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.

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.

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.

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.

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-