My Kid Could Paint That
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.21 You Save: $17.78 (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: NO kid could paint that!
Summary: 5 Stars
Really liked the movie. In it, the art critic and (I think) the filmmaker said that all art is a lie. Well, I disagree with that - good art is a window to the truth. A good film will be able to penetrate behind the layers of deception. This one did.
Just before the part where the parents were watching the 60 Minutes report on Marla, the first time doubts about her ability were brought up, I said to myself that I had not seen anything that the child did showed me that she could do those paintings. When showing her painting, her level of concentration was extraordinarily short (though typical of a 4 year old,) she stabbed and poked at the canvas. She wanted to play.
So the Olmsteads ended up doing their own video of her doing a painting called Ocean because she would never paint with the mastery of the high priced paintings whenever an outsider was filming. (That happened five times.) In the special features follow-up, one guy said Ocean didn't look like the others. Being into art, that was an understatement. She ends up painting in Ocean what looks like a Mickey Mouse representation. Look at the circle representing "Mickey's" head. Then look at all the other almost perfect circles that fill up some of her other earlier paintings. Look at all the solid, steady wide brushstrokes that encompass the other very large paintings like Triptych. Look at the long, steady drips on the paintings (one painting, on the follow-up feature has a "V" where each arm is three feet long) compared with the jagged ones on Ocean.
There's another painting where a collector says that one part of it looks like a pathway to a door. Look at how smooth, steady and solid the wide brushstrokes are that are completely absent in Ocean or in any video of her painting. On the cover of the DVD right here, look at those very long straight, even, smooth "drip" lines and again compare that to Ocean.
Near the end of the video there's a scene where she's painting on the floor, within a couple of minutes she TELLS her father 5 times to paint or to help her. This little 5 year old doesn't ask him to paint with her, she says paint or I won't do anymore.
Watch her paint (she is quite talented actually) and ask yourself, does she have the physical and mental ability to paint those very large paintings shown at the beginning of the film?
Mark Olmstead insists throughout the film that she painted everything without any help. NO WAY.
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: A fascinating documentary.
Summary: 5 Stars
"My Kid Could Paint That" (Sony Picture Classics, 2008)
This is a fascinating, vexing, involving documentary about an apparent child prodigy whose rapid elevation in the modern art world led to a media frenzy and inevitable attempts to "debunk" her work. The least interesting and most cliched question is the "but is it art?" trope. Yes, it's art; it doesn't matter if a four-year old painted the pictures. But more troubling is the question of whether or not the girl's parents coached her or did touch-ups of her paintings. My wife and I pored over the film (and the highly helpful postscript bonus features) and debated the likelihood that the girl's father may have faked or doctored some of his daughter's art. Ultimately we decided it was unlikely: the child seems pretty articulate and able to speak up for herself, and if her parents had been using her in a hoax, she probably would have said something and blown their cover. Also, as doting parents ourselves, we are all too familiar with the dynamic of trying to get our little angel to show off some clever new thing to her grandparents, etc., and having freeze up or only say "poop!" instead of reciting the Gettysburg address. So, yes, it seems highly probable that this kid is an amazing painter and that, when some news crew or whatever tries to film her painting a masterpiece, that she'd get self-conscious and do something less complex than she otherwise might. At any rate, the film itself is well structured to stimulate lively conversation and debate, and it is an utterly fascinating film. It would be great to see a follow-up film made several years from now, in sort of a "21-Up" format. (Joe Sixpack, Slipcue film reviews)
Movie Review: AMBIGUOUS SURFACE STORY WITH A DEEPER MEANING
Summary: 5 Stars
What happens when the world of childhood collides with the world of art? This film provides a unique answer to the question. While the story focuses mostly on 4 year old Marla Olmstead and her parents ("Did she or didn't she REALLY paint all those cool paintings?), I think the deeper story should be "what difference does it make?". That modern art has become too complex for most people to "properly understand" is a sad commentary on how insecure we've become in the face of "experts". Why should art be so incomprehensible that we don't trust our own judgement in what is "good art".
Personally, I liked Marla's artwork. Did it show "talent"? I don't know. Was it "Good"? It was pretty to look at, so isn't that enough?
Marla ends up being a pawn the a media ping-pong game while her parents receive extremely vile emails and fend off media accusations of manipulation. The issue of who painted Marla's artwork is never resolved (although it is still available online), I though the more important issue is "Why should an artists age be important in art?" Unless you are using it as a marketing tool, an asterisk to a painting, age should not be an issue.
During the documentary, from what I could glean, one ONE person (a child psychologist, IIRC) on 60 Minutes said she didn't think the ouvre looked like it was done by the same child. One person! After that came the deluge of naysayers and investigative reporter.
Althought I'm certain there ARE experts in modern art who know what they are talking about, so much of modern art has become a sham, and when a four year old child is caught up in it, it becomes a shame.
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.