My Kid Could Paint That (2007) User Reviews (31)

Human Interest Story or Hoax? We May Never Know....

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 1 April 2008]

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-

An average documentary that excels because of an interesting subject

[zetes · 8/10 · 23 March 2008]

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.

Entertaining and thought-provoking

[em89072002 · 8/10 · 28 November 2007]

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.

An interesting film but loses focus in the second half

[bob the moo · 4 August 2008]

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.

The question is never really answered.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 7 September 2008]

Watching this documentary is like sitting on a jury. You have to decide if there is a reasonable doubt, as you may never know the full truth.

Amir Bar-Lev does a good job of presenting the facts to the jury. He is assisted by a "60 Minutes" piece on the same subject. Did this four-year-old really paint these pictures, or was she helped by daddy or, as one person suggested, by the gallery owner? One has to look at the father and make a judgment, as the little girl cannot really tell us what we want to know. he does appear shifty and one has to believe that he is certainly capable of doing the enhancements. There are certain things in the paintings themselves that indicate that they were not done by a four-year-old.

The mother appears to know, but is protecting her family. I think she wishes it would have never started.

It is an interesting work and each person has to sit in the jury box themselves and give a verdict.

Extremely Thought-Provoking (Plus My Two Cents)

[ccthemovieman-1 · 10/10 · 5 March 2008]

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.

Who is exploiting whom?

[GethinVanH · 7/10 · 18 June 2008]

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.

Well Done Documentary

[ArizWldcat · 9/10 · 24 January 2007]

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.

Great film, frustrating director

[courez · 6/10 · 7 October 2011]

I won't go into tremendous detail of a plot summary or why this documentary is significant as other reviewers have done so already. I would like to point out that the film does a great job summarizing and showing the child-artist Marla, and for that I'm glad there's a comprehensive film about her and her family. However, in the last quarter of the film, Bar-Lev insists on making it clear his opinion regarding the central issue in the film. I found this rather tactless on his part, and I felt like I was being spoon-fed a quick final conclusion that he felt was, for some reason, necessary.

A really great film but I really did find the ending frustrating.

Great mystery movie + my guess of who's really painting

[tkelly-20 · 10/10 · 8 November 2007]

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.

Another American parents exploiting their children

[johnp-44 · 6/10 · 24 April 2008]

Why do American parents exploit their children? Money. Lies and money. Look at the president of the USA; lies and money. This so called war on terror? lies and money. Same thing on a different scale; lies and money. I really don't think this is doing any harm to the child, only harm to the average American who believes this crap. The same people who believe this are the people who believe that the war their president wages in for just causes. Gimmie a break! We all know it's for money. Oil is money. Is this war good for your country? Yes. Is it good for mankind? Ask anyone with real intelligence. No! Those who believe in God as a supreme being, are those stupid enough to believe your president's lies. It's about time you listened to your intelligent peers and not your scavengers.

A matter of interpretation

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 14 May 2008]

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.)

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Solid

[Cosmoeticadotcom · 6/10 · 29 July 2009]

My Kid Could Paint That is not a great documentary- certainly it's no F For Fake, the great 1974 pseudo-documentary by Orson Welles, which also dealt with the gullibility and idiocy of the art world when confronted with a blatant fraud. Still, the blatant idiocy of the arts world- from Kimmelman to the WASPy dilettantes suckered into purchasing garbage for thousands of dollars- has rarely been better portrayed. In fact, if the case was not documented elsewhere, one might think or wish this film was a hoax, for the utter greed, deceit, stupidity, and insecurities of humans is on full sloppy display- including the director's. So, the film is not wholly without redeeming qualities; they simply are not enough to allow this film to become a minor curio in the history of art fraud, rather than a cogent expose of the current sickly arts zeitgeist. Again, the plain and disgusting reality is that Marla's paintings are total crap, whether she did them alone or with her father, and after all that is displayed within this film, if anyone still claims that Abstract Expressionism is not a con, then they are either liars, stupid, psychotics, or con men. Go ahead, choose your poison.

