My Kid Could Paint That
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.23 You Save: $17.76 (89%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.90 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of My Kid Could Paint That
Movie Review: A matter of interpretation
Summary: 5 Stars
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)
This documentary ends with the credits rolling down the screen and Bob Dylan singing "Everything's gonna be different When I Paint My Masterpiece." The sense of yearning and a kind of dissatisfaction with what you know that life is going to bring that Dylan expresses in his song is the way so many parents feel about their children. They want everything for them. They want to give them advantages they never had. They see in their children the good genetic parts of themselves and their spouses (and in-laws!) and yet sometimes they want to yell at themselves: Stop that! Let the child be. Let the child be a child.
This is the way Laura Olmstead no doubt felt about her daughter Marla. Four-year-old Marla loved to paint and seemed to have some kind of unusual facility for color and expression. Her paintings came out like little works of art, and then bigger works of art, and then suddenly they were selling for tens of thousands of dollars and little Marla was having art shows in New York City.
Abstract impressionism is considered by some to express the inner workings of our consciousness, to describe in form and color a deep artistic and human truth. To others it is a scam. Mark Olmstead, Marla's father--not exactly an ingénue when it comes to art--encouraged his daughter in her work. He bought paints and took the time to be with her while she was painting. At some point he began to put the canvas on the floor. Occasionally he allows (late in the documentary) that he taught her to PULL the brush, not push it. But he swears he never finished or touched up her work.
Marla became famous and the family garnered some $300,000 from her paintings, with millions more offered if and when she would paint some more. Laura had misgivings, was uneasy, but she wasn't sure why. Mark saw no downside. Little red dots appeared beside her paintings at show, indicating that the paintings had been sold. Indeed all her paintings had sold. Curiously a friend named Anthony Brunelli, ironically himself a painter working in photo realism, which I suppose is as far as you can get from the abstract, served as a sometime broker and dealer. It was as though the artist, four-year-old Marla had indeed painted her masterpiece and was living the life of a princess in a fairytale.
And then came a "Sixty Minutes" piece on Marla the prodigy showing her at work. But somehow something wasn't quite right. A child psychologist was interviewed who had looked at the video and said that it didn't look like this child was doing anything that a normal child of her age wouldn't do, and intimated further that you could clearly see the father's guiding hand. The implication was that Mark had "finished" the paintings or had authored them himself!
Marla is a pretty and vivacious little girl. Her mother seems the very embodiment of common sense. Mark seems like a loving and nurturing father. But they become targets of hate mail. Amazing. A segment of the public believes that the parents are scam artists and have bilked a gullible public.
Enter documentary film maker Amir Bar-Ley. He convinces the Olmsteads to allow him into their home with the idea that while making his documentary he will film an entire sequence with Marla at work on one of her masterpieces from start to finish with no help from Dad or anybody else to prove that she is genuine. What we see at times is a reluctant Marla who wants her dad to draw a face or to suggest something.
Mark is caught, not in a lie, but in the logic of his situation. Yes, he had to have "helped" her and there is no doubt (at least to this observer) that in some of the works he guided her choice of colors and painting instruments, which would only be natural. But in the esoteric world of art collecting, if that is admitted, the value of her paintings would plummet. Not only that, but Marla's integrity as a prodigy and his reputation as someone presenting her art, would be compromised as well. So he is caught. And so also is Laura, who wants to tell us that she would love to take a lie-detector test to prove that she in no way misrepresented her daughter's work or her involvement in it.
Whether Mark went further than guiding her is a question that the documentary leaves open to interpretation. The one work shown as completely Marla's (as evidenced by its composition being recorded on film) called "Ocean" may be seen as not on the same level of achievement as her other works. Again this is a matter of interpretation.
In a sense this is also a story about people who buy abstract art for high prices. It is about the vanity of collectors.
How does it end? See for yourself, but of course it may not end until Marla is old and her parents are gone, and even then, what really happened, and what it really means is--as is always the case with art--a matter of interpretation.
(For what it's worth, I have little doubt that Marla was "marketed" especially by her father and Anthony. Just ask yourself, who chose the names for the paintings, "Ode to Pollock," Asian Sunrise," etc.? Not Marla, that is for sure. And when Marla says, I'm done. It's your turn, Dad, I think we get the picture. But I would tar with the brush of "human, all too human" only Mark, Tony and the art collectors, not Laura who knew they would be compromised in some way, and of course not little Marla who was as pure as gold throughout.)
