"This whole story, really, is about grownups. It's really not about this kid. She's just a little girl painting in her house."
I agree with the reporter who wrote the above quote. This is sooooo not about the kid. I'll be taking a second look at the film tonight and will post more of my reactions in the next few days. Please begin the dialogue and share with us your own responses about this interesting documentary. Also, I encourage people to continue reading and commenting on 'This is England'. (directly under this posting) It is one of the most dynamic conversations we have had and in my opinion we could go on for weeks and not run out of things to say about it.
THIS JUST IN!!! LATE BREAKING NEWS!!!! I am in the midst of rewatching the movie WITH the audio commentary. After seeing the film through once I strongly recommend that you watch it again this way. There is information that we are not privy to in the film itself that may well influence your reactions. In fact all the extras are invaluable.
September 27, 2008
Discussion of 'My Kid Could Paint That' has begun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Discussions
-
“I can’t breathe. Air is getting old… I can’t breathe. Keep it in control...” These are the opening lyrics to the film Kontroll. (For those ... -
Note: This is a Guest posting by our much respected contributor ' OLDMAN '! No intention of writing a full on review of The Propos... -
"A picture of reality reinforced by gimmick." Dearest Dziga, Your creative endeavor has satisfied me to the brink. My cup runneth ... -
First let me state that I am a Vera Farmiga fan. I've noticed her in many obscure films such as 'Quid Pro Quo', 'Joshua'... -
Such a simple film. So quiet, crisp and clear. Like the Norwegian winter snow that surrounds the story. I always appreciate when a movie, a ...
23 comments:
I was eager to finally see this, as I'm from Binghamton and know some of the people involved. While they probably find their portrayal a bit unfair I think the Olmsteads were very lucky to have a filmmaker who exercised as much balance as he did. It could have easily been much more sensationalistic and as exploitative as some people perceive the family as being of their daughter. Aside from the central "mystery" what struck me the most (and as funniest) is the battle between supporters of abstract art who loudly defend its legitimacy and the "non-artist" types who casually and rightfully raise questions about its value. For everyone shown on the defense, stories seem to change back and forth for several "characters" depending on what corner they're backed into. Works well as drama, I hope Marla grows up shrugging it all off. (From what I know of her parents I'm confident she will.)
Mike, I'm glad you wrote. I've been thinking about how to comment on a public blog about a documentary about the lives of real people, including children, who can and may eventually read what we write here, either now or many years from now. The fact that you know some of the people brings this home even more.
Marla, if you ever read this, I love your paintings.
I have more to post, but it's turning out to be somewhat challenging. Just wanted to at least get this much out for now. Hello to everyone--hope you're all having a nice weekend, and thank you Lee for quite a thought-provoking film recommendation.
I agree Lee that this film is certainly not about Marla. It is about the 'Art World', the fickle public, parental roles, the media, etc.
Cherry, I appreciate your concerns as to how our comments could affect these 'real people', especially Marla when she is old enough to read them. However, I can't imagine that anything we would be writing here could be as harsh or painful as all the emails and phone messages that were shown on the film itself which she will most certainly see. My guess is that honest and thoughful debate by people here could actually prove positive in counteracting the pure vitriole shown by much of the media and the public at the time.
Mike's comment that the Olmsteads were lucky to get a balanced filmaker is right on. Can you imagine what someone else might have done with such free reign and access to the family's personal world!
I hope to read lots of other comments here as the people on this blog tend to be quite insightful and thoughtful.
Thanks Mike, Cherry and Craft for kicking off this conversation. After watching the film again for the third time with commentary and all the extras my mind has been reeling with reactions. I'm finding it hard to consolidate them and write and your words have all been helpful to me. I too hope that the comments will continue as I still have much to ponder and would appreciate all your input.