The truth is out there

[jmacl · 5/10 · 30 September 2008]

This is a average documentary but sure it's interesting enough for audience to watch. First we are all surprise with the talent the little girl had. When I first saw it, I really wanted to have one and email her dad and ask for the price (it's too high for me though). Then in the movie, it's strange that whenever the camera is filming Marla when she is painting (the 60 Minutes clip and the 'Ocean'), Marla did a quiet different work. Agree with the expert on 60 Minutes. That's just a child's painting. Maybe better than average but sure not a prodigy. The suspect is the gallery owner. He sure is an artist and I don't think Marla's father or mother can do the great painting. He also reveals that he despise the abstract art. I think the director is a bit upset with what he 'feel' (he might felt the same that the great work was not from the little girl). And he step back at the end to let the viewer think about this.

Terrific documentary about the nature of art

[runamokprods · 12 October 2011]

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.

We're supposed to draw our own conclusions

[cricketbat · 6/10 · 28 December 2018]

My Kid Can Paint That takes a while to get where it's going, but when it does, it's impactful. You feel nearly as uncomfortable as the filmmaker when the final confrontation happens. And while the documentary never really answers the big question, maybe that's the point. Maybe we're supposed to draw our own conclusions regarding who is telling the truth.

Was ist art?

[theskulI42 · 8/10 · 4 August 2008]

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}

A good documentary about a little girl and her family

[Jesseree · 6/10 · 23 March 2011]

This is a good film, depicting the story of a 4 year old girl who likes to paint and her rise to "Stardom" as an artist. She has parents that encourage her, and an art dealer who promotes her.

Intertwined with interviews, fly on the wall type footage and excerpts of media coverage, the documentary gives an almost nicely rounded view of the situation. The rise and fall of this little girl and intrinsically her family. What I did not quite like was that the film maker at one point gives his opinion, I thought that the film would have been better without it.

Another thing that I felt was missing is a definite time-line of her works, since I have painted with my siblings and watched them change their way of expressing themselves with painting, going from what the "art-world", as shown in this film, calls "mature adult paintings" (filling out the whole canvas) to the typically childish figurative type (and a lot of white) within a short time. Considering this I personally would not call her an artist nor her family fraudulent.

At some point in the film Bar-Lev mentions that at the beginning he wanted to make a film about modern art, in this objective I think he fails, since there are no experts on art (nor on child development) interviewed by him. Mainly Mom, Dad, art dealer, fans (art collectors) and a local media reporter are shown. A documentary on modern art that I find informative, especially in dealing with modern art dealing is "The Mona Lisa Curse" by Robert Hughs.

If you are interested in Marla's story, then this is a good film to watch. In my opinion this film is not about modern art, child development nor the media just Marla's story the way the Bar- Lev saw it, no more and no less.

So really..."what is art?"

[daveygandthekeyboard · 8/10 · 16 March 2008]

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.

Well put-together but bothersome

[basuraenelbano · 6/10 · 28 July 2014]

What bothers me is that so many have jumped to conclusions without conclusive evidence. 60 Minutes is shameful, using one lousy psychologist's opinion as a definitive source, but, of course, it's in their interest to generate scandal, even where none exists. I could well be wrong, but my own opinion is that this girl's paintings are genuine. On Marla's web site, there are now more videos of her painting, and it all seems convincing enough to me on its own basis. But even if there are questions that remain - sneaking suspicions - there is certainly nothing to excuse such arrogant, SURE outrage and spewing of hatred on the parents...definitely, not until (and if) solid proof comes out to the contrary.

The real outrage should be over what Marla's works signify: namely, that all this abstract, expressionistic stuff is nonsense! We all know this the first time we see such a piece. Then, we take the word of so-called experts in art that it is, indeed, art. Hogwash! If these paintings were truly created by Marla, that's no surprise. They're just the types of paintings any damn kid could make, should they feel compelled. They take no skill to make - just imagination and ignorance of the concepts "good" and "skillful" with respect to visual art. And kids are blessed with those traits in spades. The art dealer in the film makes exactly this point. While he busts his butt painstakingly recreating true representations of reality with paint, someone could conceivably wipe their arse on canvas and auction off the product at Sotheby's, so long as they have a name made famous through the marketing of blind experts.

