I see. Again, I'm sorry to hear about your situation. First of all, there's nothing in the law that says that he cannot distribute a video that you both made together and that you knew about and consented to. It's unethical and immoral, I agree, but not illegal (per se). There are a number of issues here, some that may work and others that simply will not.
First of all, the criminal: as far as extortion is concerned, that would be difficult to show. There are two elements to the criminal offense of extortion in Washington, D.C. First, the person needs to obtain or seek to obtain the property of another with the person’s consent. Second, the other person’s consent needs to have been coerced through “actual or threatened violence or by wrongful threat of economic injury. The "property" that they seek is generally the "payoff" for the extortion. In other words, pay me money / give me your car, otherwise I'll release this. As this person is not seeking to obtain property from you, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to establish extortion.
It could be seen as criminal harassment, which simply requires an intent to harass or annoy and actions taken towards that effect. So you can certainly threaten filing charges against him for that (and you can also threaten filing charges against him for extortion, but that would be a bluff).
As far as the physical threats are concerned, his statements alone would not be actionable (not without some context or qualification as to what he meant). He could simply say that "get it" means get the tape or something like that (something innocent). And as the threats were not communicated to the potential victims, it would be difficult to prove any elements of any crime.
Then there are potential civil remedies. Note that these are remedies. They assume that there has been a disclosure of the video. It wouldn't be a "false light" claim, because to have that there would need to be an actual statement made about you that was false. There could be a case for publication of private facts. In D.C., the elements of a publications of private facts claim are: (1) publication; (2) of private facts; (3) in which the public has no legitimate concern; and (4) the publication of which would cause suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
D.C. law does not impose liability for publication of facts that are "matters of legitimate public or general interest." Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F. Supp. 1285, 1287 (D.D.C. 1981). This "newsworthiness" exception is not limited to dissemination of news about current events or public affairs, but also protects "information concerning interesting phases of human activity and embraces all issues about which information is needed or appropriate so that individuals may cope with the exigencies of their period." Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's,492 A.2d 580, 589 (D.C. 1985).
Individuals retain a zone of privacy relating to their private lives, however, and the defense will not protect the disclosure of facts unless there is a "logical nexus" (i.e., reasonable relationship) between the disclosed facts and the topic of public interest. As a general rule, private facts about public officials and celebrities are more likely of legitimate public interest than private facts about ordinary people who get involuntarily caught up in newsworthy events.
So ultimately the best thing would be to threaten him with criminal charges (harassment, which could work, and extortion, which would be a bluff), and then civil damages should he actually release that information.
Hope that clears things up a bit. If you have any other questions, please let me know. If not, and you have not yet, please rate my answer AND press the "submit" button, if applicable. Please note that I don't get any credit for the time and effort that I spent on this answer unless and until you rate it positively (good or better). Thank you, ***** ***** luck to you!