More thoughts... Mark Olmstead gets painted (har har) as kind of a squirrely figure in the documentary. And obviously documentaries are often edited to present the best drama they can, presenting select things out of context or chronology (see The King of Kong for an extreme example). From what we're offered I think Mark's biggest mistake is to insist from the start that Marla had no influence from him or others. The more he's prodded about it the more black and white the issue becomes. Obviously no artists — honest ones anyway — are free of influence from their lives or other works which they filter into new interpretations. I wonder what path things could have taken if Mark acknowledged his and his family's input early on in a casual way. Maybe shrugging it off instead of going on the defense would have made those questioning him feel dumb for even asking and direct more focus to Marla's talents. It still wouldn't explain the supposed differences in her paintings or satiate the media's desire to gnaw away, but might have avoided a battle he couldn't win.
I'm amazed by the "wish thinking" that the art collectors put upon Marla. One collector goes on about how in one painting there is a door with figures on either side, and this represents such and such. I'm sure if Marla were asked why she made that portion of the painting look that way (before she got savvy to these kinds of questions) her response would be more like "I thought it was pretty." I'm pleased the collector saw that door and all that it symbolized for him. Maybe that's what good art does for us all. It seems to me that Marla and her art are like Chauncy Gardner, tabula rasas for us to project upon.
i agree. this is a very difficult film to comment on . as usual evryone says it with more eloquence than I. Would very much hope for a followup in 10 or 15 years, how has her "art" evolved and how has she evolved.
Welcome back all of you and to our jewish friends.LaShana Tova
L'shana tova tikka tevu, bitsie and everyone else! May we all have a sweet new year!
This sure is a head spinner. The paintings themselves are colorful and just FAH. Talent? Art? For everyone of us those words have a different meaning. One thing I tried to look for was how much was Marla enjoying what she was doing. If the paints were not put in front of her would she, did she, ask for them? Obciously this appeared to be a pleasant activity for her. But was she CRAVING it? I never got a sense of just how much she wanted or needed to express herself through this medium. Can anyone help me out here? Maybe I missed somthing that other's caught.
L'shana tova....
I felt much the same as Mike when he stated the following:
"...... For everyone shown on the defense, stories seem to change back and forth for several "characters" depending on what corner they're backed into."
I especially noticed a lot of nifty maneuvering in the gallery owner's perspective when he was "backed into a corner" as public opinion shifted this way and that(as Craft put it, "the fickle public.")
Bitsie mentions how interesting it would be to view it all 10 years from now. It certainly would be and I hope there is some followup down the line.
I liked what David says about people projecting their own stuff onto Marla's work and in a way it being like the film 'Being There'. There is no question that guy talking about the door and the little person in the picture was seeing way more in the picture than what Marla put down on that canvas. Once again a big topic of debate regards the absract art world. Is the whole genre something akin to this?
Mike, I believe that if the dad had owned up to the normal influences that were bound to have occured things would have taken a completely different path.
Lee, as to your question about Marla's 'passion' for the work...She did certainly seem to enjoy it .but was she driven in the sense you describe? It did not seem to me that she was and my guess is that if there were no artistic tools available she would soon put her attention to something else. But I could be totally wrong about that.
I respect Cherry's concerns about how what we say could effect these individuals,and do appreciate and value the fact that she brought it up here ,especially of course as it relates to the children. And it is clear that she is speaking in terms of her own reticence (sp?), not what the rest of us should or should not do. However I feel the cat's already out of the bag on this one. But hopefully as Mike puts it, Marla will grow up shrugging it all off.
There is no question in my mind that the father and mother didn't do anything really wrong here except for refusing to admit that they gave Marla the typical type of help and assistance and feedback that the average kid would get in any art class. Somehow they got themselves 'backed into a corner' on that issue and couldn't seem to extricate themselves which is a shame. Looks like Sammy58 and MIke feel the same. I actually enjoyed the paintings and can see why they grabbed so much attention. It was a well done and even handed documentary.
