IMDb user comments for
My Kid Could Paint That (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

15 comments in total

---

44 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
Well Done Documentary, 24 January 2007

Author: ArizWldcat from Ogden UT

We were very fortunate to have the opportunity to see this film at Sundance 2007. The filmmaker attended the (Salt Lake City) screening we went to, and graciously answered a lot of questions audience members had about it. As you can tell from the title and the plot summary, this was about a little 4 year old who seems to have a lot of talent for modern art. On the surface, there are a lot of questions raised about the nature of modern art, among other things, and that in itself would have made an interesting documentary. Refreshingly, about half way through the making of the documentary, 60 minutes did a story about this child and the result of that story changed the course of the documentary as well. I loved the way the filmmaker raised questions that he didn't answer...because he truly didn't know the answers. This was thoughtful and well done, and a thoroughly enjoyable filmgoing experience! I hope this has a measure of success.

---

17 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Extremely Thought-Provoking (Plus My Two Cents), 5 March 2008

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

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.

---

15 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Great mystery movie + my guess of who's really painting, 8 November 2007

Author: tkelly-20 from United States

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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Human Interest Story or Hoax? We May Never Know...., 1 April 2008

Author: brocksilvey from United States

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-

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
An average documentary that excels because of an interesting subject, 23 March 2008

Author: zetes from Saint Paul, MN

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.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Entertaining and thought-provoking, 28 November 2007

Author: em89072002 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is more than just a good documentary, it's a very good movie overall.

It's a story of a very young girl who does abstract paintings that sell for high sums of money, and are touted by some as masterpieces. But, the movie is also about how her family responds to and copes with the attention, celebrity, scrutiny and financial gains that come with the territory. The film also delves into the issue of what is art; except, this is not a didactic on the elements of art (i.e. line, color, contrast, form, pattern, texture, composition). Instead, critics, collectors and artists give their perspective on this girl's paintings and provide some context on how art is made and sold (cue Lauper's "Money Changes Everything").

The interwoven presentation of each of these stories (i.e. girl, family, art) provides a captivating multi-layered effect that holds the viewers' attention throughout. It's not at all slow or boring as some documentaries can be. The camera work and lighting could be better in some places, but altogether it's a worthwhile watch.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
So really..."what is art?", 16 March 2008

Author: daveygandthekeyboard from United States

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.

---

Was ist art?, 4 August 2008

Author: theskulI42 from Denver, CO

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

An absolutely fascinating documentary in that does what all documentaries are supposed to do: raise intriguing questions and leave you, the viewer, to make your own decisions. It's not a particularly well-made documentary (it's fairly sloppy and oddly paced), but it had an interesting premise that ends up being an even MORE interesting premise and was most definitely worth watching.

The film initially opens with a thesis questioning "What is art?", more specifically modern art, since that is a style that has had the titular accusation leveled at it since its origins, and with the main character of his story, it appeared one actually HAD: Four-year-old Binghamton, NY native Marla Olmstead had apparently painted pictures that were being hailed as the work of the next Picasso, the next Pollack, rocking the modern art world and provided all sorts of ammunition for assumed philistines. But then, 60 Minutes took a second look, and raised questions over whether or not this was actually her own whole work. They attempted to film her painting, and the painting she produced was drastically less accomplished than her other apparent works. Then, after installing a secret hidden camera, they recorded her father offscreen giving her basic but suspicious instructions, and produced yet another painting that looks noticeably dissimilar to her other works, and suddenly, Bar-Lev found himself in a precarious and unique position. He had never questioned the validity; he was looking to investigate a theme of a completely different look, and suddenly has the rug pulled out and decides that he now needs to look into this, and the film takes an even more fascinating turn...

The film, like the best documentaries, raises questions without judgment, and without attempting to tell you what to think, merely presenting the facts and allowing you to decide for yourself. My favorite talking-head involved in the film, the one who makes the most sense, is New York Times head art critic Michael Kimmelman, who comes off as informed, discerning and honest about his work. He is mostly disposed of after the subject of the documentary shifts, but his insightful comments color the entire film. Most of the rest of the interviewees are involved with the family, the mother, the father, a few art dealers, a few critics, and an author doing another piece on the family.

No genre is improved upon more by the DVD format and the concept of "extras" than the documentary, because unlike other forms of film, documentary stories don't just end once the cameras power down, and the addition materials, especially the half-hour of extra or extended footage is, while being equally nonjudgmental, incredibly damning towards the father, and I would be amazed if anyone came away from that footage still feeling that Marla's work was wholly her own just seems like they're not listening.

Overall, My Kid Could Paint That is a engrossing and unusual documentary that I most definitely recommend for anyone interested in art, documentary film-making, or anybody that likes a good story, especially one with a couple of twists.

{Grade: 8.5/10 (B+) / #23 documentary of all time}

---

Wow!, 21 May 2008

Author: banenc from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

My favorite part of the film is when the filmmaker himself actually starts to question Marla's art. It was a huge turning point. Also, another of my favorites was the point where the filmmaker placed "ocean" and "flowers" next to some of her previous works. The paintings "Ocean" and "Flowers" were the ones that she was filmed painting. It's blatantly obvious that they do not look alike. "Ocean" and "Flowers" look like typical Kindergarten paintings that a child would bring home from art class.. the only difference is that she got a large canvas, whereas normal children only painted on construction paper.

