My Kid Could Paint That

Meet Marla Olmstead, a cute, seemingly normal 4-year-old girl. Then see the paintings Marla creates, hailed by the art world as the works of a prodigy abstract artist. Now meet Amir Bar-Lev, documentary filmmaker so fascinated by Marla's story that he decides to make a movie about it. Then along comes a "60 Minutes" investigative report that throws into question the claim that Marla alone is responsible for her paintings, and Bar-Lev's film switches gears mid-stream. Suddenly, he's begging the parents of this little girl to prove to him that their story is legitimate, so that his film won't end up being one more expose declaiming the family as frauds.

This ambiguous and disquieting film never answers the central question: are Marla's works her's alone, or did she receive "help" from her father or possibly, as some suggest, the bitter art gallery owner who takes credit for discovering her? Bar-Lev tries his best to gather evidence to support the Olmsteads' claims, but that evidence never materializes. The kind of painting Marla does when she's being filmed is the type that any four year old would do; all of her paintings are "finished" off camera. And Marla herself just doesn't act like a prodigy in the way of other child prodigies. Bar-Lev can't even get her to talk about her paintings, and she seems detached not only from the artworks but from everything else around her. Only once do the Olmsteads themselves film Marla creating a painting from start to finish, and they use this painting to prove to the world that they're not making their story up. But virtually everyone but the Olmsteads themselves seem to think that this painting looks very different from the finished ones hanging in art galleries and selling for thousands of dollars.

Whatever the true story is, the film leaves the distinct impression that something is amiss with this seemingly all-American family. The dad seems cagey; the mom seems to be working overtime to convince herself that everything is normal. A telling interview with the two parents that closes the film suggests that the couple may not be completely happy with one another -- their body language and lack of eye contact with one another conveys that. One senses that the dad is seeing some of his own dreams for fame realized through his daughter; the mom seems to be going against the maternal instincts that are telling her enough is enough. As objective as Bar-Lev tries to be, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Olmsteads (or at least Mark Olmstead, the father) is bamboozling (or at least trying to bamboozle) everyone, possibly even his wife.

"My Kid Could Paint That" is not the kind of documentary that pursues answers to the questions it raises. Bar-Lev seems almost too cautious not to offend anyone for his film to have any real bite. But the questions it does raise are interesting ones: what is the validity of abstract art? Does the age of the artist have an impact on the art's quality? Would Marla's paintings have received as much attention and acclaim if they were produced by an adult, or in buying Marla's paintings, are people really buying a piece of Marla?

I felt a little guilty watching this film, because I wanted the set up to be a fraud from the start. I don't know why that is, and I wonder if as I watched the film this attitude made me see the story I wanted to see rather than the story as it actually was. But if I can be accused of that, then so can Bar-Lev, and so can the Olmsteads themselves, who, whether their story is true or not, put it before the world and packaged it for maximum effect.

Grade: A-

This is an exceptional movie that provides the evidence and leaves it to each viewer to decide the core mystery.

Does 4 year old Marla Olmstead paint her own modern art or is she being used by the adults around her? The documentary benefits from having begun before the 60 Minutes coverage, when the authenticity of Marla's work is unquestioned. The Olmsteads are a beautiful and loving family with two marvelous kids.

The filmmaker does a great job taking us inside their world as fame descends upon Marla. Then things really heat up when the 60 Minutes piece breaks- and the cameras are rolling on the parents as it airs.

The film does not decide for you but presents the evidence evenly, making it for me one of the most entertaining recent films.

My guess of who's really painting- The mother seems too sincere to be lying but dad appears a little shifty, and they say they work opposing shifts. The guy I suspect is really doctoring the paintings from childish to MOMA quality is the art gallery owner. There is a scene showing him doing hyper-realistic painting and he is clearly a great artist, but it also seems he may have a chip on his shoulder that he has not been recognized as a talent. They say in the movie that it's always the two men against the mother when it comes to making decisions about Marla's career, so I suspect these two are working together for the substantial financial rewards, while making it easy and technically true for Dad to say that he doesn't do the painting.

It will be interesting to see how Marla progresses artistically as she gets older and is no longer under her parent's or art dealer's control. She is certainly an engaging young girl and her story in fifteen years is potentially the subject of another film.

No matter who you choose to believe, this documentary is top notch.

Excellent, absorbing documentary about a 4 year old whose abstract paintings sell for tens of thousands of dollars,

The film starts as a portrait of a prodigy, but as the film-maker admits via narration, as the filming went along, and especially after a "60 Minutes" piece aired that made it look like the girl was getting help from her father, the focus of the film switched to new, and much more interesting (and troubling) questions.

Are they really the paintings of a child? What makes abstract art great and not just a child's scribble? Are these parents miss-using their child, or encouraging her talents?

The film leaves a lot of unanswered questions, which I far prefer to forced conclusions. But even more, I liked the way it made me ponder the nature of art and creativity itself.

I think this movie says a lot of about America. The capitalist system leads to the most terrible behavior in the most average of people. When money becomes a factor in art, art will inevitably suffer. Obviously the desire of every artist is quitting their job and living off their work. I think this was the intention of the father and when he failed he had to rely on his daughter and did so without thinking of the consequences.

It's also interesting to note that the movie exploits the parents, but that the parents exploit their daughter which is even worse. The poor younger brother as well, "I helped paint that one" and they don't even acknowledge him and never mention the effect of ignoring him while praising their famous daughter. Who's exploiting who here? Even the filmmaker has to acknowledge that he's taking advantage of the daughter by putting her on film and sensationalizing her story.

A new sensation has arrived in the modern art world – what started out as paintings sold for a few hundred dollars in a local restaurant has seen the artist garner national and international press coverage, well-selling shows in New York and comparisons to the world of classics. Thing is, the artist is a four year old girl called Marla, who apparently is painting these oils without help from either parent – who are both quite taken aback by the interest and profitability of their daughter. Filmmaker Amir Bar-Lev spends hundreds of hours with the family, from the rise to fame into the period where Marla's work comes under question.

It was a fellow reviewer that mentioned this documentary to me a while back and when I saw it on television recently I decided to check it out. For the first half of the film I was catching up with the story as I had never seen or heard anything about this little girl before. To those already familiar with her then I suspect the first half of the film will not that that engaging but for me I found it interesting. Via the media coverage Bar-Lev is able to put questions like "what is art?" on the table even if he personally doesn't do much with them. The problem comes in the second part of the film because it is here where an interesting "last segment on the news" story gets more complex. Questions are asked and the answers are unconvincing – with limited evidence to silence the doubts. Nothing is ever conclusive and Bar-Lev cannot do a "Theroux" and coax anything out of the parents of value. I still found it interesting because the paintings are hard to believe and I was starting to wonder myself – particularly when you see Marla actually painting herself and they do look more like kid's stuff than the impressive creations on sale. But Bar-Lev doesn't seem sure what to do with this and as a result the film stutters to an unsteady conclusion where really it needed to be conclusive – even if that conclusion is inconclusive (if you see what I mean).

As it is though, this documentary is interesting and it is only a shame that someone more able could have had the access Bar-Lev did, just to see how it could have turned out rather than how it did.