Movie Review: So many questions...so few answers...
Summary: 5 Stars
I have been looking forward to watching this for a long time. Not because I have an interest in abstract art, because I don't. I just think that the best documentaries are the ones that start out with one idea, and then something happens to skew it so it does a complete 180 degree turn, and that makes it unpredictable.
When Marla Olmstead was "discovered," for her paintings, the world fell in love with them, and this little girl. She is sometimes goofy on camera, sometimes shy. All seems to be going well for Marla and her family, until a 60 Minutes expose' threatens to ruin all that they have worked for. People are torn. They want to believe that Marla made her paintings, but there is also some subtle evidence to suggest that she had help. We will probably never know the answer.
I thought that this was a well done documentary. It was so balanced, that even though you get a glimpse of what the filmmaker believes, it doesn't change the way it was filmed. The believers and the skeptics seem to be interviewed equally, and you have to draw your own conclusion.
I have formed my own opinions, but what really bothers me about the parents, or should I say "parent," is that he doesn't seem to care about the well-being of his own children. He is like a "stage dad" that claims to not coach Marla, but some footage has said otherwise. One child takes precedence over the other, and Zane (the younger brother) would say things to the camera about how he was "painting when he was little" and then changed it to "when I was in my mommy's tummy, I was painting at the table." They said that Marla doesn't understand and is oblivious to the fame, but it was telling when Marla commented that Zane "won't have a painting at the art show." Being a Kindergarten teacher myself, I believe that when you throw too much fame and attention on them too young, most of them can't handle it, and they act out later, in destructive ways.
Whether she did or didn't is not the real question. The real question is, will she be able to recover from it? Kids pick up on all kinds of things, and if she is being coached, or told to lie, that will definitely shape her future.
It sounds strange, but I went into this wanting it to be a fraud. I'm not sure why. Maybe I get so tired of children being called "geniuses" and "prodigies" when I just wish that people would just let kids be kids, not mini-adults.
I recommend this highly. I watched it this morning, but I've been thinking about it all day long.
My opinion is: that she was definitely coached, or someone has "polished" the paintings, like the 60 Minutes story claimed. Not necessarily just because the two paintings done on camera were different than those completed off camera, but there were just too many awkward moments and comments that were hard to ignore. When Marla said to her dad, "I didn't do the green one. Zane did it." She seemed very emphatic on making sure she was heard on camera. I almost felt as if that were staged, like someone told her to say that. The reason? Maybe they want to make it look like Zane did some too, because now you can see that they are BOTH geniuses!!! She must be really painting them, because Zane can paint too! Also, if you watched some of the non verbal communication between the mother and father it either seems that a) she doesn't know about it, because they work opposite schedules, so she's not there to see what goes on, or b) she knows, but she doesn't like it. She seems so upset by the fact that it's getting out of proportion, and it appears that she doesn't really agree and just wants her kids to be kids. Maybe she's an unwilling participant. Also, in one of the "extras," Back to Binghamton, there is this moment on camera, when the dad tries to hold the mom's hand, and she pulls away. It's subtle, but you can see something is going on there. Plus, she wants to take a lie detector test, and he is completely against it. Why not? If you have nothing to hide, just do it. Out of all of the participants, the dad seems the most sketchy and extremely opportunistic. Especially in the extras, where he sent in Marla's "Artist Statement," which was obviously too advanced in vocabulary to be written by her. If this turns out to be a fraud, I hope that the dad (and possibly mom) eventually have to pay their karmic dues.
Movie Review: Terrific documentary and look at art world
Summary: 5 Stars
This very unusual documentary follows Marla Olmstead, a 4-year old artist, who has hit it big as an abstract artist. Of course with any artist, there is an expose, and Marla is no exception. But you usually don't get scandals at age 4. Very good documentary and recommended for all mature audiences.
SPOILER ALERT: The following discussion involves major plot points. You may want to watch the actual movie before you read the rest of it.
60 Minutes, ever the "hard-hitting" journalists, cast doubt that Marla is the sole artist and that her parents (mostly her dad) are helping her. This is the focus of the last half of the documentary, as the film maker himself is not convinced Marla is doing this by herself. I have the following observations:
1. Of course the dad is helping her. She's 4 for goodness sake. Have you ever dealt with 4 year olds? They need help doing most things. They are barely able to get dressed by themselves. Obviously, Marla cannot go to the store and pick out her paints. She also needs help getting set up. I don't think anyone disputes that level of help. But people get exercised when they think the dad is telling her what to do, or polishing some of the works. Is this really such a difference?
