MY KID COULD PAINT THAT breaks many of the rules of
documentary 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, it
is very significant when production a movie to stay right to what he trusts in
order to truly permit his spectators to narrate what they are sighted – My Kid
Could Paint That introduction. In order to make this ensue, the filmmaker has
to 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 the
director desires it to. This lets the director not only to scheme his view, but
also who he is as an artist. Mark Olmstead works at a Frito Lay plant. And his
wife, Laura, is an assistant at a medical agency in a small city. Their
daughter Marla looks to be painting some unbelievable abstract contemporary
art. When the local journalist talks about 4-year-old Marta’s paintings, the
major art critic at the New York Times Michael Kimmelman, choices up the story.
The paintings are decent. Some of them are good, some them
are bad, abstract paintings. They play into the hands of those who discharge
abstract art as the procedure of applying paint to canvas with a method that
looks random and hasty. Some not all of them, abstract art perfections its
importance 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 unprofessional
painter himself, is that one-day little Marla was on the kitchen table while he
was image, and she took a brush and started painting with him. The child is showing
an inborn sense for color, design, arrangement, feel, and because of her age
and the abstract-art exposing viewpoint, she started to become universal
The problem was, no one had seen Marla’s work from start to
finish except her parents. “60 Minutes” originated to do a piece on
the girl, put their gear all over the house, and installed a secret camera in
the ceiling. With this they can see Marla’s beginning a painting with urgent
whispered directions from her father. We never see his father to touch a brush for
the painting, but the ended painting doesn’t look like a “Marla” but
like something any kids could paint.
Is the little girl the star of a joke by her family? Amir-Bar-Lev
the creator of this film, says he doesn’t know, and the film has an undeveloped
ending. He grew quite close to the Olmsteads, and at times anxious that he was revealing
their sureness. My own decision as an unknown is, no, Marla didn’t paint those
works, although she may have useful some of the paint.
But it’s more complicated than that. As I said, some of the
paintings are beautiful. People might pay hundreds if they were by a kid, but
would they pay thousands if they really liked them? The sarcasm may be that
Mark Olmstead is a talented painter who could never break into the closed
circle of abstract art without a trick like Marla.
The director may select to show the artwork of an artist in
a bad way or in a decent way. It depends to the filmmaker to plan what he wants
his spectators to believe and it is up to the spectators to take what they want
from the film and believe. Movies are a director’s version of the truth, which
does not necessarily mean it is the actual or the entire truth. A documentary
can be manipulative and trick people in believing something somebody else
thinks. It is an artwork left for people’s interpretation