Title: SubtitleMY KID COULD PAINT THAT breaks many of the rules ofdocumentary camerawork and yet is comical, emotional, skimpy, and troubling.This low-budget self-determining documentary inspects intellectual modern art,acceptance and the media’s day-to-day connection with life. As a director, itis very significant when production a movie to stay right to what he trusts inorder to truly permit his spectators to narrate what they are sighted – My KidCould Paint That introduction. In order to make this ensue, the filmmaker hasto make positive choices during the post-production, mainly in the editing procedure.For example: choosing the quantity of videotape being played, shots, tune, places,what instants to display, etc. As a result, the movie derives out shaped, as thedirector desires it to. This lets the director not only to scheme his view, butalso who he is as an artist. Mark Olmstead works at a Frito Lay plant.
And hiswife, Laura, is an assistant at a medical agency in a small city. Theirdaughter Marla looks to be painting some unbelievable abstract contemporaryart. When the local journalist talks about 4-year-old Marta’s paintings, themajor art critic at the New York Times Michael Kimmelman, choices up the story.The paintings are decent. Some of them are good, some themare bad, abstract paintings. They play into the hands of those who dischargeabstract art as the procedure of applying paint to canvas with a method thatlooks random and hasty. Some not all of them, abstract art perfections itsimportance not because of its inherent quality but because of its value. At$25, it looks like trickles.
At $25 million, it looks like a masterwork.The story as told by Mark, Marla’s dad, an unprofessionalpainter himself, is that one-day little Marla was on the kitchen table while hewas image, and she took a brush and started painting with him. The child is showingan inborn sense for color, design, arrangement, feel, and because of her ageand the abstract-art exposing viewpoint, she started to become universalpublicity.The problem was, no one had seen Marla’s work from start tofinish except her parents. “60 Minutes” originated to do a piece onthe girl, put their gear all over the house, and installed a secret camera inthe ceiling. With this they can see Marla’s beginning a painting with urgentwhispered directions from her father.
We never see his father to touch a brush forthe painting, but the ended painting doesn’t look like a “Marla” butlike something any kids could paint.Is the little girl the star of a joke by her family? Amir-Bar-Levthe creator of this film, says he doesn’t know, and the film has an undevelopedending. He grew quite close to the Olmsteads, and at times anxious that he was revealingtheir sureness. My own decision as an unknown is, no, Marla didn’t paint thoseworks, although she may have useful some of the paint.But it’s more complicated than that. As I said, some of thepaintings are beautiful. People might pay hundreds if they were by a kid, butwould they pay thousands if they really liked them? The sarcasm may be thatMark Olmstead is a talented painter who could never break into the closedcircle of abstract art without a trick like Marla.
The director may select to show the artwork of an artist ina bad way or in a decent way. It depends to the filmmaker to plan what he wantshis spectators to believe and it is up to the spectators to take what they wantfrom the film and believe. Movies are a director’s version of the truth, whichdoes not necessarily mean it is the actual or the entire truth. A documentarycan be manipulative and trick people in believing something somebody elsethinks. It is an artwork left for people’s interpretation