Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

My apologies to Mastidon, who rocked some earlier festival coverage for us, and who we hope to get future festival coverage from as well. Somehow, we set his latest batch of reviews aside to publish, and then never quite got around to publishing them. So these may seem tardy, but these are films that are not open in most places yet, and so they’re still current for most people.

Besides which... Mastidon’s just a darn good new writer.

Check this one out:

MY KID COULD PAINT THAT 4 Stars (Out of 5)
Directed by Amir Bar-Lev

Hi Guys,

Mastidon here with a look at a completely compelling documentary called MY KID COULD PAINT THAT. First screened at Sundance, this film follows the "career" of child prodigy Marla Olmstead. The film was initially planned to be a chronicle of the life and genius that is Marla. Instead, it turned into an examination of the media as a whole, the very definition of what is art, what kind of parents it takes to let their kid become this, and the curiosity of is this for real anyway?

Ok, first let me begin by saying, I'm an art nut. I have been to galleries all over the world ranging from MoMA in NYC to The Tate Modern in London, to the National Museum in Taipei. On the surface, several pieces of Marla's work could easily be in any major modern art gallery. Not bad for work she did when she was 4 years old, right? Well, that's where the question comes in. Did she paint these pictures herself or was it the work of her father? What this film shows you is very surprising. Lots of evidence pointing both ways. I made up my mind that this is a scam. Amir Bar-Lev won't tell you his opinion but from watching the film, I believe he feels the same.

That said, does it matter? Lots of her works could be and should be in MoMA. Does it matter if it was a joint effort between her and her father? There have been rumors for years that Picasso didn't paint all of his works but instead had help from his assistants. What you are left with is, do you think this is art and do you like it? The work that appears to have been done by her and her father, I like. Marla's clearly solo work looks like that of a 4 year old. Watch for yourself and decide. That's the point.

Marla over-night became a world sensation thanks to a few stories written about her that got picked up internationally. In a blink of an eye she became the world's hottest human interest story. Then came along 60 Minutes doing an expose on Marla and why she is a fake. The media with its ever hungry need for stories quickly turned on her. As fast as she was the darling of human interest, she became the villain. The same media that built up this girl now was more than happy to destroy her. What it shows is crystal clear. Anything to sell papers and airtime.

As to the parents, Dad seems extremely selfish pushing his daughter into this role. On camera Mom seems unhappy with the whole affair. Who knows what reality is when the camera is off. Any way you look at it, why would you put your 4 year old kid through this so you can make a buck?

As a whole, the film works exceptionally well. Taking you on a ride from amazement to total disbelief with this family. But in the end, does it all matter if it is decent art? Curious as to what you think....

Ciao,
Mastidon