Interesting to see the lack of commentary on this film as film. I suspect this is simply a reflection of how seemingly transparent, how well made a documentary "My Kid Could Paint That" actually is. In fact, the only scene in which we are directly confronted with the process of film-making, reminded momentarily that this is a movie we are watching, is the clip of the director's "interior" monologue as he is driving home. And this is also the only scene in the entire movie I felt was truly unnecessary, though it is certainly obvious why it was included. I can't offer a film school critique, but to me My Kid Could Paint That represents everything a documentary should be. As several earlier posters have noted, it is certainly a "fair and balanced" investigation -- and I mean that, of course, without the cynicism of Fox News's appropriation of that phrase -- not to mention a film that leaves its conclusions open-ended. I particularly loved the juxtaposition of the early purchasers of "Marla's" paintings when prices were in the tens or hundreds of dollars who bought them simply because they liked them and those later buyers paying in the tens of thousands, the collectors who have come to dominate the art world with their check books, effectively pricing even the major museums -- who allow everyone to appreciate these works -- out of contention at most auctions, and who see these paintings not as "art" or even something they like, but purely and simply a commodity of no more intrinsic value than corn or soybeans. Beyond this, however, while allowing the story to essentially tell itself, the director still manages to ask the larger questions: is abstract art really "art," and for that matter what is art, what is art's "value" - monetarily and otherwise - what role does marketing play in all this, what is truth, what is the media's role -- reporting the news or creating it, where does a parent's inevitable teaching/coaching end and collaboration -- or even fraud -- begin, what are a parent's responsibilities to protect their children vs. "promoting" them, and so much more. I'm afraid I can no more offer definitive answers to these questions than I can say for sure just how much Marla herself had to do with "her" paintings. It is interesting, however, that from what I've seen here and elsewhere most people's answers to the latter question seem to reflect their bias where the former are concerned more than they do a critical appraisal of the evidence. No doubt this applies to me as much as anyone. Nonetheless, I have to say while most here clearly want to believe Marla really produced all the paintings and her parents did nothing wrong, I think it's more likely this whole thing originated as a joke between the father and his abstract art hating realist painter/gallery owner buddy that simply got out of hand. Had Marla really been entirely responsible for "her" paintings their point would certainly have been made. If a toddler could produce abstract paintings the critics would accept as "art" it would show up abstract painting for the sham they believed it to be. Yet this conniving pair certainly knew even those they despised most like Kandinsky and Pollock were masters of representational art, realist painting, before turning to abstract art. Pollock started out as a student of Thomas Hart Benton, and if I'm not mistaken later painted murals for the WPA before taking up the "drip" method etc. This was obviously not the case where Marla is concerned. Her stick figure drawings were no more accomplished than any other child her age. I think the problem was this talented but bitter painter and his limo-ride loving pal, Mark, got in over their heads. In a way they were victims of their own success and ended up being backed into a corner where they could no longer spring the joke, in fact were left with no options other than to persevere in their scheme. In the end, like it or not -- and no matter your opinion of what 60 Minutes, the inventor of "Gotcha!" journalism, did to this family -- the undeniable fact that the paintings produced on camera were in no way comparable to those produced without the cameras rolling, not to mention Marla's comments to her father that it was his "turn" to paint, requests to add a face etc., make it abundantly clear the earlier paintings were, at best, collaborative efforts. Many have expressed concern for Marla. Personally, my sympathies were with her mother, the one adult in the movie -- other than the director himself -- who clearly felt tremendous guilt and yet was, in the final analysis, guilty only of being a bit naive and far too trusting of her husband. Marla herself was too young to really comprehend most of what was going on around her at the time, and given that -- particularly since the release of this film -- "her" paintings are once again selling for significant sums, hopefully this will end for her in a good college education rather than therapy.
Bravo Oldman!!!!!
Oldman: Very good points about the film and the public's perception of art in general.
As you mention with Kandinsky and Pollock, it's true that the masters of abstract art typically arrive at their signature styles through a path of first demonstrating an understanding of the basic tenets of art — form, anatomy, perspective, composition, etc. — before applying their own vision and interpretation. Though it does seem that more and more abstract artists are rising to fame quicker over the decades, sometimes seemingly appearing out of nowhere.
