Friday, July 11, 2008

My Kid Could Paint That (2008)


5 stars out of 5

This very unusual documentary follows Marla Olmstead, a 4-year old artist, who has hit it big as an abstract artist. Of course with any artist, there is an expose, and Marla is no exception. But you usually don't get scandals at age 4. Very good documentary and recommended for all mature audiences.

SPOILER ALERT: The following discussion involves major plot points. You may want to watch the actual movie before you read the rest of it.

60 Minutes, ever the "hard-hitting" journalists, cast doubt that Marla is the sole artist and that her parents (mostly her dad) are helping her. This is the focus of the last half of the documentary, as the film maker himself is not convinced Marla is doing this by herself. I have the following observations:

1. Of course the dad is helping her. She's 4 for goodness sake. Have you ever dealt with 4 year olds? They need help doing most things. They are barely able to get dressed by themselves. Obviously, Marla cannot go to the store and pick out her paints. She also needs help getting set up. I don't think anyone disputes that level of help. But people get exercised when they think the dad is telling her what to do, or polishing some of the works. Is this really such a difference?

2. The dad always struck me as very opportunist. The mother was always much more nervous about having her pre-K daughter become a semi-famous person. I suspect the Dad did help, with suggestions and possibly even touching up some of the works. Did he fabricate some completely by himself? Possibly. I really doubt he is sitting there thinking: Wow, my 4-year old can do these paintings and I can't! I personally doubt he did any of them completely by himself, but I do think he gave help, even though I don't really care.

3. I can kind of feel the pain for art enthusiasts that thought they were getting a Marla Olmstead but really got a Marla+Dad painting. Obviously, they bought the art plus the story behind the art. When the story turned out to be different than they thought, they were disappointed. I personally think they should have figured that the dad helped a little bit. I mean, is Marla telling her Dad what to buy, what size canvases she needs, etc.? I also think they paid way too much for the story, but each has his or her own preferences.

4. I personally don't care for abstract art. I would have paid nominal amounts for some of Marla's paintings (some are pretty), but certainly not in the thousands of dollars range that they were fetching. I think it is a commentary on Western society that we spend so many resources on art while millions starve and people still die of leprosy.

5. The Olmsteads tried to rehab (more or less successfully it appears) their daughter by producing full length DVDs that show Marla in the process of painting some of her works. Sheralie thought that the ones where the video taped the paintings looked different than the other works. Other people in the movie shared that view. They all looked pretty abstract to me and to be done by the same artist. They produced several other full-length DVDs - but several of the paintings that are the subject of the DVDs have not sold. I think that it is kind of like food. I am happy to eat a meal, but I don't necessarily want to see it prepared - especially the part where they kill the meat product. Seeing the process takes some of the mystique away from the art itself, especially when the artist if 4 years old.

6. Why didn't the mother put an end to the whole thing after 60 minutes? You could tell she was nervous about this, and 60 minutes kind of confirmed her doubts. Why did she keep Marla on the art scene? Pressure from husband? She likes the money? She thought retreat would have looked like an admission of guilt? We don't really delve into her character enough to know the answer to this question.

Overall, I thought this movie raised many interesting questions about art, especially abstract art. Also good questions about exploiting children, dads that push and documentary films.

Thanks Judd for the suggestion.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

I also highly recommend that anyone who watches this flick and enjoys it check out the 30+-minute follow up feature on the DVD. It's at least as good as the movie itself and shines a little bit of light on some of the questions Pete raises.