All in all, I guess this documentary achieved some objectives in both investigating and instigating controversy. I know it made me think and feel, if mostly about why I think abstract art is lousy and deserves no attention. That said, I still feel that the film, while competently produced, was pretty boring. And that could not have been helped, as this trivial story probably didn't deserve telling as a full-length feature in the first place.

Everybody always talks about Marla! Marla Marla Marla!

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 14 September 2009]

My Kid Could Paint That, if it's 'about' anything, or as Ebert would say how it's about it, is process. Marla is a four year old who paints, most likely for reasons nobody knows because she's four years old. It just comes from somewhere, maybe even nowhere. We see her process in little pieces, but it's really also, for a good deal of its running time, the process of the art industry today. Does an artist like Marla really stand a chance against or in the same league as other artists who put their heart and soul and body and mind into their art (sometimes the cynical kind, sometimes not)? Perhaps it all has to do with her being four years old and making these paintings that ultimately defies description by someone who isn't an art critic (pretentious or otherwise), and why Marla's parents sell her paintings at galleries and go up for sale in the tens of thousands. Is she any more talented than a Van Gogh? Keep in mind, folks, Van Gogh didn't sell a painting in his life.

So it's not just about the process of a four year old artist- who, as we see argued in the film, may have not even painted all of her paintings as her father is suggested as another- but about the media's scrutiny, of that 60 Minutes piece, and then, ultimately and thankfully, the process of film-making and capturing a family on film. The director gets close to the family and their situation of their daughter, and they by proxy, being recognizable on a national scale. At first the director just wants to take a look, as he's asked point blank by the female journalist seen often in the film, at modern art through this story and Marla in the scope of it. But we see this struggle play out of his subjectivity, of his perception of what's going down, and it shapes the rest of the film for about the last twenty minutes or so. Where before we didn't see much of him, the director, living sometimes 24 hours a day around Marla and the family and filming (and getting great footage) becomes part of the subject.

What is art? How do we define it, or what makes a particular work successful? Jackson Pollock is shown, of course, but as is a lot of 'abstract art', what it means to put a piece out there and how it finds its audience. To be fair, I'm not sure if Marla's works would get the kind of grandiose attention it got if not for the practical gimmick of her age, but some might based on the merits and talent on display. At one point a critic looks at it and interprets a little section of the painting as if its a doorway and a little figure is there. Why does he see the significance there? Who knows? Who cares, even, except that the work makes an impact. And the director's goal with My Kid Could Paint That is to take Marla's story, of a cute little girl who is basically a kid who wants to just be a kid (as we can see inasmuch in a 80 minute film), and may indeed get a little nudging, more or less, from her father in some of her paintings.

Some have questioned about the validity of the works, about how much is really Marla's father, who works in a Frito-Lay factory as a manager (the mother a dental assistant, notching up very middle-class roots), and how much we actually see on film of Marla painting compared to the works when the camera wasn't around. Does this depreciate the value of the paintings then? That's not entirely the point the filmmaker is out to make, though he brings it up in a tense interview late in the film. The film is most successful at bringing to light how we get to conversations about art and artists and the commerce of it in the first place. Some of it is a gimmick that connects, yes. Who knows if Marla will still be painting next year, or even now. But we see the process realistically at work, on and behind the camera, and that makes it interesting.

Wow!

[banenc · 10/10 · 21 May 2008]

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.

Sick

[Jim-500 · 1/10 · 10 February 2009]

This documentary by Amir Bar-Lev looks at a four-year-old girl who is able to paint amazingly fine abstract art. It then examines the genre and tries to address its validity, as many people feel it looks like barely controlled chaos that even the worst artist in the world could paint.