To run with another of your points, as beautiful and "professional" Marla's work is, it is based on a child's skill for rendering figures and shapes. She may possess and eye for color and balance but her creations are pre-mastery of any accepted realist skill. It may be beside the point, as children's art and creativity should be cherished and encouraged for their own sake. But I question the investment value of paintings from an artist who's style and skills will undoubtedly change quickly from her starting point, if she continues to pursue art at all. Will the elevated status of her work be at risk if she can not eventually come to master the before-mentioned basics? Even if she can I imagine people will judge her early output in the context of her future work and politics. Just as silly as reading too much into the paintings she seems to simply enjoy making for fun. (Not counting any outside pressure to keep up with customer demands.)
As much as the filmmaker kept the documentary balanced and unbiased, its existence may only increase intrigue around Marla's work and add legitimacy to the paintings as investment items.
I doubt the Olmsteads could predict the extent of Marla's fame and media backlash. I doubly doubt they would have ever imagined their own child changing the way people think about modern art in general. Or at least expanding the conversation to members of the film's audience who had no previous interest in the subject.
May I present to you all one nagging question I have:
Marla seems to feel free to say anything she wants without fear or anxiety about what others will think. How could it be possible that a child who was filmed day after day, month after month, was never caught on tape once saying anything like" I did not paint this, Daddy painted this!" Not once in front of the cameras or in front of the hundreds of people who questioned her constantly at the shows , in interviews etc. She did say very emphatically in the hall of a hotel when her parents mentioned one of the paintings, "I didn't do that! My brother (i forget his name...) did it!" She was obviously VERY concerned about this, that she was getting credit for something her brother did. She was VEHEMENT about not taking credit for it and wanting people to listen to her! Why then would she NEVER tell anyone that her dad did the pictures or helped her do the pictures? Oldman, I do remember that very uncomfortable scene in the kitchen where she invites her Dad to "take his turn", to put a face here etc. Which makes it seem even wierder to me that she wouldn't have made MANY honest uninhibited remarks about other people's role in the paintings. Lord knows she must have been asked directly a billion times! I can't see how she could have, or WHY she would have kept the truth a secret unless someone was coercing her and threatening her and that does not seem likely.
This is what confuses me most. Because I do think her dad must have done quite a bit as Oldman points out. Any ideas gang?
Lee, Glad you brought this up as I have the same questions myself. I don't really have an answer I'm totally satisfied with, but I do have a couple thoughts on the subject. First, I remember well helping my children on many projects over the years. I was careful not to do "too much," not so much in other words, that they would not be able to claim the finished product as their own. But that doesn't mean my assistance wasn't important, or in some cases probably critical to the end result. When I helped build their "pinewood derby" cars, for instance, I left the final shaping and all the painting etc. to them, but I took care of the wheels which were the most important step from a functional standpoint. Of course it wasn't the fun part or the most immediately noticeable part either, but it was ultimately what made the car "go." I wonder if Mark's involvement was of this type. Did he, perhaps, "put the wheels on" by preparing the canvas, making sure it was completely covered, picking the paints/colors to give her, suggesting what to put where, adding a few finishing touches etc? This could account for Marla not saying anything about the paintings not being "hers" because in her mind they were. Unfortunately the scene captured by 60 minutes where Mark is upset with Marla's failure to finish the painting she's working on suggests a more sinister reason. While I'd like to think -- as Mark claimed -- that this episode was atypical you have to take into consideration that he acted this way with full knowledge the 60 Minutes cameras were rolling. I just can't help but wonder how he acted when -- as was usual -- no one else was around. In other words, was this scene was an aberration as Mark meant it, or an aberration because ordinarily he would have been even more enraged and controlling? Personally I couldn't help feeling there was more going on under the surface where Marla was concerned than met the eye. Remember the comments about her behavior at school, about not being very outgoing, if not withdrawn then at least definitely on the introverted side? No crime in that, of course, but where are her friends? I don't know. Maybe I'm reading too much into this simply because Mark made my back hairs stand up every time he was on camera. What does everyone else think?