2. The dad always struck me as very opportunist. The mother was always much more nervous about having her pre-K daughter become a semi-famous person. I suspect the Dad did help, with suggestions and possibly even touching up some of the works. Did he fabricate some completely by himself? Possibly. I really doubt he is sitting there thinking: Wow, my 4-year old can do these paintings and I can't! I personally doubt he did any of them completely by himself, but I do think he gave help, even though I don't really care.
3. I can kind of feel the pain for art enthusiasts that thought they were getting a Marla Olmstead but really got a Marla+Dad painting. Obviously, they bought the art plus the story behind the art. When the story turned out to be different than they thought, they were disappointed. I personally think they should have figured that the dad helped a little bit. I mean, is Marla telling her Dad what to buy, what size canvases she needs, etc.? I also think they paid way too much for the story, but each has his or her own preferences.
4. I personally don't care for abstract art. I would have paid nominal amounts for some of Marla's paintings (some are pretty), but certainly not in the thousands of dollars range that they were fetching. I think it is a commentary on Western society that we spend so many resources on art while millions starve and people still die of leprosy.
5. The Olmsteads tried to rehab (more or less successfully it appears) their daughter by producing full length DVDs that show Marla in the process of painting some of her works. Sheralie thought that the ones where the video taped the paintings looked different than the other works. Other people in the movie shared that view. They all looked pretty abstract to me and to be done by the same artist. They produced several other full-length DVDs - but several of the paintings that are the subject of the DVDs have not sold. I think that it is kind of like food. I am happy to eat a meal, but I don't necessarily want to see it prepared - especially the part where they kill the meat product. Seeing the process takes some of the mystique away from the art itself, especially when the artist if 4 years old.
6. Why didn't the mother put an end to the whole thing after 60 minutes? You could tell she was nervous about this, and 60 minutes kind of confirmed her doubts. Why did she keep Marla on the art scene? Pressure from husband? She likes the money? She thought retreat would have looked like an admission of guilt? We don't really delve into her character enough to know the answer to this question.
Overall, I thought this movie raised many interesting questions about art, especially abstract art. Also good questions about exploiting children, dads that push and documentary films.
Movie Review: Girl you know it's true
Summary: 5 Stars
Amar Bar-Lev's new documentary, "My Kid Could Paint That", is ostensibly about the "career" of 4-year old (not a typo) Marla Olmstead, who hit the MSM spotlight briefly a few years back when her abstract paintings became a surprise hit in the New York art world. I use the qualifier "ostensibly", because by the time the credits roll, you realize that this film goes much, much deeper than standard issue news-kicker fodder about yet another child prodigy. As one of the film's subjects, a reporter for a local newspaper, muses to the filmmaker, "...this story is really more about the adults (in Marla's orbit)."
The back story: Mark and Laura Olmstead, a young couple living in sleepy Binghamton, New York, begin to notice that their daughter, Marla, appears to have a knack for art that transcends the random scribbling of a typical toddler. To be sure, every parent likes to think their kid is a bloody little genius, but the Olmsteads receive validation when a friend suggests they hang some of Marla's work in his local coffee shop (for a lark) and to their surprise, the paintings start selling like hotcakes. A local newspaper reporter picks up on the story, as does the owner of a local art gallery. Then, faster than you can say "just out of diapers", young Marla becomes a media darling, resulting in a substantial spike in the value of her paintings (some are sold in the five-figure range). Everything is going quite swimmingly until "60 Minutes" sets their sights on the family, airing a "takedown" story in 2004 that includes hidden camera footage showing Mark Olmstead barking instructions at Marla as she paints. Needless to say, sales drop off dramatically.
Bar-Lev began filming prior to the "60 Minutes" story; hence the first act is fairly standard documentary fare, incorporating interviews with the parents, the gallery owner and the newspaper reporter with some of the family's home movies. You do get a vibe early on that Mark Olmstead is enjoying the spotlight more than the rest of his family; Marla is way too young to really understand what's going on, and his wife Laura retains a cautious pragmatism. "I know there's a fine line between a child prodigy and a freak show..." she says at one point. Even while she is backstage getting prepped for Marla's appearance on the "Tonight Show", she worries out loud "...if all of this is really good for Marla". Is she telling this to the camera, or taking a by-proxy jab at her husband?
