My Kid Could Paint That 11/30/07

A firestorm of interest surrounded the Olmstead family when their very young four year old daughter started selling paintings for thousands of daughters. At first it was all positive. The paintings were going for tons of money and the waiting list was huge. Then a Sixty Minutes show aired that made the case that the paintings were frauds. The Olmsteads became ostracized and demonized and the documentary crew that had been filming them were set with a bunch of choices as to how to portray the story. 
Through the film we see Marla painting, but everything she paints onscreen looks somewhat inferior to the paintings she is selling. But take a look at the family, they couldn't seem more sincere, (and why would they allow cameras to film Marla if they knew she couldn't paint.)
There seems to be two possible explanations. The parents and the dealer are the most insidious evil liars ever, and I say this because their interviews couldn't cast a better picture of them. Or it seems we have a ironic case reminsicent of the Looney Tunes singing and dancing frog. A charachter that does incredible things, but only in private. Whenever anyone's looking the frog is mute. Take a look at the face of the father when he allows a camera and Marla mucks up a painting. He's a token of frustration. He seems about to get angry at Marla but can't because of the camera. 
Pile onto all this great interviews with the people who wrote the first stories on Marla. One is a writer for a parenting magazine, the other is the New York Times Art Critic. Both are afforded lengthy interview times and each give fantastic articulate insight into the story. One from a social viewpoint, the other from an aritistic viewpoint.
The Art Critic brings up good questions about Modern Art in general. What does it mean when a four year old can do it? Does it pull the cover off a con game? What is art? Why is there this feeling among the populace that Abstract Art is ugly, insulting, and despicable? Was the Olmstead's story more believable because there's nothing intellligent or skillful about Abstract art and its actually possible that a kid could paint somethiing on the par with whatever is being hung in a modern art museum?
The most shady charachter is the art dealer that sells Marla's paintings. He himself is a painter, but as far away as abstract art as a painter can be. In fact, he admits that he doesn't like abstract art and actually uses the phrase that gives this movie its title, 'my kid could do that.' He admits straight to the camera that he didn't hold abstract art very highly but understood the marketing of it. We see a scene in which he sleazily sells an old lady an inferior painting. If there's a bad guy here its probably this guy. 
In my opinion the family is innocent. The dad may be a bit overzealous and, you know what, he probably did help Marla a little bit. She is after all only four years old and has never taken a class. He must have told her something. But it wasn't their idea to start selling these things for thousands of dollars. It was the dealer that came to them. Most of the time, they only seem along for the ride. (especially the mom.) Marla, of course, looks completely oblivious. A fantastic point that the film makes is that this story is not really about Marla at all. She's just a little kid. It's about adults and this is one of the best documetaries, if not films, of the year.