My Kid Could Paint That

Not a particularly well done documentary – the director doesn't get good enough footage to assemble a "complete" documentary, and it feels a little sloppy in the end. But Bar-Lev, whose second feature documentary this is, was lucky enough to chance upon an controversy that engages the audience nicely. I've certainly been thinking about it a lot for the past couple of days. The film is about a four year-old artist, Marla Olmstead, who took the art world by storm in 2005 with her amazingly sophisticated and beautiful abstract paintings. Marla's output produced a good $200,000 between '05 and '06. Bar-Lev wanted to document this child prodigy, but in the middle of his time spent with the family, the infotainment show 20/20, just one of a host of television news shows that covered the story, broke the angle that Marla's father, an amateur painter himself, may have coached the girl. All Hell breaks loose, the parents become pariahs, and they look to Bar-Lev as a possible savior. Unfortunately for them, Bar-Lev, who all the time has been trying and failing to get film of Marla painting one of her "masterpieces", is swayed by 20/20. It's a lot of fun to look at the evidence provided, to try to read the body language of the parents and try to read between the lines with them. You also have the issue about whether Marla herself was being exploited, which can raise a lot of debate. The film also works as an exploration of modern and abstract art. I myself am a fan of it, and I think there have been plenty of truly beautiful works of non-representational art. But, yeah, there are definitely paintings, some on display at an art auction going for millions of dollars in this film, where even I think the title of the documentary puts it perfectly. Most people are far less accepting than I. The film shows just how much the genre sticks in the craw of the general American public, and, in a sequence where the parents share a host of nasty e-mails with Bar-Lev, many seem just as angry that any of these paintings sold in the first place as they do that the paintings may be a sham. Even the 20/20 segment angles itself as an attack on non-representational art. Also featured are clips of a John Stossel news documentary about abstract art that I remember seeing a while back that really got my goat and has literally been making me angry for years now. Like many documentaries, the film benefits greatly from its DVD extras, which include a 30+ minute followup (which actually caused me to lose some sympathy for the parents; I seemed to be one of the few people who watched this movie and sympathized with them), and a great 15+ minute defense of abstract art by New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman.

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.

This documentary is outstanding in its capacity to make the viewer think. I'm sorry there are so few reviews of this here at IMDb because I would truly be interested in reading what other people have to say about this film. This is one of those stories, almost like a mystery, where you are left deciding on your own questions like "was this the real deal or was/is this a sham?" and "did this little girl do the paintings all my herself or did her dad embellish them?"

In 2004, four-year-old Marla Olmstead of Binghamton, New York, took the art world by storm. After an article by a Binghamton reporter, the New York Times picked up on it and, before you knew it, the little kid was a big celebrity. Her pieces were being sold for big bucks with much bigger profits on the way. Then, 60 Minutes did an expose raising doubts about whether she was on her own in this artwork. She went from child star to fraud, but then climbed back. All of this - and more - is documented on film by another guy, Amir Bar-Lev, who spent thousands of hours inside the Olmstead house interviewing and photographing the family. They hoped and assumed he'd be on their side, vindicating their daughter and themselves.

For those who found this story fascinating, I cannot recommend enough that you also watch the 35-minute behind-the-scenes bonus feature on the DVD called "Back To Binghamton." It was done last year, a few years after all the controversy. If you didn't have enough opinions after watching the main feature, you will after watching this "extra." It is extremely enlightening.

As a fellow reviewer, "tkelly-20" did here, I am going to add my "two cents." In a nutshell, here's how I viewed these people.

THE REPORTER - The only totally honest and common-sense person, perhaps, in the whole story is Elizabeth Cohen. As she states, this is a story about adults, not the child artist. She regrets ever doing the story and beginning the whole mess. I don't blame her.

THE PARENTS- If ever I've seen a person guilty on looks and body language alone, it has to be Marla's father, "Mark," who comes across as very shifty and as believable as a used car salesman. This guy, who is still bitter over the fact he never got his glory as a pro quarterback in the NFL, apparently will gladly take fame through his daughter. There is enough "evidence" here that he "polished" her artwork. The only legitimate defense he has is that the kid - who is honest like all real youngsters - hasn't said her daddy finished some of the paintings. Then again, the filmmaker didn't have the nerve, or thought it was inappropriate, to ask her.

Marla's mother, meanwhile, comes across as more sincere and innocent.....but she isn't. I think she knows what's going on but, perhaps, is caught in the middle, covering for her husband trying to protect her daughter. The most telling thing about her was in the bonus feature when she quickly withdrew her hand when her husband was going to hold it. She wants nothing to do with this guy - that's obvious. This marriage looks like a business arrangement all the way with greed and lust for fame empowering both of these parents. The both say they don't like all this publicity but they keep allowing themselves and their two little kids to be filmed day and night! They obviously relish this limelight, and it's disgusting. (I hope I'm wrong about this. I want to believe this family.)

THE ART WORLD - Gullible, pretentious and extremely prideful - that describes most of the "art people" in here, particularly art dealer Tony Brunelli. He, and others, have a pride problem in that they don't want to admit the Olmstead family has duped them from the start. Only one artist that I recall, another lady from Binghamton, who was shown on the bonus feature, told it straight and direct that she didn't believe any of this was legit. The worst pompous ass was - no surprise - the local college professor, who literally sounded insane. The world of art, unfortunately, is filled with phonies who will foist anything on the public if they can make a buck. At the same time, they will look you in the eye and honestly tell you something is "art," like the neon sign in this movie that just has the words - "F--k" on it. That's "art," to these people. Sad that little Marla is exposed to this kind of thing.

THE PRODUCER & DIRECTOR - Like all of us, it's obvious Bar-Lev wanted to believe this family but the more he filmed and the more he interviewed, the more suspect this whole thing was, and at least he had the guts to tell the Olmstead parents his feelings at the end. They wanted a PR piece and now are upset at him. They shouldn't be; they should be grateful he didn't include a lot of things I saw in the out-takes, which really make them look like con men.

Overall, this is a very disturbing story and one which invites a lot of discussion. In that respect, Bar-Lev is to be congratulated for making a movie which has so much impact and room for debate.

Fascinating documentary about a 4 year old girl who makes abstract paintings that sell for thousands of dollars. The question is raised by a 60 Minutes piece which questions whether or not the girl is actually doing the work herself (I say she is, and that this whole "controversy" is beside the point). But the bigger questions concern the unanswerable, as in "what is art?" If a little girl who is just sort of playing can make beautiful abstract paintings, then how hard could it be? What do we consider art? What are the criteria? The story of what the family went through as the result of the hatchet job by 60 Minutes ultimately makes the film a far more interesting one than it would have been otherwise. And at times the tables are turned on the filmmaker, as he becomes a figure in the film, questioned by its participants. Is this a good movie? Let's just say that I liked this film enough to watch all the "special features" on the DVD, something that I never do. See it.

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.