first $100 of any deposit be made available right away. Others suggest that the amount is $100 total in a given day is all that Federal law requires. If the former is the case, then it looks like Washington Mutual is looking to have more float with their customers’ money. Short explanation of float is that, by forcing their customers to combine eight deposits in one envelope, then they would only have to make $100 available right away, instead of $800, but they would still get use of the money. If anyone knows the answer to the question about what the actual law is, I would muchly appreciate accurate info, and I haven’t had any luck getting it from my bank.

Oh yeah, and Washington Mutual redesigned the insides of a bunch of their banks to be very unbanklike, so that other people are all up in your business, tellers are actually out in the middle of the bank, and the money comes from these weird open kiosks. I don’t even have the words, but fortunately for me, there is an unrefurbished branch fairly close to me and I drive out of my way to make my deposits. I wouldn’t normally have to enter the bank, so normally I’d be indifferent to bad interior design and horrible traffic design, but I have to go inside to make my deposits now, which also means I have to make them during bankers’ hours.

So Washington Mutual is not a small bank. What can you do if you are one of their legion of disgruntled customers? According to their phone support, who admittedly have been wrong before, WaMu will change its policies if enough customers express their opinions.You can phone (800) 788-7000 and press zero a bunch of times and you will eventually get a human being on the line. In order to change policy, it is not sufficient to express your opinion. No record will be made of this. You must request that they fill out a complaint form and you may need to wait for a supervisor to come on the line for this. This is probably the best option if you dislike WaMu limiting your ability to make deposits or if the MasterCard thing has been a problem for you. If you are annoyed by the incredibly annoying anti-stodgy bankers campaign, its Cold War Communist charicatures, its possible racism, its possible sexism, its implications that all WaMu customers are losers, or anything else in the litany of complaints I’ve heard and read about that campaign, then you are probably better off contacting Mary Kelley at Washington Mutual. Her phone number is (206) 377-6878, but I’m probably going to personally just email her at mary.kelley@wamu.net because I am shy on the telephone.

I’ve asked Washinton Mutual employees over and over again where the stodgy bankers are, but they refuse to tell me. If they keep implementing structures which functionally might as well be designed to drive me away, I’m willing to go. Anyone got some suggestions? Because I want to bank where the traditional bankers are steering the ship.