I feel like the father took advantage of Marla's youth. I do not remember much from when I was 4. I definitely would not remember if my parents every helped me on a school project.

As far as the names of the paintings, I would have enjoyed the "art" more if Marla had named them. It could have at least brought a little more innocence to the subject.

Overall, I do not believe that Marla painted the paintings.. Her father was a slime ball. I feel terrible for the mother. She knew it was a lie all along, which is why she rejected the fame even at the beginning. Fortunately, I do not feel like the kids will be too harmed by all of this. Other than media reminders, I doubt they will personally remember much of it.

---

A matter of interpretation, 14 May 2008

Author: Dennis Littrell (dalittrell@yahoo.com) from SoCal

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This documentary ends with the credits rolling down the screen and Bob Dylan singing "Everything's gonna be different When I Paint My Masterpiece." The sense of yearning and a kind of dissatisfaction with what you know that life is going to bring that Dylan expresses in his song is the way so many parents feel about their children. They want everything for them. They want to give them advantages they never had. They see in their children the good genetic parts of themselves and their spouses (and in-laws!) and yet sometimes they want to yell at themselves: Stop that! Let the child be. Let the child be a child.

This is the way Laura Olmstead no doubt felt about her daughter Marla. Four-year-old Marla loved to paint and seemed to have some kind of unusual facility for color and expression. Her paintings came out like little works of art, and then bigger works or art, and then suddenly they were selling for tens of thousands of dollars and little Marla was having art shows in New York City.

Abstract impressionism is considered by some to express the inner workings of our consciousness, to describe in form and color a deep artistic and human truth. To others it is a scam. Mark Olmstead, Marla's father--not exactly an ingénue when it comes to art--encouraged his daughter in her work. He bought paints and took the time to be with her while she was painting. At some point he began to put the canvas on the floor. Occasionally he allows (late in the documentary) that he taught her to PULL the brush, not push it. But he swears he never finished or touched up her work.

Marla became famous and the family garnered some $300,000 from her paintings, with millions more offered if and when she would paint some more. Laura had misgivings, was uneasy, but she wasn't sure why. Mark saw no downside. Little red dots appeared beside her paints at show, indicating that the paintings had been sold. Indeed all her paintings had sold. Curiously a friend named Anthony Brunelli, ironically himself a painter working in photo realism, which I suppose is as far as you can get from the abstract, served as a sometime broker and dealer. It was as though the artist, four-year-old Marla had indeed painted her masterpiece and was living the life of a princess in a fairytale.

And then came a "Sixty Minutes" piece on Marla the prodigy showing her at work. But somehow something wasn't quite right. A child psychologist was interviewed who had looked at the video and said that it didn't look like this child was doing anything that a normal child of her age wouldn't do, and intimated further that you could clearly see the father's guiding hand. The implication was that Mark had "finished" the paintings or had authored them himself! Marla is a pretty and vivacious little girl. Her mother seems the very embodiment of common sense. Mark seems like a loving and nurturing father. But they become targets of hate mail. Amazing. A segment of the public believes that the parents are scam artists and have bilked a gullible public.

Enter documentary film maker Amir Bar-Ley. He convinces the Olmsteads to allow him into their home with the idea that while making his documentary he will film an entire sequence with Marla at work on one of her masterpieces from start to finish with no help from Dad or anybody else to prove that she is genuine. What we see at times is a reluctant Marla who wants her dad to draw a face or to suggest something.

Mark is caught, not in a lie, but in the logic of his situation. Yes, he had to have "helped" her and there is no doubt (at least to this observer) that in some of the works he guided her choice of colors and painting instruments, which would only be natural. But in the esoteric world of art collecting, if that is admitted, the value of her paintings would plummet. Not only that, but Marla's integrity as a prodigy and his reputation as someone presenting her art, would be compromised as well. So he is caught. And so also is Laura, who wants to tell us that she would love to take a lie-detector test to prove that she in no way misrepresented her daughter's work or her involvement in it.

Whether Mark went further than guiding her is a question that the documentary leaves open to interpretation. The one work shown as completely Marla's (as evidenced by its composition being recorded on film) called "Ocean" may be seen as not on the same level of achievement as her other works. Again this is a matter of interpretation.

In a sense this is also a story about people who buy abstract art for high prices. It is about the vanity of collectors.

How does it end? See for yourself, but of course it may not end until Marla is old and her parents are gone, and even then, what really happened, and what it really means is—as is always the case with art—a matter of interpretation.

(For what it's worth, I have little doubt that Marla was "marketed" especially by her father and Anthony. Just ask yourself, who chose the names for the paintings, "Ode to Pollock," Asian Sunrise," etc.? Not Marla, that is for sure. And when Marla says, I'm done. It's your turn, Dad, I think we get the picture. But I would tar with the brush of "human, all too human" only Mark, Tony and the art collectors, not Laura who knew they would be compromised in some way, and of course not little Marla who was as pure as gold throughout.)

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Parents Guide	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history