Although this seems like a straightforward idea, the film soon veers off course and asks not whether such art is worthy, but is it possible that the little girl in question could actually paint what she paints. Eventually it becomes a detective story followed by hatchet pieces in the media and accusations of fraud.

A beguiling, one-sided piece by the TV program 60 Minutes becomes the crux of the story. In it, the program does not even try to celebrate the fact that this girl does what she does; instead, it immediately calls into question whether she could do it at all, and effectively destroys any hope that people would believe her family. After the show aired, the family's reputation was virtually ruined. And Bar-Lev admits that he wanted to call them "liars." All of this is unfortunate because we see no evidence of fraud. The only possible questionable scene is when the girl is painting while a hidden camera films her; we hear her father, off camera, telling her to "use more red."

I found this to be an extremely poor work, mainly because Bar-Lev inserts himself into the story. A documentary is supposed to be impartial, and let the viewer decide. But early on, Bar-Lev starts adding his own commentary and even has a few revolting, on-camera therapy sessions where he describes his thoughts and feelings about what's going on.

I saw nothing in what the parents said or the way they acted that would indicate any insincerity on their part. I kept on imagining if they were telling the truth, and they acted exactly that way. The mom often seems uncomfortable; I would, too, if my four-year-old was the subject of all this publicity. I'd be thinking, well, is this right? It seems right... but I'm still not totally convinced. But I'll keep going with it.

And why would they be lying? The implication is that the father was doing all of the painting for his daughter. But we see his own pieces and they're nowhere near the same level as his daughter's (nor the same style). And if indeed he were capable of painting that well, why would he not tout them under his own name? It doesn't make any sense.

The darkest moment in this whole mess is in the outtakes, when Bar-Lev describes a dream in which he's listening to the girl's parents having sex, which is followed by a sniper shooting him. Bar-Lev even obliges us with the sound of a shotgun blast.

Excuse me? We're supposed to be watching a documentary about a four-year-old art prodigy, not listening to the filmmaker's sexual fantasies about her parents. Imagining what a little girl's parents do in their bedroom after they've been kind and gracious enough to invite you into their home, furnishing us with the sound of a murder, and then putting it all into your movie, is sick--and successfully ventures into the world of megalomania.

At the end of the movie, we hear about other "hidden camera" painting sessions that the parents say prove that she was doing the work herself, but curiously Bar-Lev does not show them.

When this film was shown at Sundance, the girl's parents asked for a statement to be read in absentia before the screening. They stated that they were "heartbroken" by the editing and creative choices Bar-Lev made in putting it all together, and for the way he portrayed them.

I don't blame them. Bar-Lev ostensibly wanted to examine the world of modern art, but instead he did his best to destroy a family, all the while portraying himself as innocent and fair. I doubt they will be inviting him back into their home anytime soon; I would not want him in my home, either. In making this movie, he cared more about himself than anybody or anything else.

Can a 4 year old make real art? Apparently not.

[rdoyle29 · 8/10 · 6 June 2023]

Marla Olmstead is 4 years old. Her father, factory manager Mark Olmstead, is an amateur painter of extremely modest talent. When Marla expressed interest in painting, Mark set her up with paints and a canvas on the dining room table. Although still in diapers, Marla produced complete abstract paintings that really aren't bad at all. On a lark, a friend of the family put some up in his coffee shop, and patrons expressed interest in buying them. A gallery show, local newspaper articles, NY Times articles all followed, and soon Marla's paintings were selling for five figures.

Enter documentarian Amir Bar-Lev, who sets out to make a documentary on the media sensation and the question of what is modern art. Then "60 Minutes" enters the picture. What seems to be just another of many media appearances the Olmstead family has been making turns into an expose that accuses Mark of being the real artist.

This is an interesting documentary that turns fascinating in the 2nd half, even if that fascination is a bit like watching a slow motion car wreck. Marla's paintings are ... decent. They are esthetically pleasing abstract works that are pretty clearly not worth anything like the money being paid for them. Their value gets caught up in a frenzy involving their origins and a lot of values and ideas that people are imposing on the work of a four year old.

