My Kid Could Paint That

email this story
read comments (13)
post a comment

I've been trying to refine my reactions to Amir Bar-Lev's My Kid Could Paint That, an '07 Sony Classics release that came out on DVD earlier this month. And they won't. It's a documentary that nearly kills you with its refusal to say "this is this." Life itself may have indeed refused to provide a clear answer to the film's Big Question, which has to do with a possible art fraud, but that doesn't make the film any less irksome.

Marla Olmstead

I only know that when Bar-Lev's film was over, I put it out of my mind. Later! All movies are show-and-tell games, but this one, however open and probing and appropriately non-judgmental, shows and blows smoke.

The B.Q. concerns Marla Olmstead, an eight year-old from Binghampton who became moderately famous in '04 for having painted (when she was four) abstract oil paintings that were striking enough to sell modestly, and then get atttention from more and more journalists, and then sell in the big-time market for five figures.

Average Joe types have been snickering at high-priced canvases for decades, dismissing the whole modern-art culture as a kind of con game, etc. Which My Kid Could Paint That toys with throughout its running time. But the film mainly follows the lead of a big expose piece that Charlie Rose and 60 Minutes aired in February '05 about whether Marla''s canvases were entirely self-created or whether she was helped a bit by her dad, Mark, a Frito-Lay factory manager who paints on the side.

Mark and his wife Laura, a dental technician, don't seem like con artists, but they do seem to enjoy the attention and wealth that comes through Marla's celebrity. And we're all whores in the sense that we all like to glide along when things are grooving along. I don't think Mark deliberately duped the art world by standing nearby and specifically telling his daughter what to do with the paint and brushes, but who knows? Maybe he suggested a couple of ideas here and there. Or more than a couple. Or none at all.

And perhaps "maybe" is all one can say about this situation. Maybe a definitive bust or exoneration is out of the question. But I don't want fucking maybes when I go to see a movie. The only way I'll accept them is when the filmmaker somehow conveys what he/she really thinks, and persuades me to come to the same gut conclusions. If there's no clarity or closure or at least some kind of ending that has a discernible undercurrent, then whadaya whadaya?

I didn't hate My Kid Could Paint That. It's not boring, it's intelligent and well made, it had me start to finish. But there's a part of me that is mildly pissed at Bar-Lev for making a film good enough to get a 95% positive from the Rotten Tomatoes elite, and persuade Sony Classics' Tom Bernard and Michael Barker, a couple of shrewd hombres, to pick it up and release it, and at the same time make me feel the way I did after it was over, which was more or less "what the fuck?"

The only clear conviction you come away with is a good feeling about Marla herself. She's a character, mature beyond her years, robst of spirit. She may continue to paint or not. But I wonder what she'll say about all this hoo-hah 10 or 15 years hence. Whatever and whenever she spills, it'll probably be more intriguing than Amir Bar-Lev's film.

If you want a satisfying dissection of the art world, something that provides a genuine sensation of curtains parting, some kind of semblance of the "aha!" phenomenon, read Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word."

Under Fire<< previous | next >> Nocturnal Fancy

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM

comment #1

Terry McCarty says ...

My wife and I watched the film on DVD last night. The 35-minute coda/update included in the extras does add some substance to the dad-helped-me issue--though Bar-Lev can't help but throw in some self-serving shots of him pensively watching the film's Sundance screening.

Posted by Terry McCarty at March 23, 2008 12:49 PM

comment #2

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

I had the same issues with Capturing the Friedmans.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson at March 23, 2008 1:18 PM

comment #3

Balthazar says ...

Yes, Capturing the Friedmans sprang into my head, too, LYT.

But as inconclusive and somewhat maddening as CtF is, it's still a hell of a film and I'm glad it was made and I saw it.

Posted by Balthazar at March 23, 2008 1:39 PM

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

hard not to view this as a fraud after all the fake non-fiction writers.

Posted by corey3rd at March 23, 2008 1:41 PM

comment #5

lazespud says ...

