Head

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 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.

"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.

You would really need to remember the Monkees and have a clear understanding as to where and how they fitted into the second half of the 1960s in order to fully appreciate this movie.

There is no plot as such. Basically, it's a crazy, mixed up pastiche of various, unrelated sequences. But, it IS interesting AND entertaining in its own peculiar way once you get onto its wavelength. In short, it was a classic, cleverly conceived and well crafted example of late '60s experimental cinema. It contains some good songs, some ultra-groovy cinematography and plenty of other worthwhile ideas in terms of film technique.

I give it 8 out of 10 for several reasons. First, it took a lot of courage to make such an unorthodox movie in the commercial mainstream where both its stars and its producers were firmly ensconced at the time (whether they liked it or not). It seems that almost everyone who was associated with the project (with the exception of Columbia who paid for it) knew that it was probably not going to be a big money maker. Their reasons for wanting to do it were as unorthodox as the film itself. Secondly, it was, for the most part, a creative success. And, finally, as already mentioned, it is, unquestionably, a classic of the genre and, as such, it is now historically important.

Unfortunately, "Head" came too late in the Monkees career. But, there again, they wouldn't have been allowed to make it earlier on because it was essentially a very pointed and cynical satire of their own image.

Clearly, the members of the group knew, only too well, that the whole Monkeemania thing had pretty well run its course when they started work on this movie. In a way, it was to be their swan song and they were determined to let it all hang out. They were tired of being treated like mere pawns in the high powered corporate game in which they had been manipulated and exploited over the preceding few years. In short, they "wanted out" and they were going to say a few things before they left.

History, however, has vindicated the band. Let the critics be damned. The Monkees, left behind some of the best, most polished and successful pop records of the decade. Yes, they had plenty of help. But at the end of the day, THEY stood in front of the studio mikes, THEY fronted the movie and TV cameras and THEY did the concerts. They were fun and just a little bit crazy. But, unlike some of their contemporaries, they were never threatening. You could safely introduce a Monkey to your elderly aunt.

"Head" probably borrows a bit too heavily from the Beatles "Hard Day's Night" but it's still worth another look for those who were around at the time or for younger retro fans who can appreciate its significance.

Enjoy!

I grew up watching the Monkees, and the first time I watched this movie as a kid, I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. Then I watched it again a few years later and dismissed it as pretentious crap. I decided to watch it again right after Peter Tork died, and to my surprise, I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.

If you haven't seen it, you should definitely watch it. Not to say it's good - because it most certainly isn't, but it should definitely be seen, if only as a fascinating window into the time.

It has some great cameos, including Frank Zappa with a talking cow, Annette Funicello, a gigantic Victor Mature, and this time I even caught a very brief glimpse of the writer of the movie, Jack Nicholson (yes, THE Jack Nicholson).

It also has some genuinely good music.

There's a certain irony to this movie. On the one hand, it was the Monkees' attempt to break away from their teenybopper image and "legitimize" themselves, but on the other, it's hard to think of a more extreme example of Hollywood's move at the time to make a buck by bringing counter culture mainstream - albeit a badly failed attempt in this case. People who were trying to "stick it to The Man" discovered that for the right price, The Man was more than happy to stick it to Himself, or at least pretend to.

That said, the movie had more of a "wink" than I remembered, so I don't think it took itself all that seriously. For example, when Frank Zappa refers to Davie Jones' dance number as "pretty white", Jones responds "I'm a pretty white guy.". At another point, Peter Tork can be clearly heard whistling Strawberry Fields, as if to say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

One thing I'd completely forgotten was how much Vietnam footage there is in the movie, interspersed with shots of the band performing. That was a pretty standard sort of "statement" at the time, but I was surprised how graphic some of the footage was, given the film's G rating. It even included that infamous clip of the soldier getting shot in the head.