MovieChat Forums > My Kid Could Paint That (2007) Discussion > Obviously Not Polished by Mark

Obviously Not Polished by Mark

posted 15 years ago by ringudeath
15 replies | jump to latest

1. Why would they invite Bar-Lev into their home to shoot the documentary before the whole controversy was brought up by 60 minutes WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, if they had something serious like this to hide. It was obvious Bar-Lev would eventually seek footage of her painting. (read the Q&A with Bar-Lev called "The Unseen Hand" for more info)

2. We clearly see Mark's drawings in the basement of their house. There's no way he could have created half of the stuff Marla did. Especially if she gave him something "less polished" to work with. Do you really think he would go out of his way to turn one of her "less polished" paintings into the spectacular ones (bottom feeder, asian sun, etc.) instead of just making the art from scratch? Why would he need to start off with a base of random abstract drawings in order to turn it into something great? AND WHY WOULD HE NOT WANT THE CREDIT? But seriously, you can see his paintings in the basement and there's no doubt in my mind that he couldn't polish anything to end up like some of the paintings Marla did.

3. They clearly state twice on the DVD extra footage that Laura was way more artistically capable than Mark. They left it out of the movie because it would only be a deterrent to the plot, but if anyone should have the finger pointed at them it's Laura. Someone even pointed out on the board that the brush strokes in the dining room on the wall (which were done by Laura) seemed to resemble the ones on the more "polished" Marla paintings. And it's obvious Laura wouldn't manipulate Marla's work. If either parent were capable of manipulation it's Mark, but if either parent were capable of actually polishing them it would be Laura (even though it's obvious she couldn't either). So there's no reason to believe either parent "polished" the works.

4. They love their children (this is evident in many scenes in the film). They seem extremely adamant that they both had no hand in "polishing" her work, and Laura even opts to take a polygraph test which in the interview on the DVD extra footage, Bar-Lev, right after she says that, stops her and says no, that he wouldn't ever want to do that. By this point he can obviously see what he needed to see. He just wanted to find verbal or visual proof to display to the audience, even though he knows deep down there's no logical reason that Mark would polish Marla's works. He will never get this proof.

On a side note, I think Marla is much more aware of everything going on around her than people give her credit for. Such as the scene where she claims that her brother painted a painting (which I'm convinced Bar-Lev took completely out of context, I don't think she was saying he painted one of hers). Also near the end where she tells her dad to help her or tell her she's done. A lot of people will see this as her showing what her father always says or does when she paints, but I don't. It's just so sad that he reacts so awkwardly afterward, which only forwards this notion that he helps her. I think she says some of this stuff in order to test the waters. She knows what's happening and what her dad is being accused of (maybe not the severity of it) and she uses that in a joking manner sometimes. If you're not convinced that she knows why she's being filmed and you think shes just an innocent litte girl who's being exploited, go back and watch the film again and notice all the times that she looks directly at the camera (one strong moment of this is when Zane, her brother, is rocking the chair his dad is in, with Marla on his lap, while Mark is on the phone. She stares right into the camera as if she knows exactly whats going on and why). OR just take a look at the first scene in the film. This completely backs up my argument. The frame right before the opening credits proves that she's toying with the filmmaker.

Feel free to argue any of my points if you still think that Mark polished her works. I'd love to see an opposing viewpoint that contains actual logic instead of unfounded claims. But I just can't see one single reason why Mark would polish her works or invite Bar-Lev into his family if he did.

i am the voice inside your head, and i control you.

[–] vixenwiththefixens 15 years ago

It's been a while since I've seen the movie so I'm going off a bit of faded memory.. but when she says to her father about a painting she was struggling with "Dude you finish it" and his nervous fumbling/stumbling reaction didn't set off alarms?? Sorry but there was much more wrong here than right in my opinion. Honestly, I don't think your argument will change many opinions here that they were polished by the father. I personally think they were touched up by the art gallery owner/dealer.

