Captivity Film Ads Pulled from Public Consumption by Film's Producers

In an era in which film-goers just can't seem to get enough of torture films such as Saw and Hostel, After Dark Films has apparently found where the movie-going public draws the line on movie-based violence and imagery.

After posting a number of posters and ads for the upcoming film Captivity across Los Angeles and New York City on billboards and taxis, those who viewed the ads besieged the MPAA with phone calls demanding the ads be removed. The ads depicted the film's star, Elisha Cuthbert, in various states of peril in a succession of events that leads to her death.

The first image depicted Elisha being abducted with the word, "abduction," emblazoned above her. A gloved hand was seen forcing Elisha into silence and beginning the train of events in which the ad led on-lookers.

The second image revealed the second part of the dance, titled "confinement." In this poster, we can see Elisha being restrained behind a fence as one of her mangled fingers pokes through in an obvious attempt to reach the outside world. Amazingly, her eyes seem to be staring out at her "audience" wantonly.

But wait! It gets better. The third image reveals what is titled as "torture." Now, we see the star bound and her face covered in gauze. A tube runs up Cuthbert's nose, blood running through the tube as her eyes peer out at onlookers.

The fourth depiction and final conclusion is of Cuthbert's body, limp and lifeless. With her head toppled backward and one breast nearly hanging out of her top, there will be no hearing this woman roar.

After Dark Films has agreed to pull the ads from public consumption. What remains ultimately obvious is how no one is taking responsibility for the ad campaign.

After Dark Films claims that they were not involved in the placement of the ads and that releasing the ads was "an accident." Executives from After Dark cited that they were out of pocket while attending ShoWest in Las Vegas when the ads went public.

Lionsgate, the film's distributor, claims that they had no involvement whatsoever in the placing of the ads.

Obviously, no one wants the blame.

The question is: was the entire campaign an attempt to cause just this very controversy in order to stir up rhetoric about the film?

As of this writing, the MPAA, who had not approved the ads before they were released, has not specified how they will deal with the ad campaign and the film itself.