Response

1. Write a 1-2 sentence synopsis of the movie. Who are the major characters?

 

'My Kid Could Paint That' is a documentary film about the sudden and unexpected rise to fame a four-year old girl, Marla, receives from her work as an abstract painter. After the initial several minutes of a happy story about a little girl who loves art, the tale changes to a dispute between grown ups, and their quest to find the truth.

2. Marla's parents give permission to the documentary director of the film, Amir Bar-Lev, to make the movie. At a certain point, they change their minds. There is a tug-of-war over who owns the story. Who controls the story now? Marla's parents or Bar-Lev?

 

In my opinion, Bar-Lev takes control of the story. He has the power to either restore the family's reputation, or confirm that the 60 Minutes incident was valid. I think overall he did a fairly decent job not being too one sided in his documentation.

 

3. Marla's story started off as a cute little human interest story. As a result of media interest, the story takes a dark turn when people began questioning if her father is helping create the paintings. What determines when a story has "run its course?" When is a story in the media done? Can you think of examples in the news where a story seems to have run its course, but is artificially kept alive in the press?

 

A story has 'run its course' when conflict seizes to exist, and there is no discovery. If the story had continued to be perfectly organic, interest would have diminished. People stayed intrigued because of an apparent flaw in character. Jon and Kate Plus 8 would be a great example of a story that is artificially kept alive.

4. In the beginning, Bar-Lev was allowed into the family's home to document a sweet little story about a four-year old child. And then the story began to change...

What sort of responsibility do you think a documentary filmmaker or non-fiction writer has?

Is Bar-Lev just documenting the story? Or is a part of the story; is he helping actually create his own version of the story?

 

 Statistics can be very deceiving at times. Distorting the truth, or omitting important elements of an event can completely change a story. I think it is up to the documentary-maker's discretion, in this case Bar-Lev, to honestly create a piece of work that reflects on his honest opinion of the situation, and to give the public a chance to formulate their own subjective opinion.

5. What did you think of the documentary overall? Did it capture your interest? How did it change the way you perceive how stories are portrayed in the media?

 

I really enjoyed the documentary. It was extremely fascinating. Seeing something like this definitely makes me wonder who and who isn't telling the truth in the media. Or, is anybody telling the truth?

6. The story has now seemingly fallen off into oblivion. The documentary was made in 2007 so what information can you find to add to the story? What has happened since? What are your final feelings/thoughts regarding this story?

 

Apparently, Marla has still been busy with a paint brush. There have been more videos proving the legitimacy of her paintings, however she obviously has not been attracting nearly as much of attention these days. My final thoughts on the story are fairly mixed. I think that the father was probably not completely truthful about everything, but overall had good intentions. The media did what they always do.