“No one’s saying ‘f--k you’ in these paintings,” a prominent art critic for the New York Times notes in the film. “It’s just a happy little girl doing what she loves to do.”

The idea that a four-year-old could be lauded by the art world, considered a legitimate artist and sell paintings for up to $25,000 is ludicrous. But hey, who really understands modern art anyway?

Amir Bar-Lev’s new documentary, “My Kid Could Paint That,” is a complex look at the way society perceives art, as well as how we can be easily duped and frustrated by things we don’t really understand.

In an attempt to quell his own doubts regarding childhood genius, Bar-Lev dissects the paintings of four-year-old Marla Olmstead, which the art world has deemed “complex” and “abstract” ever since they were discovered by a friend of Marla’s parents in Binghamton, New York.

In 2004, the local press picked up the story, followed by the New York Times, which gave Marla almost overnight media success and caused her paintings to fly out of art galleries nationwide.

Marla’s fondness for bright colors and simple geometric shapes in her paintings, which are named with simplicity such as “Ocean,” “Blue Sun” and “Flowers,” was a refreshing contrast to the anger and frustration represented in works by many other modern artists.

“No one’s saying ‘f--k you’ in these paintings,” a prominent art critic for the New York Times notes in the film. “It’s just a happy little girl doing what she loves to do.”

Laura Olmstead, Marla’s mother, refuses to label her daughter as a prodigy, and fears what may come next as the result of Marla becoming an almost instant celebrity.

She declines interviews and offers from various corporations wanting to use her daughter in commercials. But Mark, Marla’s father, loves being in the spotlight, and says he doesn’t see any potential drawbacks to his daughter’s fame.

After a 60 Minutes special attempts to debunk Marla, the Olmsteads are quickly labeled by the media as frauds and bad parents. In the special, the network tries to prove Marla is not the sole creator of her pieces, but instead her father must have altered them. 60 Minutes provides supposed evidence and sources such as a child psychologist and taped conversations.

Unlike many documentary filmmakers, Bar-Lev is both seen and heard on camera. Bar-Lev insists to Mark Olmstead that he needs footage of Marla painting as “proof.” He gets his footage, as does the rest of the world, when Laura creates a five-hour DVD of Marla painting, which resurrects her daughter’s career again.

However, for Bar-Lev, the evidence isn’t solid enough, and he questions the Olmsteads to the point that the audience feels angry he’s being so intrusive and insensitive to this family whose reputation has already suffered so much. Rather than a filmmaker producing “art for art’s sake,” Bar-Lev comes across as a hard-nosed reporter that will stop at nothing to get the truth.

> Comments