My Kid Could Paint That
|
List Price: Our Price: $17.99 You Save: $1.95 (10%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $5.58 (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: Controversy Is The Star Here
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a strange documentary, in that, the star of the show is a four year old girl named Marla who can paint like an adult. However, she doesn't speak other than what you would expect from a four year old. The paintings are considered remarkable works of modern art. Not until "60 Minutes" does a scathing story about the possibility that she was coached or that her father might have even touched up the paintings, do things start changing. Her gallery showings end along with the sales of her paintings (some asking $25,000 and more).
The parents allow a hidden camera to be placed to document Marla painting to prove that she is truly the artist. The result is a painting called, "Ocean" that is both considered great and below her ability. The controversy continues. It appears that no one is satisfied. During one gallery sequence, several of her paintings are displayed and they all have child-like titles. Along with "Ocean" are "Lollipop", "Feather", "Flower", "Blue Sun", "Four" and others. They all are consistent in their quality and style. However, I could not help but notice that two paintings not only had adult titles, but were considerably different than the other paintings in style. These were titled, "Ode To Pollock" and "Asian Sun". Now if the father did not coach (meaning, he said he did not even suggest a color, theme or any other kind of influence), someone certainly titled these paintings other than Marla. Or am I wrong too?
Everyone interviewed speaks with utmost believability, credibility and honesty. Several columnists are also interviewed and the insight into the "Marla" phenomenon takes on anther perspective. Also pointed out, is the viewpoint of the very people doing this documentary. Can they be completely neutral in their observances and recording? It seems the answer is that everyone is suspect - and that is amazing, considering that Marla was the original point of this story - a story that got spun out of control. If anything, watching the human interaction and a family placed in the spotlight makes for a great documentary. The paintings? They are amazing in themselves and that should be the point.
Movie Review: Well, perhaps YOUR kid could paint that...
Summary: 5 Stars
This documentary exposes, in a very objective manner, the manipulations of the "art world," the media and a very young child by parents.
Parents are ultimately charged with assuring the well-being of their offspring. This is a not-for-profit endeavor. I was as disturbed by the actions of these parents as I am by the pushy stage mothers who dress their daughters up as mini-adults and parade them on stage to win pageants. I perceive that the father in this story would be just as easily at home on a Little League field bullying an umpire as well as engineering this greed and publicity driven scheme.
My heart was also aching for the little brother. The scene depicting him pulling on his father's chair, seeming to beg for attention by announcing that he also painted while "in his mother's belly" spoke volumes.
I viewed the father as a strutting peacock who glories in the exploitation of this situation, and squirmed with discomfort as I watched the mother seem to gain sudden "awareness" while watching the televised expose. When that dawn came, it did nothing to bring the exploitation to an end. The documentary later shows her tearfully regretting what has transpired, but this masterpiece of manipulation and exploitation continues. Therefore, I hold her just as culpable as the father, who is the ring-master of this sad circus.
What is tremendously clear in this documentary is that this situation had become quite disturbing, that this negativity was abundantly clear to the parents, and that they fostered the continuation of the exploitation.
This is a brilliant and objective but very disturbing film.
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: The Parents Are Not Even Slightly Believable
Summary: 5 Stars
I found this documentary fascinating. It is something of a dispassionate look at modern art. The viewer is left to make up their own mind. In my particular case, my cynicism has dramatically increased. There is such a thing as legitimate non-representational art---but much of it is pure garbage. Marla Olmstead seems to be a victim of deceitful and manipulative parents. I don't even slightly trust them. They appear to merely employ postmodernist rhetoric to rationalize away criminal behavior. One should also question the honesty of the art curator and newspaper columnist.
The whole Marla phenomenon does not pass the smell test. Her so-called paintings are mildly interesting and entertaining. They deserve no further praise. Please do yourself a favor and see "My Kid Could Paint That." I am quite sure that you should find the experience both enjoyable and thought provoking. It might also behoove you to read Roger Kimball's The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art. He can help you to more clearly understand the madness of our present age.
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.