Something about the tone in your posts suggests to me that you personally know these people... Just my opinion.

[–] ringudeath 15 years ago

yeah sheAl never said "you finish it" but yes after i saw the film once, i repeat for the first time, when she says "paint a face" "tell me what to do or tell me I'm done" yes, it set off alarms. More alarming was the reaction he gave to the camera afterward. Yes, this is persuasive (especially in the editing of the sequence), but I don't necessarily think this proves anything at all. I'm not suggesting this is completely true but, I would argue that Marla knows a lot more about what's going on than she puts on. Yes, shes a little girl and shes portrayed as innocent by the filmmakers, but there are scenes that lead you to believe she knows whats going on and manipulates that (possibly without a motivation). One major scene is where she says "Zane painted the green one". Amir Bar-Lev, the director, even points out in the Q and A "the unseen hand"(use google search) that she made that up. I believe the quote was "she said 'zane painted the green one.' But he didn't!" This is persuasive in another aspect.

I just can't see why they would allow a filmmaker 24/7 access to their lives if they had something to hide (keep in mind this is before 60 minutes). Until then, there was only news reporters (quote by Laura, I believe) "coming and going" through their lives, just to get a news report. Why would they allow Amir Bar-Lev and his crew to come in whenever they want, sleep over, "wait outside until Marla started painting" then call him when she does so he can come inside and film it (this is explicitly stated in the Q and A "the Unseen hand, I BEG YOU VIEW THIS Q&A!!!) if they had something to hide! I just cant see it!

Also, who polishes them? Obviously not mark, you can see his work downstairs!! seriously, there's no way he could create the paintings like bottom feeder and asian sun. I know its hard to believe a 5 year old girl could do it better, but seriously we have no other reason to doubt it (there arent any of her old paintings in the basement that look like garbage!!)

If you really don't believe me after all of this, go to her site, I think its Marlaolmstead.com (search google if not) and look at the preview for the Start-to-Finish paintings that she's recently done. There's no further proof needed. It's simply amazing.

i am the voice inside your head, and i control you.

[–] vixenwiththefixens 15 years ago

I've already stated who I believed touched up the paintings: THE GALLERY OWNER. I also don't believe your suggestion that Mark's work on his own paintings wasn't up to par with the work done on Marla's. You don't have to be Picasso to touch up a bunch of swirls on a 4 year old's painting. Anyone with some artistic inclination can do it.

Let me ask you this question, why would 60 minutes ruin it's reputation by dragging a little girl and her family thru the mud, if there wasn't some truth to the allegations? A expert child psychologist stated that no way a child painted those paintings without some help. I'll believe the expert before I believe any words that come out of the parent's mouth. Also, no one is debating that Marla isn't a manipulative child.. as most children are.. but it seems as though you are somewhat blaming Marla for the father's bad reputation. That just doesn't fly. His reactions spoke volumes of a person getting caught. Whether he painted or the gallery owner, SOMEONE touched those paintings up, and the father was in on it. If he was completely & totally 100% innocent, his behavior would have been completely different. Even after the expose', they STILL tried to milk it to the last drop, even though the mother wanted it to stop! And what do we see.. the family at another opening lol Give me a break.

We are all left to form opinions.. I believe as well as many others that a fraud was perpetrated on the public.. you don't believe that which is perfectly fine and well within your right. You have your mind made up.. as well as I do. I don't think there will be any convincing of either to switch opinions.

I'm really starting to believe you are Mark himself.

