|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Special Features
- Back to Binghamton– a mini-doc with Director Amir Bar-Lev that includes follow-up interviews, Sundance Q & A, Binghamton Q & A, deleted scenes, etc.
- Kimmelman on Art – a mini-doc with the New York Times art critic
- Audio Commentary
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Suitable for framing, Amir Bar-Lev's "family human interest story" indelibly captures the media maelstrom that engulfed the Olmsteads of Binghamton, N.Y. when their daughter, Marla, age 4, became the darling of the art world with her abstract paintings. As a gallery owner tells Bar-Lev, the situation is "perfect": The family is charismatic, and Marla is, indeed, "a doll" and her paintings, "unbelievable." More on that later. Bar-Lev chronicles how a community newspaper article about Marla was picked up by the New York Times, leading to more newspaper articles, sold out gallery showings, and media throngs. Marla's paintings sold upward of $25,000 (the owner of the Houston Rockets bought one), and talk-show hosts (Conan, Dave, Oprah) wanted Marla on their shows. "You're in for a wild ride, I hope you're prepared for this," the gallery owner says he told Mark Olmstead, Marla's father, a Frito Lay factory worker who also dabbles as an artist. But no one is prepared when Charlie Rose, during a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast, raises questions on whether Marla is the sole artist. Was she coached? Were the paintings doctored, or even painted by someone else? Could she even be called a prodigy? Bar-Lev's canvas expands to consider the nature of art and media culture. It also becomes something of a self-portrait as he struggles with his own growing suspicions about Marla's paintings after he has befriended the family and earned their trust. My Kid Could Paint That is not a masterpiece, but it will resonate especially for everyone who says they don't know art, but they know what they like. It would be an excellent companion to Who the #%&% is Jackson Pollock? --Donald Liebenson
Stills from My Kid Could Paint That (click for larger image)
 | 
|
|  |
More Sony Pictures Classics Documentaries
 Who Killed the Electric Car? |  Winged Migration |  Why We Fight |
Product Description
In this thought-provoking documentary, Director Amir-Bar-Lev tracks the overnight celebrity of little Marla Olmstead, a toddler who creates gallery-worthy paintings on the dining room table of her family home. A media sensation by the age of four, critics compare her work with Jackson Pollock’s. Sales of her paintings reach $300,000. But, sadly, the bubble bursts. When a 2005 profile by "60 Minutes" suggests that Marla had help making her paintings, the finger is pointed at her father, an amateur artist and night manager at Frito Lay. Almost overnight, her family is ensnared in a web of accusation and denial – with the burden of proof placed squarely in their lap: Is Marla a child prodigy or an innocent victim of a hoax?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
This documentary exposes, in a very objective manner, the manipulations of the "art world," the media and a very young child by parents.
Parents are ultimately charged with assuring the well-being of their offspring. This is a not-for-profit endeavor. I was as disturbed by the actions of these parents as I am by the pushy stage mothers who dress their daughters up as mini-adults and parade them on stage to win pageants. I perceive that the father in this story would be just as easily at home on a Little League field bullying an umpire as well as engineering this greed and publicity driven scheme.
My heart was also aching for the little brother. The scene depicting him pulling on his father's chair, seeming to beg for attention by announcing that he also painted while "in his mother's belly" spoke volumes.
I viewed the father as a strutting peacock who glories in the exploitation of this situation, and squirmed with discomfort as I watched the mother seem to gain sudden "awareness" while watching the televised expose. When that dawn came, it did nothing to bring the exploitation to an end. The documentary later shows her tearfully regretting what has transpired, but this masterpiece of manipulation and exploitation continues. Therefore, I hold her just as culpable as the father, who is the ring-master of this sad circus.
What is tremendously clear in this documentary is that this situation had become quite disturbing, that this negativity was abundantly clear to the parents, and that they fostered the continuation of the exploitation.
This is a brilliant and objective but very disturbing film.
Parents are ultimately charged with assuring the well-being of their offspring. This is a not-for-profit endeavor. I was as disturbed by the actions of these parents as I am by the pushy stage mothers who dress their daughters up as mini-adults and parade them on stage to win pageants. I perceive that the father in this story would be just as easily at home on a Little League field bullying an umpire as well as engineering this greed and publicity driven scheme.
