Documentary Paints a Decent Picture of Child Artist
Evan Diamond
Issue date: 10/3/07 Section: Arts & Entertainment
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Marla Olmstead is a well-known child prodigy who began painting at the mere age of two. By four, she had received international recognition of her abstract paintings - acrylic on canvas reminiscent of the late Jackson Pollock.
In only a few months, she sold more than $300,000 worth of art, and was openly recognized as a "budding Picasso."
Some also may recall the media backlash Marla received soon after her public explosion, as critics and admirers alike began accusing her father, Mark Olmstead, of influencing his talented daughter perhaps too much. Others accused him of creating the art himself.
This is where the new documentary, My Kid Could Paint That, directed by Amir Bar-Lev, attempts to look at the facts and fill in the blanks.
The film gained critical acclaim, receiving "two thumbs-up" by Ebert and Roper and was hailed as "brilliant" by The New Yorker. Rolling Stone called it "one of the best documentaries of this year or any other."
The documentary follows the perplexing moments of Marla's time spent in the limelight, starting when she was initially discovered after a family friend posted her art in his coffee shop.
The infant's art immediately attracted attention, as her first piece sold for $250. The film follows her journey closely as she continues to paints more and more.
The documentary starts off promising but fails to answer any of the obvious questions asked, such as: did the toddler actually create the abstract art sold for thousands of dollars, or was it a hoax? The subject wasn't brought up.
The documentary barely touches on the initial accusations brought forward by CBS's 60 Minutes and fails to even present the known facts that her father, Mark, was in fact an amateur painter. If in fact Marla is the "genius" she was supposed to be, why didn't the film examine her intellectual capabilities, IQ or other creative talents? yet another blank in the film that wasn't filled.
The audience walks out of the film with the same basic queries they had when they entered, feeling let down and cheated.
In only a few months, she sold more than $300,000 worth of art, and was openly recognized as a "budding Picasso."
Some also may recall the media backlash Marla received soon after her public explosion, as critics and admirers alike began accusing her father, Mark Olmstead, of influencing his talented daughter perhaps too much. Others accused him of creating the art himself.
This is where the new documentary, My Kid Could Paint That, directed by Amir Bar-Lev, attempts to look at the facts and fill in the blanks.
The film gained critical acclaim, receiving "two thumbs-up" by Ebert and Roper and was hailed as "brilliant" by The New Yorker. Rolling Stone called it "one of the best documentaries of this year or any other."
The documentary follows the perplexing moments of Marla's time spent in the limelight, starting when she was initially discovered after a family friend posted her art in his coffee shop.
The infant's art immediately attracted attention, as her first piece sold for $250. The film follows her journey closely as she continues to paints more and more.
The documentary starts off promising but fails to answer any of the obvious questions asked, such as: did the toddler actually create the abstract art sold for thousands of dollars, or was it a hoax? The subject wasn't brought up.
The documentary barely touches on the initial accusations brought forward by CBS's 60 Minutes and fails to even present the known facts that her father, Mark, was in fact an amateur painter. If in fact Marla is the "genius" she was supposed to be, why didn't the film examine her intellectual capabilities, IQ or other creative talents? yet another blank in the film that wasn't filled.
The audience walks out of the film with the same basic queries they had when they entered, feeling let down and cheated.
Be the first to comment on this story