[–] ringudeath 15 years ago

I for some reason forgot to respond to the gallery owner business. This is a much more believable theory, but in my opinion, not more believable than the theory that she painted them herself. 1. Tony, the art dealer, didn't come into contact with the Olmsteads until after a few paintings were finished by Marla. Only then did he express interest in showing her works. 2. the art dealer says it himself that he doesn't understand the demand for modern art. With the amazing photo-realist paintings he was finishing, I don't see why he'd want to go against everything he believes in in the art world to help a 4 year old with her paintings. Unless he was getting a good cut of the money from it. Which he wasn't. Also he has no time to touch up her paintings with the months of work it takes to put together his own. I could see the argument as more of a possibility, but it just doesn't hold ground for me. I don't see the motivation for it. Even if he did try to touch up her work, his style of art would completely clash with hers and it wouldn't make any sense. He uses precise painting methods. The art by Marla was completely random in every sense.

As far as the 60 minutes thing goes, that expert may be right. Her brush strokes may be very different between paintings and all that. But seriously, take a look at the writing style of a kid when they go through the ages of 3-6. Or even just 4-5. Handwriting experts wouldn't know what to think when comparing the two. C'mon, they clearly state that they gave her new tools almost every painting to use (such as a spatula or the spreader). Keep in mind, this kid probably didn't even know how to read or write for the first few paintings she did. It's very plausible that as she learned to write, she crafted her own style of painting.

As far as why 60 minutes would run a story questioning a belief, it happens all the time. It's the same reason everyone that watches this movie thinks Marla didn't paint them herself. Everyone wants to doubt it. Even with no concrete proof, everyone wants to doubt it. Part of it, yes, is because of editing choices. But a lot of it has to do with the way our society is today. Quick judgments are expected. Everyone wants to believe the worst possible case scenario, especially if they're presented what seems to be a non-judgmental film.

Please go to marlaolmstead.com and look at the sample videos for her newest paintings (filmed start to finish). Regardless of whether someone touched up her paintings (probably the art dealer if anyone, but i seriously seriously doubt this), you can't argue that these are amazing (and put her old work to shame).

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. I just can't see why people ignore irrefutable proof of a start to finish video of her painting it herself with help from no one, just to believe that there's some sort of evil in this story. There isn't. It's just a girl who loves to paint (as the reporter says) and does it amazingly well. There is no fraud perpetrated on the public, since they didn't even know how well her paintings would sell in the first place. If there's any fraud here, it's done by 60 minutes to discredit an amazing artist.

I'm not Mark. I just don't think it's right to necessarily assume that there's some sort of evil intentions within this story. I think that's just something people need to think to normalize it (probably because they've never been recognized for such an immense talent as this). Because there's never been a 4 year old child prodigy at painting, and everyone wants to defame her ability as an artist, when its extremely obvious, by watching the sample videos at marlaolmstead.com, that she does better at what she loves than most people.

[–] scooter25 15 years ago

I think that's just something people need to think to normalize it (probably because they've never been recognized for such an immense talent as this). Because there's never been a 4 year old child prodigy at painting, and everyone wants to defame her ability as an artist, when its extremely obvious, by watching the sample videos at marlaolmstead.com, that she does better at what she loves than most people.

This is so blatantly Mark, or a person who is personally attached to the Olmstead family that it makes me sick. The posts are practically advertisements for Marla's work. Oh, and by viewing Ringudeath's profile it is even more apparent.

[–] benjtsang 15 years ago

"there arent any of her old paintings in the basement that look like garbage"
what about the one she painted in the garden in like 20 minutes that looked like absolute crap?

On a more serious note...your main point is that why would they have let Bar-Lev in the house if they had something to hide...the point Bar-Lev himself brought up in the Q&A. The interesting thing is though, that even though Bar-Lev also thought this, it is clear from the Q&A and film that he still has doubts about whether these guys were a scam or not. He says "So I believed when I first saw 60 Minutes that this was impossible. " which seems to imply that he wasn't so sure it was impossible as time went by (after Ocean perhaps?). The film itself is deliberately edited in such a way as to make you think that the there is something going on. Why the hell would the out of context zane painted the green one comment been put into the film if this was not the case? There is also the scene where Ocean and another painting is displayed alongside the older paintings, so you can compared each of them with Ocean (and why would one want to do that unless the editor felt there was something interesting to be gleaned from this comparison ie. Ocean sucks compared to the other paintings). And this comment "I‘m hoping that our relationship improves by the time this comes out. And that‘s all I want to say about that. " implies that the parents did not like their portrayal in the documentary. Bar-Lev clearly still has his doubts and shows this in both documentary and Q&A.

Bottom line is, how exactly can you be so sure that the parents letting Bar-Lev into their house to make a documentary clears them when Bar-Lev, who seems from the interview like a very thoughtful person, still isn't sure this is convincing evidence? If anyone has done a lot of thinking about this issue, its him.

"Even my parents called me Mulder" -Fox Mulder

[–] walkingf00l 15 years ago

I'm not saying i know what the truth is with this particular story, but one thing to keep in mind is when someone is deceiving the world, they often are deceiving themselves first. If Mark did help with Marla's paintings, he most likely convinced himself that his participation was minimal/insignificant and it wasn't a factor when it came to the big picture. He may had invited a film crew in his home because he honestly believed Marla was the true author/creator of the paintings, even if he assisted in a small way here or there.

Again, I'm not saying that this is proof one way or the other, but it can explain why a supposed fraud may behave in the exact opposite way you'd expect.

[–] vixenwiththefixens 15 years ago

"This is so blatantly Mark, or a person who is personally attached to the Olmstead family that it makes me sick. The posts are practically advertisements for Marla's work. Oh, and by viewing Ringudeath's profile it is even more apparent."

Yep as I stated earlier.. it's very apparent this person is either Mark or someone connected to them.

[–] ringudeath 15 years ago

I am not Mark or anyone connected to them. LOOK AT THE BOARDS I POST ON, as you can see (Step Brothers, PTA films, Synecdoche, NY, Memento back in the day). I'm just a dude who did a paper on this movie (and in the process, saw all the extra materials on the DVD) and read up as much as I could about the film and the participants. Will you look into stuff before you start blame-tossing? So everyone who has an opinion that isn't yours is obviously involved in a conspiracy. Cause Marla obviously needs to be defended in an INTERNET FORUM BY HER FAMILY, RIGHT?

seriously, click my USERNAME GUISE! Mark (or some other related party) is going to be a big fan of Haneke and Gus Van Sant films, right?

[–] vixenwiththefixens 15 years ago

"Mark (or some other related party) is going to be a big fan of Haneke and Gus Van Sant films, right?"

Why wouldn't Mark or his wife be a fan of Haneke or GVS films? How would you know what Mark or any one related to them would or wouldn't be a fan of, unless you knew them personally. Nice try.

[–] BioSlave 15 years ago

First off let me say that Ive been in the art industry for over 20 years. I do mainly commercial art (Concept and production art for films, commercials, videos, book covers, storyboards etc.), Ive got hundreds of books from different artists and a very good eye for quickly picking up on someone's art style.
After watching this film I am convinced that the paintings shown through the documentary and the paintings which Marla actually created on film, were not done by the same person.

I am not a big fan of abstract art, mainly because there really isn't a clear cut way to distinguish between a quality piece and garbage.
Abstract art tosses out almost all rules of art.

Now, although many art rules are ignored in abstract art, there are a few rules which are commonly followed (especially in popular abstract art)....These rules include color theory , balance and values.
Color theory is the study and use of colors which, when used together, are more pleasing to the eye. It is partially based on the color balance of nature's colors, which we have become accustomed to. You can google some websites on color theory to understand what Im talking about (Or you could pick up a color wheel from an art store for a couple of bucks).
Balance and values are also pretty spot on...And finally, the paintings had a consistancy in style (Nearly every artist has a distinct style...Occasionally an artist will change his style after a few years, but it is not common for them to jump back and forth between styles within such a short period of time.

All of the the paintings in the documentary (not the ones that marla created on film) clearly adhered to the rules of color theory and balance.
The paintings had clear and precise examples of monochromatic color schemes, achromatic schemes, complimentary colors, split complimentary colors etc.
Not to mention that the values and balance were pretty spot on.
The paintings which marla created did not adhere to any of these rules. The colors used were randomly chosen, and there was no sense of balance at all.

Now to answer some of your questions -

"1. Why would they invite Bar-Lev into their home to shoot the documentary before the whole controversy was brought up by 60 minutes WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, if they had something serious like this to hide. It was obvious Bar-Lev would eventually seek footage of her painting. (read the Q&A with Bar-Lev called "The Unseen Hand" for more info)"

One main reason...Marketing. You can never get enough publicity.
They come up with a quick fix claiming that Marla is shy and doesn't like to paint in front of the camera, and all is well

"2. We clearly see Mark's drawings in the basement of their house.There's no way he could have created half of the stuff Marla did."

How do you know those weren't just for show, to give people the impression that he wouldn't be able to create an image like marla's?
Maybe he was experimenting with a different technique that didn't look like Marla's style.
How do you know if Mark was even the one who created them...They could have hired someone and told them they would cut them in to a big share of the proffit if they stayed quiet.

"Especially if she gave him something "less polished" to work with. Do you really think he would go out of his way to turn one of her "less polished" paintings into the spectacular ones (bottom feeder, asian sun, etc.) instead of just making the art from scratch?"

Who says he didn't create it from scratch?
No one knows what happens in that house when the camera's aren't there.
When the cameras where there, the art looked very different than the art displayed through out the documentary.

"Why would he need to start off with a base of random abstract drawings in order to turn it into something great? AND WHY WOULD HE NOT WANT THE CREDIT?"

Why wouldn't he want credit?....Because a quality painting from a 4 year old will gain more popularity than a painting from a grown up.
As already proven by the incredible amount of media attention.
Do you think these paintings would have been as popular if some 30 something guy had created them?

"But seriously, you can see his paintings in the basement and there's no doubt in my mind that he couldn't polish anything to end up like some of the paintings Marla did. "

And what makes you think he wasn't holding back when he did the paintings in the basement? It's easier for an artist to create crappy quality art, than high quality art.
By your same logic I could easily say that there's no way that the painting marla created on screen could be polished by her to look like her other paintings.

"3. They clearly state twice on the DVD extra footage that Laura was way more artistically capable than Mark."

And Im sure they weren't lying either....I mean it's not as though hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a slew of law suits depended on them lying or anything.

"And it's obvious Laura wouldn't manipulate Marla's work."

How exactly is it obvious?

"If either parent were capable of manipulation it's Mark, but if either parent were capable of actually polishing them it would be Laura (even though it's obvious she couldn't either). So there's no reason to believe either parent "polished" the works."

Once again, you haven't given a reason why either parent wouldn't have polished the work...All you said is that mark would be capable of manipulation, and Laura would be capable of polishing the art...If anything, all you've done is give credence to the possibility that she could have polished it.

"4. They love their children (this is evident in many scenes in the film)."

No questioning that.

" They seem extremely adamant that they both had no hand in "polishing" her work,"

Of course they're adamant...They're trying to stay out of hot water.

"and Laura even opts to take a polygraph test which in the interview on the DVD extra footage, Bar-Lev, right after she says that, stops her and says no, that he wouldn't ever want to do that"

Polygraph tests aren't reliable anyways.

[–] ringudeath 15 years ago

lol. I am Mark, guys. I thought I had you fooled for a while, but dang, you guys are persistent.

I just wanted my little girl to have money for college, amirite guise??

[–] dangus 14 years ago

Wasn't the dealer an old friend of Mark's from high school? They could have been hanging out and cooked something up together.

I'm guessing someone skilled enough to do photorealistic painting could knock out a creditable abstract without much trouble. As an art student, he would have painted in a variety of styles and mediums for assignments, and got 'em done quickly. So, "touching up" the occasional abstract wouldn't drastically cut into his photorealist painting time.

[–] lisaplus1 15 years ago

I have to tell you that, when I was only 11...one of my sketches was discovered by the (at that time) owner of the NY School of the Arts and he accepted me right then and there (no questions asked). As a child (even younger than 11), I exhibited talent with art. I was embarassed by it...even hated it. I was (and still am to a certain degree) a perfectionist and the moment something didn't seem right to me, I'd crumple my work up into a ball and throw it away. I always thought it weird that someone would salvage it out of the trash...and all the attention made me uncomfortable. I never went to art school and I never did anything with my talent.

So, coming from someone like me...I think that people do not understand, unless they are artistic/creative, that performance can vary by mood. On a good day, I could produce something beautiful...on a bad day (or a day where people were pressuring me/breathing down my neck), I could only produce a scribble. I always hated the way my Mother would show me off like a sideshow freak and part of me needed to defy and humiliate her. I can completely understand why Marla might draw something well when she was in the mood (and to paint was HER idea)...but the moment it becomes more like a job, she might shut down. It makes sense to me.

I also have a daughter, who I should say is much more talented than I was. She is an amazingly talented liar too...that doesn't sound nice when I say it that way...but when she was 4, she managed to convince about 12 adults that she was going to a private school (so much so that they were organizing a going away party for her!). Children do lie...for the fun of it...to see how much they can pull the wool over your eyes...and to spite/embarass you. Marla's father seemed weird/awkward at times...but I can also read that as him thinking "If she keeps saying that, people will believe it" or "if I argue, I'll seem like I am hiding something". I've thought that before myself when my daughter would spin an elaborate lie...knowing that nobody believed me anyhow (people can't believe that someone so young would lie). I think people may have also read too much into the things Marla said. If you take them at face value, they don't mean much.

At the end of the day...my daughter did a water color at the age of 2 and I seriously considered framing it. Children can make random very beautiful pictures when they are young, but as they get older and develop, the pictures take on a different look. It's a matter of taste...who cares who made it? I am not a fan of abstract art either.

The only time during the film that I had a slight doubt was at the very end. When the Mother offers to take a lie detector test...did you see the Father's reaction/face? He looked like he might pass out! Suddenly I started thinking uh oh, this guy might have done something without the Mother's knowledge. I don't know why they never let anyone ASK MARLA. Why didn't someone just ask her "Does anyone help you with your paintings?".

[–] duffrageous 15 years ago

I was debating the costs and benefits of taking a polygraph test during that scene, and the costs far outweigh the benefits. Even if they hand-picked the questions, so many variables could come into play. That is exactly why they're not used in every legal case, having unpredictable accuracy.

The 60 Minutes II footage was especially telling to the amount of help that she received. Yes, the father could have been frustrated that she was about to "ruin" an abstract painting she had spent hours on by adding another main color other than red; however, that direction could be construed as a sample of the direction in every work, or any work that has a central theme.

There are necessary factors that she has to be aware of: avoid real objects in your paintings, only representations; consistently paint over the same painted region with another color or pattern(my assumption is that most children would want to fill the canvas with one layer rather than add multiple layers unless they were instructed to do so); only use specific colors and brushes for certain paintings(Ocean had every color imaginable, but Asian Sun only used a handful of colors); and utilize a central idea or style surrounded by a complete painting.

I was amazed by another painting, which I thought she couldn't have painted. The older male artist was interviewed, explaining the amount of hidden imagery by the door on the upper left side. That depth led him to state that the painting was invaluable. When asked about the door, Marla refused to explain it at all. The most likely explanation was she was overwhelmed by the continual questions, cameras, and attention; but shouldn't an artist be held accountable for the ideas depicted in her drawings, especially in abstract art?

In summary, she had to have had basic art direction to paint the varying works of varying themes and designs, the director leaves much to the viewer's imagination, and can Marla elaborate on any of her paintings, even now that she's 10?