Head

I have never been a fan of the Monkees mostly because they are from another generation than mine. However, I am one of those movie viewers that would try everything, and since it was on Youtube, I had to see it.

HEAD hasn't really a plot to talk about. It's just like an extended music video for one of the Monkees' songs with also lots of scenes of hippies from newsreels and some cameos by Victor Mature, Abraham Sofaer, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson. Some vignettes (like the ones with Mature and Sofaer) were actually funny.

Overall, while I didn't loved HEAD, I found it ok. Just something that could have been made only in those years with the generation that had something to say.

I've seen "Head" 3 times: twice on video, and just recently on the big screen. I've decided I like it.

"Head" came at a time when the Monkees' popularity had waned, their TV show had been cancelled, and their breakup inevitable. They were the first band ever to be a pure creation of the media -- and took the heat for it. The Monkees were, to the showbiz world at large, the first band to be assembled via auditions and head shots, right when color TV was hitting its first stride. Only Mike Nesmith had any real musical ambitions as a songwriter and performer.

Their records in fact were not terrible, by any means, but the "manufactured" attacks kept coming. And when their short-lived media success was over, and they were staring down their own archaic nature right in the face, they did something you'd expect from an Andy Warhol creation: They willfully committed career suicide with "Head."

It helps to look at "Head" right now, when the music industry's boy bands and teen queens -- many of them manufactured exactly the same way as the Monkees were -- are starting to see the mortality of their OWN careers. The Monkees were scrubbed, goofy, shriek-inducing teen stars, and for their last act they just said "The hell with it," and deconstructed themselves in a way people have not yet gotten used to.

I've spent 20 years seeing "Head" and not really developing an opinion on it. In my last screening I was surprised at how well-shot and interesting most of the scenes were. The film LOOKS quite good. And while you can't accuse the film of having any kind of plot, knowing the background of the Monkees' story, maybe juxtaposing it with how, say, the Bay City Rollers quietly faded out, you definitely get a sense of "story" if you pay close attention.

"Head" satirizes EVERYTHING of its time -- drug culture (the Monkees never look stoned in this movie, I noticed), the star-making studio system, the iconoclasm of Hollywood, and especially hippie culture. Frank Zappa's appearance alone -- he despised hippies -- proves that point. In their own way the Monkees even playfully deflated the spiritual and philosophical pretensions of -- egad -- the Beatles. In a scene where Peter Tork, sick of being "the dumb one," relates to the band, word-for-word, what he learned from a mystic guru in a sauna, he completes by saying, "Why listen to me -- I know nothing." Davy Jones indignantly stands up and says, "What are you talking about? You made us listen to you all this time and you know NOTHING?" It's that kind of annoying neutrality that bugged the Monkees, even if they were products of a TV executive's imagination.

Jack Nicholson and Bob Rafelson "wrote" the script, but it was obviously just a set piece with contained social commentaries, linked together by thin transitions, kinda like an acid trip. In fact I'm pretty sure "Head" is making fun of LSD too, even as it gets a pretty good grasp of its narrative qualities. As ramshackle and anarchic as the images in "Head" are, they're really not pointless at all. These are not random flashes from a freakout; most of them are very clever bits of symbology.

It drags a little bit, but the constructs are quite interesting most of the time, and there were a lot of laugh-out-loud moments in the theater where I saw it. The loudest laughs came at the end of the movie, where the placard informs us that "Head" was rated "G". It's the most subversive G-rated movie in cinema history.

Not the greatest rock and roll movie ever -- nowhere close -- "Head" is nonetheless one of the bravest, up with "Gimme Shelter." Every boy band should be required to watch it. And it's a hell of a lot more fun than "Woodstock."

"I am ... proud of 'Head'," Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.

Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: "You figure it out."

You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make "Head" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: "Head" is not The Monkees TV show.

So what we have here is a "psychedelic documentary" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. "Head" is a movie that could only come from those "inside the box". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.

"Head", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in "Head", a guy admits, "I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years." Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of "Things are not as they seem." Remember the old joke, "Everything you know is wrong"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own "manufactured image" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind "Head"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that "Head" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.

Largely, the insiders responsible for "Head" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of "Head" want you to know that poor "information" is a far greater danger.

Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, "What's wrong?" "I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it." The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. "Head" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.

The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. "Head" is either a movie that creates itself "as we go along", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just "Pot meets advertising", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: "The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want."

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.

Match, cut.

I guess I'll have to disagree with every other post here (at least the ones I read). I thought the film made perfect sense.

It seems to me to be an attempt for the Mickey, Mike, Peter and Davy to convey their desire to burst out of the bubble of Hollywood irrelevance the extremely talented guys had been forced into during a time when the entire world seemed to be changing and while they were being forced to not participate. The only people they could trust were each other and only together could they overcome the extreme pressures placed on them to submit. Alone they would lose their way and mistrust their own judgment and instincts.

The series is godawful, overrated, dull, and incredibly unfunny. Only in a TV landscape dominated by Green Acres and Gilligan's Island could it be considered innovative.

Their music though, includes some real classics, and hold up nearly as well as early Beatles. This film was their attempt to destroy to the manufactured image the network built for them.

It is anarchic, subversive, caustic, mind blowing, and savage in relentlessly attacking commercialism, suburban conformity, Hollywood, and half a dozen other targets. It holds up far better than fluff from that time like Yellow Submarine.

Even the Who's Tommy can't compare for angry tone and searing narrative, desconstructing the usual film cliches. Well worth seeing, for anyone who doesn't demand films always follow the usual predictable pattern.