The first real seeds of doubt are sown when Bar-Lev sets up his camera to capture Marla at work. Marla sits on the floor, staring an empty canvas for quite some time while her father fidgets. At one point, Marla says something very interesting. "Do you want to paint something, Daddy?" Whoops! "I don't know what's wrong," Mark says nervously, "She usually doesn't act like this..." Uh huh. The awkward moments are just beginning between the filmmaker and his subjects, and the stage is set for one of the most compelling third acts I've seen in a documentary in quite a while.
At the end of the day, "My Kid Can Paint That" is not just about whether or not Marla is for real; it's about the nature of "art" itself (be it painting, filmmaking, music, whatever) At what point does childish scribbling become "abstract expressionism"? Does a "documentary" become a lie the moment the filmmaker makes the first edit? Whose judgment determines the intrinsic and/or monetary value of a painting-a local newspaper reporter, a New York Times art critic or Mike Wallace? Does the eye of the beholder still count for anything? Does it really matter who painted it, if you feel it's worth hanging on your wall? Who wrote Shakespeare's plays-Francis Bacon or the Earl of Oxford, and do you care? Does it really matter that the Monkees didn't write any of their hits or play their own instruments? Feast your eyes on this exceptional film and decide for yourself.
Movie Review: when I was a kid I sure didn't paint THAT GOOD !!!
Summary: 5 Stars
My Kid Could Paint That tells the true story of how a four year old girl named Marla Olmstead took the art world by storm when her paintings became highly respected in the world of modern art. Indeed, the vast majority of Marla's paintings look quite professional; and I think she uses her lack of inhibition when the camera isn't around to make some pretty incredible works of art. The documentary is nicely done by director Amir Bar-Lev; and the story of Marla, her family, and their roller coaster ride to fame, fortune, accusations of fraud and back to fame again is quite impressive. This film will stimulate you to really think about Marla as a real artist or a child coached and helped by her father.
We see Marla rise quickly to fame at the tender age of four. Already her paintings have been sold for nine thousand dollars or more; and her father is particularly proud of her. You get the impression that Marla's dad, Mark Olmstead, is not unlike a pushy stage mother who wants their child to succeed especially because the child is doing what the parent tried to do and couldn't do very well. Marla's mother, Laura Olmstead, enjoys her daughter's fame--and that growing college tuition fund--but also worries greatly that Marla will be negatively affected by all this years later. Marla's mother has a genuine concern that Marla's father lacks--she truly does want Marla to have a childhood.
Things go relatively well until a Charlie Rose expose on "60 minutes" raises a lot of concern that Marla is indeed doing all of the painting herself. Suspicions arise that perhaps Marla's father has secretly "helped" her by doctoring the paintings privately. The family gets lawsuit threats and sales of Marla's paintings dry up at once. The family tries to fight back and by the end of the film we see Marla's works having another art show in Binghamton two years later when Marla was six years old.
I won't draw any final conclusions here; naturally I cannot be certain of what happened when the cameras were off. However, I highly recommend the extras on this DVD; in particular, I liked the 35 minute featurette entitled Back To Binghamton. Back To Binghamton was filmed more recently in 2007; and it adds color (pardon the pun) to this issue and the family dynamics in the Olmstead household. I also felt very badly for little Zane, Marla's younger brother, who is clearly feeling bad that Marla is getting all the attention and he gets much, much less attention than she does. When the father says that Zane's paintings won't be in any art show, a very quick look at Zane's face shows him grimacing; and Zane tries to get the cameraman's attention by telling him that he (Zane) was painting in the womb when his mother was pregnant with him.
Was the art world duped? Has the father or someone else helped Marla or doctored her paintings? Is this all Marla's work? These are questions for debate and I think that's good.
Overall, My Kid Could Paint That is an outstanding and thought provoking documentary. We even see director Amir Bar-Lev beginning to express his own doubts about Marla's genius near the end of the film; and local reporter Elizabeth Cohen expresses her regret that she ever started the "mess" by writing a story about Marla in their local newspaper. I highly recommend this film for people who like documentaries; and people in the modern art world especially should see this film. This motion picture is also a "must-see" for people studying the effects of "stardom" on young children.