But are they really the work of a four year old? The Olmsteads are never able to demonstrate that they are, and it's clear that Bar-Lev no longer believes them at all. Early supporter and gallery owner Anthony Brunelli admits on camera that his real interest is debunking the whole idea of the abstract art that he resents for selling better than his own meticulously photo realistic work (which is technically admirable, but aesthetically worthless).

My own impression is that the completed painting we see are not the work of the child we see painting.

Marla in the zone

[Rogue-32 · 8/10 · 29 September 2008]

"My Kid Could Paint That" is a unique, thoroughly fascinating, inspiring and thought-provoking documentary which introduces the viewer to the 4-year-old Marla Olmdstead (she's now 8, born in 2000), who became quite famous for her abstract paintings, which she began creating when she was 2 years old.

At its heart, this is the story of a little girl who is deeply in touch with her innate and pure creativity. She is able to focus for long periods of time, working on very large canvasses, to come up with paintings that have been considered good enough to warrant gallery showings and to go for large sums of money - twice the amount the 'average' modernistic painting generally goes for, we are told. Marla doesn't do these paintings for money, or even for recognition, we are clearly shown in the course of the film. She does them because she can.

The documentary is also the story of our society ~ the jaded, exploitative, cynical and suspicious world in which we live. At one point in the proceedings, Marla and her parents do a 60 Minutes piece, in which it is suggested very strongly that Marla is not really the artist everyone seems to think she is - that it's her father who helps her with the work, perhaps even doing some of it FOR her. This creates a ridiculous controversy, causing her parents to go on the defensive to some degree, to answer these flat-out insane charges, which they address in a very clever way, via a DVD showing Marla creating one of her paintings from start to finish.

It also makes them answer questions regarding whether or not they themselves have been exploiting their inspired little daughter. And of course this question can be asked of the person shooting the documentary in the first place - is he exploiting Marla for his own gain? Or is he simply fascinated with the story and wishing to document it truthfully and honestly?

And, of course, there's the other even more controversial question: what is art? Can any child throw paint on a canvas and wind up with a gallery showing and tons of cash? Or is this little Pisces child "special" - a gifted genius who produces the real deal? Is she a fledgling Pollock? Or merely a little kid who's having fun?

On seeing some of her work at the beginning of the film, I wasn't that impressed. But after seeing more than one piece, there is no question that there's a cohesiveness, a genuine style there. The one I like best at this point wasn't shown in the film - it's called Fairy Map; you can see it here: http://www.a-stuart-gallery.com/details.cfm?item=10468. I love this painting. I've printed it out in fact, and I'm looking at it right now. It's gorgeous and it's definitely art, in my book. You can check out more of her work for yourself by seeing the film, and also at her glorious little website, marlaolmstead.com.

I know, I know, I'm not this kid's press agent, this is supposed to be an objective review, so back to the film itself: I don't believe Marla's parents consciously set out to exploit her. Certainly not her mother, who is shown throughout the film as being extremely wary of the whole affair ~ the art gallery people, the TV crews, the entire spin machine, all of it. Her father, a painter himself, is far more manipulative and I think there's no doubt he's been getting a vicarious thrill out of her success. I really don't think it crosses over into exploitation though, because he's not making her do anything she doesn't want to do naturally; she paints when she wants, and she paints what she wants (even though he was shown at one point sternly telling her to add more red). I would imagine the poor guy has to be frustrated at some level, to see his 4-year-old daughter getting all this attention when he himself has never gotten any for his art; I would imagine there is some degree of ambiguity there, under the surface, subconsciously even. This doesn't make him an exploitative monster, it makes him human.

In the end, the bottom line is: this little girl is able to go to that pure place of blissful creativity, that magical zone where nothing exists but the reality of the work. This is a good thing, a glorious thing, and it should most certainly be encouraged.