My heart was also aching for the little brother. The scene depicting him pulling on his father's chair, seeming to beg for attention by announcing that he also painted while "in his mother's belly" spoke volumes.
I viewed the father as a strutting peacock who glories in the exploitation of this situation, and squirmed with discomfort as I watched the mother seem to gain sudden "awareness" while watching the televised expose. When that dawn came, it did nothing to bring the exploitation to an end. The documentary later shows her tearfully regretting what has transpired, but this masterpiece of manipulation and exploitation continues. Therefore, I hold her just as culpable as the father, who is the ring-master of this sad circus.
What is tremendously clear in this documentary is that this situation had become quite disturbing, that this negativity was abundantly clear to the parents, and that they fostered the continuation of the exploitation.
This is a brilliant and objective but very disturbing film.
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
This is a fascinating documentary for anyone interested in art and the deeper questions about art and the art world. I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of the film and the philosophical questions it raises.
When the parents of 4-year old Marla Olmstead begin to sell her abstract paintings, the questions and the investigations begin (interestingly it is not really the painting of the art that seems to be the issue, but the selling of it). Is Marla a prodigy? Is the only difference between her artwork and that of other 4-year olds the fact that she is getting thousands of dollars for hers? What does it mean to say a 4-year old "created" a painting? Was she "coached," or "encouraged" by her father? Does that really matter? The human interest aspect of this film is enjoyable, but the deeper questions it raises about the nature of art, and the reaction of the media and individuals to art, are even more fascinating. The reflections offered by Michael Kimmelman, the New York Times chief art critic, are especially thought-provoking.
The extras included with the film are not to be missed, for they go even deeper into the philosophical questions, and add much to the basic story presented in the film itself.
Highly recommended!
When the parents of 4-year old Marla Olmstead begin to sell her abstract paintings, the questions and the investigations begin (interestingly it is not really the painting of the art that seems to be the issue, but the selling of it). Is Marla a prodigy? Is the only difference between her artwork and that of other 4-year olds the fact that she is getting thousands of dollars for hers? What does it mean to say a 4-year old "created" a painting? Was she "coached," or "encouraged" by her father? Does that really matter? The human interest aspect of this film is enjoyable, but the deeper questions it raises about the nature of art, and the reaction of the media and individuals to art, are even more fascinating. The reflections offered by Michael Kimmelman, the New York Times chief art critic, are especially thought-provoking.
The extras included with the film are not to be missed, for they go even deeper into the philosophical questions, and add much to the basic story presented in the film itself.
Highly recommended!
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
Really liked the movie. In it, the art critic and (I think) the filmmaker said that all art is a lie. Well, I disagree with that - good art is a window to the truth. A good film will be able to penetrate behind the layers of deception. This one did.
Just before the part where the parents were watching the 60 Minutes report on Marla, the first time doubts about her ability were brought up, I said to myself that I had not seen anything that the child did showed me that she could do those paintings. When showing her painting, her level of concentration was extraordinarily short (though typical of a 4 year old,) she stabbed and poked at the canvas. She wanted to play.
So the Olmsteads ended up doing their own video of her doing a painting called Ocean because she would never paint with the mastery of the high priced paintings whenever an outsider was filming. (That happened five times.) In the special features follow-up, one guy said Ocean didn't look like the others. Being into art, that was an understatement. She ends up painting in Ocean what looks like a Mickey Mouse representation. Look at the circle representing "Mickey's" head. Then look at all the other almost perfect circles that fill up some of her other earlier paintings. Look at all the solid, steady wide brushstrokes that encompass the other very large paintings like Triptych. Look at the long, steady drips on the paintings (one painting, on the follow-up feature has a "V" where each arm is three feet long) compared with the jagged ones on Ocean.
There's another painting where a collector says that one part of it looks like a pathway to a door. Look at how smooth, steady and solid the wide brushstrokes are that are completely absent in Ocean or in any video of her painting. On the cover of the DVD right here, look at those very long straight, even, smooth "drip" lines and again compare that to Ocean.
