West Hollywood sent its lawyers after the operator of the billboard at 9157 Sunset Blvd. after its owner declined to show a political propaganda film commissioned by the city.
The operator, Big Outdoor, briefly refused to show the work after the property owner requested that it be withheld, citing a company policy to avoid political content. West Hollywood responded by threatening legal action, stating that their contract, which stipulates that city content must be shown for a portion of the time, left no room for such objections.
The piece in question, “Body Politic” by Nancy Baker Cahill, is a 10-minute short film intended to scare viewers into voting along partisan lines in November’s federal election. It features disturbing abortion-like animations and uses propaganda-style techniques like glitch sequences to portray an all-encompassing, oppressive threat to women that can only be vanquished by voting. The film ends with an augmented reality feature that pushes more politically partisan content to viewers via their cell phones.
“Body Politic” (originally titled “Flesh and Blood”) is part of WeHo’s high-priced Moving Image Media Art (MIMA) series, run by the city’s Art Division. The city mandates that a portion of time on the Sunset Strip’s digital billboards be reserved for short films curated by the program. Cahill, “The Body Politic”‘s filmmaker, also holds the $185,000 contract to curate the program.
She immediately publicized the controversy, posting on Instagram, “This work, which is about the dangers of being silenced, is being silenced.”
After pressure from the city, Big Outdoor relented, and “Body Politic” began airing as required; the exhibit will continue to be shown through February 2025, with the potential to expand across more billboards on the Sunset Strip. The controversy will certainly raise further questions about billboard owners’ rights and whether the city should be compelling them to show material they feel is inappropriate.
Nobody cares!
Why is this site called “WeHo Online” when it should be called “Beverly Hills Rightys Who Try To Bash The Left Online”
A city run for and by gay men. A demographic imperiled by abortion access.
I think it is great for gay men to have a city governed by gay men, given all of the cities that are governed by homophobic Christians.
If the billboard operators agreed to a contract that obligates them to show the city-mandated videos, they should have raised their objection to politically themed films before signing. They aren’t naive, inexperienced business people, lacking excellent legal representation.
YES, EXACTLY
Robert, Aren’t you naive to think that due to the labor unions that funded the current majority of WeHo city council members election that ridiculously biased, political films like the one described were able open to public debate. Did the current majority on the WeHo city council request a public vote in order to remove two lanes on Fountain Avenue because it would supposedly support more biking and lower air pollution. Now that idea is absurdly naive
The City should have no say in what a billboard owner chooses to promote or advertise. The City should be taken to the high courts to resolve this mandate.
The city enters into a st def agreement for each and every digital billboard erected on the Sunset Strip. These agreements at the the building owner can have a billboard, and the City gets a significant portion of the messaging time (not to mention a significant portion of revenues). This is no surprise, and their attorneys reviewed the agreement carefully.
This sounds like sour grapes all the way around.
Singleguwh, Do you really think that the current majority on the WeHo City Council hasn’t already stopped business development in WeHo? We have one of the most anti-business attitude city councils in the nation, with current mayor John Ericson the worst. He didn’t get elected because he was gay, he was elected by the support of labor unions who made WeHo have the highest minimum wage in the state.
Interesting how you yourself think that being pro-worker is NECESSARILY anti-business. Guess the two can’t co-exist in a healthy, balanced dynamic? Paying workers a living wage is bad for business? You can’t even live on $20/hr unless you’re couch surfing and buy all your food from street vendors, use public transit and never buy clothes.
It’s hardly “propaganda” to point out what the Trump Administration did to women’s rights in this country or that they fully intend to do worse if re-elected. Also interesting that this incredibly biased article managed to not mention that the billboard owner is a large Trump donor. As for “billboard owners’ rights,” they signed a contract with the city.
Well the man who runs this biased site is right wing, so it’s less “interesting” how he left out the Trump donor part than it is shameful. This article is a propaganda piece slurring basic reproductive freedoms as mere propaganda. Might as well pour Russian dressing all over this crappy New Right salad
I wholly agree with you. I was couching my words in the hopes my comment would be approved,
The filmmaker’s justification for the film, “This work, which is about the dangers of being silenced, is being silenced”, rings hollow because the film does not address “the dangers of being silenced”. It encourages a specific political viewpoint which is one-sided and reflects the filmmaker’s personal opinions and feelings about election day issues. The film’s graphic style may be offensive and disturbing to some, hence the concern for the general public, including children and young people, to be unwittingly exposed to the billboard display as they walk or drive by.
All ‘art’ contains some sort of viewpoint, and some sort of device to challenge us to look more-closely at our own points of view.
Picasso’s “Guernica” is a case in point.
The fact someone likes or doesn’t like the artist’s viewpoint doesnt make it more or less ‘art’.
Preach! The hollowness of rightwing propaganda is just wow, wow, wow. Once you get past the audacity of it.
The owner signed an agreement with the City giving the City rights to use the screen for certain periods. Technically, this is an art piece, albeit with a political message. The politically conservative owner should not have veto power over the City’s contractual use periods. What if he objected to a Pride advertisement?
💯 💯 💯
Who cares? No one is looking at that ugly billboard anyway. It was designed by disgraced architect Tom Wiscombe, forced to resign from his teaching position after exploiting his workers.
The city’s over-staffed arts department is entirely a propaganda machine. Just wait for the programming that will be forced upon the city at the planned playhouse,
Unbelievably disgusting.
This whole thing is ridiculous, the content of the “billboard propaganda” was all over the internet and the news months ago. That the billboard corporation didn’t object then is asinine. This is a political poly in this political climate. Who’s the ultimate owner of this monstrosity billboard and why is this happening now? Follow the money.