This year's big documentary, My Kid Could Paint That, takes on little Marla, who, in 2004 at only four years old, became one of the hottest things in modern art. She started with a little show in a friend-of-the-family's gallery, and then big people like the New York Times picked up her story, and eventually it was all over the place. Which is weird, because I don't remember hearing anything about it at all, 3 years ago. (I think I might have seen something on some talk show, but I can't remember for sure, and the amount of media coverage this story apparently got is insane) So she's selling these paintings for tens of thousands of dollars, and the art-world is in lover with her, and throughout it all the filmmaker of this documentary is there, talking to the parents, the collectors, the person who wrote the initial article, the friend who gave her her first show, etc, and of course, filming everything.
Then one day, 60 Minutes does their thing on this girl. They talk to an art critic or expert or historian or some shit, and she says "This stuff could be in the Museum of Modern Art and I wouldn't blink twice." So then, 60 Minutes shows this lady some footage of Marla painting (I guess they agreed to put a hidden camera in the house, since Marla doesn't like to paint on camera, or something). All of the sudden, Art Lady is shocked. She says that basically, the way the girl is painting is just like any other 4 yr old would, and she suddenly doesn't think that Marla could/would have painted these masterworks of modern art.
So all of the sudden, there's this air of doubt surrounding the whole deal. The fans are suddenly skeptical, and the family starts getting hate mail. The paintings stop selling. Worst of all, the guy doing the documentary suddenly has doubts, too. And now, the film moves from "How amazing, how cute, how wonderful is this little girl and her perfect family" to "Is this all a scam? Is someone - say, her father, who sorta dabbles in art himself - helping the little girl?" The film doesn't miss a step, but the story takes a turn for the heartbreaking. It's just terrible to watch all this doubt tear these people up. These parents are cool, this art-dealer friend is cool. The bond that's apparent between the documentarian and the family/subjects is cool. And then one little 60 Minutes show later, and all of that falls apart.
The film is fascinating from start to finish. It's asking questions it cannot possibly answer and exploring ideas no one can really comprehend. Most obvious, of course, is What is art? If it's thoughtless and naive - Marla can't comprehend what she's going through, or at least in the same way adults do...or at least, cannot express this comprehension - who really knows what a 4 yr old knows? -- is it still art? How can you take Jackson Pollack seriously when, "My kid could paint that"? It also has a lot to say about film and it's relationship with truth - these cameras are kinda pointless, because Marla makes it clear that she doesn't paint the same way while being filmed, just as none of the adults can really act "normal" on camera. Why is this art worth 20 million, but similar stuff worthless? If her dad did help her, does it suddenly change the quality? Why the fascination and fixation with child prodigies? Who can say what a 4 yr old should do with her art, with her life - is it right, is it normal to make a put a 4 yr old on TV for splashing some paint around?
Watching the adults in this film is almost more interesting than all the subtextual questions it raises. Just watching the mother be a mom, trying to balance motherhood with fame, trying to make the best decisions for her etc. Watching the dad do the same, but also trying to decide if he's really some big scam artist. He definitely gets shifty at times. Watching the art-gallery guy take on his own fame of discovering and selling her work. How manipulative he can be, how he takes terrible news and turns it around for his own benefit. The art collectors coming to terms with the fact that they might have spent thousands on "fakes". Etc etc etc.
Eventually, the film sorta takes a side, but it doesn't force you to agree or disagree. It's pretty level-handed, showing you as much as it possibly can pretty much as it happens. It's definitely not the most pleasant ending (if only for the thoughts you're left with), but it's a pretty satisfying one. Cuz after all, when it ends, Marla is only 5 yrs old. None of this matters to her; she just likes to paint, masterpiece or not. Plus, she now has like, 300 grand in a college fund waiting for her.