Oh yes, the mother...the perfect if naive parent, who has disliked this whole "Marla is an artist" thing since the beginning. "If only I could protect my baby" she seems to say each time she dresses her kids up for another fancy gallery event. Why are we so quick to give her a pass and make the father out to be the "bad guy?" Maybe the mother is the "brains" behind this whole caper! Look at the facts:
In one of the "extras" on the DVD we find out (via the gallery owner, I think) that the mother painted the walls of one room in the house in some fancy "faux" technique where the painter uses a spatula to get the desired effect.
The gallery owner says Mark was never an artist in school - he was a jock. The wife is the artist in the family, he tells us. (This tidbit is also from a DVD extra.)
Mark says in the film that it was the mother who first gave Marla the spatula we see her using to spread paint.
Mark is called an artist repeatedly, but the only paintings of his that we see are simple ones stored in the basement (not even good enough for the guest bedroom). The evidence shows that Mark is not much of an artist.
Watch the parents at their work environments: Mark has a blue-collar job, his wife is white-collar, dealing with the public, and it seems to me, a bit smarter than her husband does.
None of this proves anything about Marla and her paintings, but it prompts me to ask why this whole line of inquiry was never opened up. (Me, I blame society.)
PS - Great discussion so far! Love it!
GOOD QUESTION LEE. I HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH OLDMAN. AS A MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER I HAVE SPENT MUCH TIME "HELPING" AND MUCH TIME TELLING THEM HOW WONDERFUL "THEY"DID. SO MAYBE THATS THE ANSWER.
SILVER(AKA BITSIE)
I am so glad that Breather seriously questions the mother's role in this. After watching some of the extras we began to have some concerns as to her possible complicity. The painting of the wall over the kitchen counter was oddly familiar. If the father was actually involved to the degree that Oldman conjectures (VERY interesting theory by the way Oldman!) how could she not be aware of it?
The whole thing really does begin to turn in on itself and the possibilities of what combination of things really happened expands the more info we are given. Like the film maker, Kate and I have more questions than answers. But one thing is for sure - we, like Oldman, felt very uncomfortable whenever Mark was on the screen.
Something is not right with this picture.
Agreed, Breather, this is an excellent conversation. Every comment brings up new and interesting points. Lee mentioned that the dialogue on 'This is England' could probably go on for ages-so could this!!! Great choice Lee.
I'm wondering if we are all reading more into this than is actually going on. Perhaps the parents are telling the truth as they see it, Marla's pictures are really painted by her , the public just loved the story and went gaga, and the 'art world' as usual saw a chance to make a buck.....
Anything is possible Jimmy!
hELLO ALL! sORRY TO BE SO LATE GETTING IN ON THIS ONE BUT BACK TO SCHOOL/FALL IS A BUSY TIME IN MY WORLD.tHE TRI-WEEKLY SYSTEM WORKS MUCH BETTER FOR ME SO YOU'VE GOT MY THUMBS UP ON THE CHANGE, LEE.
wHAT A GREAT DOC. YOU GUYS HAVE BROUGHT UP SO MANY THREADS WORTH THINKING AND TALKING ABOUT THAT I HARDLY KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN.SO LET ME JUST SAY HOW MUCH I HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF ALL THE COMMENTS, HOW MANY AVENUES OF THOUGHT THEY HAVE OPENED UP IN MY HEAD THAT I PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN TO. AS USUAL!!!
tHANKS
I want to thank :
Mike, Cherry, Craft, David, Silver(aka Bitsie), Sammy58, Filmluver, Oldman, Breather, Jim & Kate, Jimmy, and Jeannie48 for making this such a great season opener.....
You guys are fantastic!
See you at the next show 'Spiral', an eerie little tale of terror, just right for getting us into the Halloween spirit..BOO!!!!!!
Post a Comment