Skip over navigation

Help

My Kid Could Paint That on DVD (2007)

My Kid Could Paint That cover art
Play My Kid Could Paint That trailer
Average rating: (58%)
4538820161423
3.0
 
Starring: Amir Bar-Lev | Anthony Brunelli | Elizabeth Cohen | Michael Kimmelman | Laura Olmstead
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Studio: SONY PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT
Run time: 80 mins
Certificate: 12
Collections: New releases
Genres: Documentary
Languages: English
Released: 19/05/2008

Brief synopsis of My Kid Could Paint That

In this fascinating documentary, filmmaker Amir Bar-Lev chronicles the rise and fall of child artist Marla Olmstead, the daughter of a dental hygienist and factory worker from upstate New York. Marla was all of four years old when she sold her first abstract painting. When the New York Times published a piece about her prodigious talent, she became an overnight media sensation, and her paintings quickly began to sell for up to five figures. While many lauded her amazing ability--and even likened her to Picasso--her success also sparked heated debates about the true value of abstract art.
Bar-Lev begins to explore this idea, as well as our culture's fascination with child prodigies, when the film suddenly takes a sharp and unexpected turn. The impetus is a piece on 60 MINUTES in which Charlie Rose suggests that Marla may not in fact be the sole creator of her work, and that her father--himself an amateur painter--is really the mastermind. The Olmsteads are stunned by the implication, and Marla quickly falls from grace with the art world. What follows is an unsettling but nonetheless riveting examination of Marla's family. Bar-Lev suddenly finds himself in a bit of an ethical conundrum: while he would like to get at the truth for the sake of the film, he is hesitant to cause further trouble for the Olmsteads, who have granted him intimate access to their lives. He ultimately leaves it up to viewers to decide what really happened--though for many, there will likely be little doubt as to the authenticity of Marla's work. As a documentary, the film works beautifully, raising a lot of big questions about truth in art, and even about the exploitive nature of documentary film. All this because of a four-year-old girl and her paint set.

Related

Critics Reviews

Variety

A fascinating subject handled with intelligently provocative care

New York Times

An intimate, sometimes unsettling family drama

See all 2 Critics Reviews »

Members Reviews

Reviews Voted Most Helpful

* * * This review contains spoilers * * *

Rated - 3 starsOpen Ended - Just British Politeness

Waino from Swindon [Highly rated reviewer] , 03/06/2008

Cutting to the chase after you watch this you're left in no doubt that she didn't paint the 'more famous original paintings'. Bar-Lev leaves this documentary open ended; you get the feeling he did this as he feels to come to a conclusion would be unfair to the Olmsteads; in the sense they gave him unfettered access: although the conclusion is pretty obvious.

Whether the Olmsteads intended to acquire this much publicity is debatable what is not is they have certainly milked the situation for all its worth. Not a great documentary but interesting none the less and really is an indictment of the art world and what art really means.

  4 out of 4 people found this review helpful
Report offending content.

Read all reviews

Rated - 2 starsmodern art bamboozles buyers shock

itstinks , 23/06/2008

Its an ok docurmentary about a 6 year old who came to the attention of her local newspaper and then to worldwide attention when her abstract painitings were seen as works of a prodigy. Gullible art collectors rushed in to buy her work more likely as an investment rather than a strong love of art itself. Then the rumours start about how there was a certain amount of assisstance on her painitngs and certainly those shown being painted by her without help have a lot more of the childish daubings (although a highlight is a couple being persuaded to buy one of these paintings despite the wifes reluctance). The fact that the film-maker was given a certain amount of access which allows the family to shoot themselves in the foot means that he does not come out and give his own verdict but the truth is fairly clear. It does go to prove that a 6 year old cannot paint abstract art, probably need to be 12 at least.

  3 out of 3 people found this review helpful
Report offending content.

Read all reviews