Near the end of the video there's a scene where she's painting on the floor, within a couple of minutes she TELLS her father 5 times to paint or to help her. This little 5 year old doesn't ask him to paint with her, she says paint or I won't do anymore.
Watch her paint (she is quite talented actually) and ask yourself, does she have the physical and mental ability to paint those very large paintings shown at the beginning of the film?
Mark Olmstead insists throughout the film that she painted everything without any help. NO WAY.
Just before the part where the parents were watching the 60 Minutes report on Marla, the first time doubts about her ability were brought up, I said to myself that I had not seen anything that the child did showed me that she could do those paintings. When showing her painting, her level of concentration was extraordinarily short (though typical of a 4 year old,) she stabbed and poked at the canvas. She wanted to play.
So the Olmsteads ended up doing their own video of her doing a painting called Ocean because she would never paint with the mastery of the high priced paintings whenever an outsider was filming. (That happened five times.) In the special features follow-up, one guy said Ocean didn't look like the others. Being into art, that was an understatement. She ends up painting in Ocean what looks like a Mickey Mouse representation. Look at the circle representing "Mickey's" head. Then look at all the other almost perfect circles that fill up some of her other earlier paintings. Look at all the solid, steady wide brushstrokes that encompass the other very large paintings like Triptych. Look at the long, steady drips on the paintings (one painting, on the follow-up feature has a "V" where each arm is three feet long) compared with the jagged ones on Ocean.
There's another painting where a collector says that one part of it looks like a pathway to a door. Look at how smooth, steady and solid the wide brushstrokes are that are completely absent in Ocean or in any video of her painting. On the cover of the DVD right here, look at those very long straight, even, smooth "drip" lines and again compare that to Ocean.
Near the end of the video there's a scene where she's painting on the floor, within a couple of minutes she TELLS her father 5 times to paint or to help her. This little 5 year old doesn't ask him to paint with her, she says paint or I won't do anymore.
Watch her paint (she is quite talented actually) and ask yourself, does she have the physical and mental ability to paint those very large paintings shown at the beginning of the film?
Mark Olmstead insists throughout the film that she painted everything without any help. NO WAY.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Can a 4-year old really Paint that? It's Doubtful
Director Amir Bar-Lev presents a fascinating and balanced view of the world of Abstract Expressionistic art and if a 4-year old girl can paint it what exactly does it say about... Read more
Published 7 months ago by Mr. J. Murdock
Excellent documentary about the nature of art
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... Read more
sell for tens of thousands of dollars,
The film starts as a portrait of a prodigy, but... Read more
Published 7 months ago by K. Gordon
Right questions aksed!
Sad Story. The parents, nor the gallery owner, nor journalists were familiar with the phases of children creative developement, and a perfectly normal kid was created "a prodigy. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Elise (plt)
My marmoset could paint that better
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT (2007) is the story of then-four-year-old Marla Olmstead of New York, and her painting abilities. She has been compared to Picasso ... Read more
Published 13 months ago by E. Hernandez
The 60 Minute psychologist
Director Amir Bar-Lev failed to address an issue in the 60 Minute program that might have made this documentary even thought-provoking. Read more
Published 14 months ago by Lynn Crook
So many questions...so few answers...
I have been looking forward to watching this for a long time. Not because I have an interest in abstract art, because I don't. Read more
Published 20 months ago by Diane Moore
Good all around
I purchased this for a paper I was writing in my Modern Art class. Very helpful.
Published on April 21, 2010 by Kristen E. Rich
Not a Pretty Picture
*SPOILERS*
This is an excellent movie that is made even better if you figure out what is actually going on here. Read more
This is an excellent movie that is made even better if you figure out what is actually going on here. Read more
Published on December 19, 2009 by ScottJ
Its a question of scam
It's a sad comment on the state of Art today, that some are such willing dupes and that the perceived value of these painting is based on the belief that a four year old girl... Read more
Published on November 30, 2009 by Bob from the Midwest
mind of a child
I won't go into the movie as it has already been covered by the other commentaries. As a former artist many of my best abstract works came from my subconscious much like the... Read more
Published on September 16, 2009 by Michael A. Scheurich
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