I, for one, like movies like this... they delve deeply into a subject and after all the filming is done, they're still not totally sure about the facts, so they make the film reflect this.

What I don't like is docs that, upon reflection, present a clear agenda where you suspect that there is some kind of another side floating around there on the cutting room floor.

The BEST example of this whole "not taking a side" documentary is Tony Kaye's Lake of Fire, about abortion. Seriously, this is a truly great, epic film about abortion, that just lays out both sides in as clear and explicit a way possible, and doesn't even really argue for a middle ground either. If Capturing the Friedman's and My Kid Could Draw That made your head hurt, this one would make your head explode.

Now all of this aside, I ended up getting frustrated with the original "Paradise Lost" about the West Memphis 3 who went to prison (and death row) for supposedly killing some children. The movie, at the time, seemed to be fairly balanced in showing that there were huge problems with the case, but also indicating that they might have done it...

Then their follow up film came out, and I realized how truly messed up the case was and what a clear and obvious injustice it was, and I was left wondering why the hell I didn't have a stronger impression from the first movie? Why didn't the directors make more of a polemic, because they clearly believed in the innocence of the three guys...

Posted by lazespud at March 23, 2008 2:18 PM

comment #6

Movie fan09 says ...

I may be alone on this idea ( and I usually am..) but it would be so cool, if you did your own video review series ala reel geezers.

Posted by Movie fan09 at March 23, 2008 2:47 PM

comment #7

filmfestivalgeek says ...

Generally, I've become wary of first person documentaries, (especially when they emerge from the likes of someone like Michael Moore) and stop becoming docs but rather promo clips for the director and his/her agenda.

But I'll give Bar-Lev his dues; he started off in a situation, found himself caught up in the groundswell of controversy surrounding this girl and her family and then seriously studied the effects of his involvement in the process, even if he isn't fully out of the eye of the storm and able to discern what is the "final word"...in his opinion. That was very intriguing...and honest.

"...But I don't want fucking maybes when I go to see a movie..."

But sometimes there is no so thing as the "final" word from the filmmaker and I'll take intriguing "maybes" over someone's revisionists "truths" any day.

Great comments by lazespud re: Tony Kaye's outstanding Lake Of Fire - couldn't agree more.

Posted by filmfestivalgeek at March 23, 2008 5:45 PM

comment #8

lipranzer says ...

While I wish Bar-Lev had delved a little deeper into the issues he raised, particularly his own complicity in all this and in the issue over whether modern art is in fact art - I definitely would have challenged that gallery owner more in that last interview, for one - I also like the fact that you can't make up your mind about Marla or her parents.

As far as CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS goes, I still think it's brilliant and unsettling, and I think there's no problem in thinking the Friedmans were somewhat creepy, and what happened to them was still an injustice. A lesser documentary would have whitewashed the family.

Posted by lipranzer at March 23, 2008 8:42 PM

comment #9

tsm says ...

This film was one of my favorites of last year. The 60 minutes piece (and the fallout as a result of it) really spun the story on its ear. I enjoyed seeing how the director rolled with it for the second half of the film, because it really changed the focus. Everest was the same way -- when the tragedy happened the film took a turn away from its original idea. These kinds of twists are what make good documentaries. Paradise Lost for example, really takes a turn when the Byers father starts to attract attention.

If everything in a doc is handed to you on a silver platter and says "this is EXACTLY what happened", then perhaps the filmmaker has a little too much control.

Posted by tsm at March 24, 2008 11:09 AM

comment #10

free games says ...

Great post!

Posted by free games at October 28, 2009 1:15 PM

comment #11

sony says ...

Jason Reitman is a hack-twat. Anyone who likes him or his middlebrow bougie-thons has shit taste in movies.
essay help | dissertation help | thesis help | assignment help

Posted by sony at April 11, 2010 4:12 AM

comment #12

joe lund says ...

I personally thought this was absolutely horrible. Half of the stuff in the movie said almost made me want to turn it off, but somehow i made it through the whole thing. somehow. Joe Lund

Posted by joe lund at May 16, 2011 8:20 AM

comment #13