After the episode airs, the demands for Marla’s paintings diminish. Those who had already purchased the paintings demand reassurance about their art. Hate e-mail pours in. One actually reads, “You guys are very clever. Way to make good upper-class people seem like idiots.” The parents are reduced to their normal selves, but Marla keeps on painting. Though she eventually sells another painting, and another one at the age of six, public sentiment remains goes unchanged: she’s a hack.

That the film can stretch a simple story – a girl fools around with paint, she becomes famous; she falls from grace – and still make it entertaining is quite an accomplishment. Unfortunately, because modern art is so polarizing, there aren’t many grey areas that the film can explore. It makes an attempt to show the damage a child’s sudden fame can inflict upon a family. But while we hear the parents lamenting about how they corrupted their child and a reporter asks the interviewer, “Isn’t a child entitled to a childhood?”, we don’t really see anything wrong with little Marla. It would be one thing if the film acknowledged that fact, but it only focuses on skeptical point of views; as a result, their laments fall upon deaf ears. However, we do see the alienation of Marla’s little brother; perhaps feeling left out as his parents seem obsessed with his little sister, he seems to try to squeeze his way into every frame. And it’s touching to see Marla try to include him.

My Kid Could Paint That takes an interesting look at modern art, and it would be perhaps more interesting for those who are skeptical. People labeled Marla a prodigy for her creations; they called her a fraud after seeing her simply playing with paint in her diapers. Here’s my question: how did they think Marla painted before “60 Minutes”?

Movie Grade: B+

Synopsis:

A look at the work and surprising success of a four-year-old girl whose paintings have been compared to the likes of Picasso and has raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars.