MovieChat Forums > My Kid Could Paint That (2007) Discussion > Case for Marla

Case for Marla

posted 16 years ago by wilson1-2
6 replies | jump to latest

It is obvious that Marla is brutally honest. If the paintings had
been doctored extensively...she would have made that known. (documentary film guy must have been around the house for hours and days) Bribing a four year old to keep a secret, especially one like Marla would be playing with dynamite. Too risky.

Marla probably did a lot of paintings that were crap. So they used the best.

Dad coached a lot. Probably set out the colors for the day. Told her to expand and fill-in, do all squiggles on this one...etc. At four, Marla would definitely think that she is the 'painter' under these circumstances. She is bright and once realizing all the attention she is getting for the paintings she 'learns' to produce works that cover the whole canvas, all areas filled with color and so on.

Why would they invite cameras into their home if Marla wasn't responsible for the paintings in a big way?

And having been around children in my career, it is easy for me to believe that Marla might be 'different' when the camera is rolling.

Interesting that Mom has misgivings but the promotion never stops.

[–] anxs 16 years ago

In the final minutes of the documentary, when the director proposes again filming from start to finish a painting she constantly asks for directions, and for her father helping her by painting a face or something, and she finally leaves when he doesn't abide.

For me it's allright and honest if he did help her or explained honestly why she was asking him to intervene, but instead he started to giggle and make excuses in front of the camera.

For me it's also very noticeable the difference between the paintings filmed on tape and the other ones. The lady who was pressured to buy "Ocean" realized that, I felt sorry for her finally buying it because she harbored so many doubts.
It was plain clear also when they showed that "Pollock Hommage" or whatever title, it wasn't her.

[–] tyrone-jones 16 years ago

i think she was coached... but no more than any art student is by teachers.

Kids are an X factor, different every minute of the day. one day she does liney pollack style, the next another.

[–] lazlo_buddy 16 years ago

If that were the case, then all the paintings would be dodgy. But they weren't. Some of them were really neat-looking and consistent. (And I don't care if that credits the dad with making neat-looking abstract art for a four-year-old.) The ones she made on camera were childish, rubbing her hands into the canvas, making brown-grey, doing thick lines around pieces, making blobs mostly. I never once saw her make a broad, sweeping stroke like the ones in the painting which was only two colors -- yellow and orange -- on a black canvas. I never saw her stick to a few colors exclusively, which some of the other paintings seemed to feature, when she was on camera. The non-filmed paintings seemed, in my opinion, to consist of liney stripes and brush strokes and a more complete image. The ones made on film were halting, included much more blobs and round shapes, and had very very few brush strokes to them. They were similar because he coached her, but the artistry didn't look the same to me.

[–] gobucs991940 15 years ago

The child acted like a child and just didn't seem overly intelligent, much less a prodigy artist. She socialized like a normal child too....aren't prodiges like socially deprived? She really didn't care about the paintings at the art shows.

Why can't people just cut the b.s. Her dad is a complete moron and thought he could get away with this scam. Throughout the entire movie it is plainly obvious to me her dad is a scumbag and the mother is also pretty stupid to believe her daughter did those paintings.

[–] vixenwiththefixens 15 years ago

Agree 100% Gobucs! Pure scam thru & thru! I'm watching it now and.. viewing all the paintings again: there is NO WAY most of the paintings weren't touched up! And omg the woman being pressured to buy that hideous painting for thousands of dollars just wow. I was hoping viewing it again would put any doubt to rest.. it did just the opposite. It's just so CREEPY.. so creepy. Something about the father is deeply deviant.. and he also "pings" to me. I wondered the first time I watched this if there was more between him and the art dealer.

[–] karana_geldar 15 years ago

I'm looking through her paintings here and based on what I know about kids art there are two things in conflict here:

One is an emerging child, and the paintings are simply typical of what she would be doing at that age. You see pictures of animals, faces and stuff. Look at the painting "A Muddy Day" on the website. Give a four year old a big enough canvas and enough colours. "Ocean" is similar and so is "Everyone's House"

On the other hand you have someone who is CLEARLY influenced by abstract expressionism, particularly Jackson Pollock and the way Pollock would dribble paint onto his canvases out of the can (he used housepaint). Others looks like an impressionist influence akin to Monet of van Gogh.

And some of the titles of the paintings really make you wonder. "Untitled"? "Asian Sun"?

Obi-Wan is my hero!