Action/Adventure
Animation
Classic
Comedy
Documentary
Drama
DVD
Fantasy
Horror
Romance
Sci-fi
Short Films
Suspense
Television
Thriller
 
 
 
Not a Member Yet,
Click here to Register
 
 
Which of the following best describes your current relationship with the cinema?






 
Movie Site : Movie Reviews : Documentary : My Kid Could Paint That Page 1 of 1
 
Title: My Kid Could Paint That
Rating:
Full StarFull StarFull StarFull StarFull StarFull StarFull StarFull StarEmpty StarEmpty Star
Genre: Documentary
Release Date: , 2007
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 82 minutes
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Writer: not applicable
Distributor: Sony Pictures Classics (USA)
 
Other Information:
 
 
Rogue's Review:

Marla in the zone

"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' oil 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 (by Charlie Rose, of all people!) 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, Ocean, 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; it's the picture I'm using instead of the movie poster for this review. 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 her work for yourself by seeing the film, and also at her glorious little website, Marlaolmstead.com. Some of it is available at other online sites as well.

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.

 
User Reviews:
 
 
Average User Review:
Empty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty Star
 
Breakdown of User Reviews:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
 
Add rating and review for this movie:


Reviews and Related Content Copyright @ 2008, RoguesReviews.com - All Rights Reserved
Movie Titles and Poster Images are copyrighted by their respective owners and strictly used here for editorial purposes.

Powered by Built2Go PHP Movie Review v1.5.1 © Big Resources, Inc.