If I took an idea away from The Tillman Story, it would be Rich Tillman's quote from his brother Pat's funeral:
"Pat isn't with God. He's f*cking dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f*cking dead."
When Rich spoke at his brother's service, he was frustrated to a breaking point. It was too much for him to stand complacently by while speaker after speaker aggrandized Pat, painting him with the colors of their own beliefs. It was the purest statement of The Tillman Story.
In Amir Bar-Lev's directorial follow up to the venerable documentary My Kid Could Paint That, he tackles a much different beast. Pat Tillman, for anyone in need of a refresher, was an NFL star who gave up a multimillion-dollar contract to enlist in the Army with his brother in June 2002. He was killed on April 22, 2004. With two sweeping thru-lines,...
"Pat isn't with God. He's f*cking dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f*cking dead."
When Rich spoke at his brother's service, he was frustrated to a breaking point. It was too much for him to stand complacently by while speaker after speaker aggrandized Pat, painting him with the colors of their own beliefs. It was the purest statement of The Tillman Story.
In Amir Bar-Lev's directorial follow up to the venerable documentary My Kid Could Paint That, he tackles a much different beast. Pat Tillman, for anyone in need of a refresher, was an NFL star who gave up a multimillion-dollar contract to enlist in the Army with his brother in June 2002. He was killed on April 22, 2004. With two sweeping thru-lines,...
- 8/20/2010
- UGO Movies
This review was written for the festival screening of "My Kid Could Paint That".
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
- 1/25/2007
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
- 1/25/2007
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
- 1/25/2007
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
IFC First Take
Anyone who has seen any of Matthew Barney's surreal "Cremaster" films will undoubtedly be intrigued as to what exactly makes this singular avant-garde artist tick. Alison Chernick's documentary attempts to provide some much-needed insight, combining a biographical and artistic portrait of the provocateur with behind-the-scenes footage of the creation of his latest film, "Drawing Restraint 9". While not as balanced or fully satisfying as it should be, "Matthew Barney: No Restraint" will fit naturally as a pairing for future theatrical and DVD exposures of Barney's controversial works.
The main focus of the documentary is Barney's efforts to shoot his outlandish opus, in which he co-stars with Bjork, about a couple who are transformed into whales on a working Japanese whaling vessel. An elaborate production that involved, among many other bizarre aspects, about 45,000 pounds of petroleum jelly, the project necessitated the help of the bemused crew, who, though they have no idea what they're getting involved with, cooperate in good-natured fashion.
While the artist's commitment and passion for his work is clearly evident in these segments, they add up to little more than the routine sort of behind-the-scenes footage now standard in DVD releases.
More informative is the film's tracing of Barney's career as a visual artist and filmmaker, as well as his background in athletics and modeling. Included are film clips from his cinematic efforts and interviews with such subjects as Bjork, his artistic collaborator and real-life partner; New York Times critic Michael Kimmelman, an unabashed fan; and gallery owner Barbara Gladstone, who championed his work early on. Critical comments, needless to say, are few and far between.
Anyone who has seen any of Matthew Barney's surreal "Cremaster" films will undoubtedly be intrigued as to what exactly makes this singular avant-garde artist tick. Alison Chernick's documentary attempts to provide some much-needed insight, combining a biographical and artistic portrait of the provocateur with behind-the-scenes footage of the creation of his latest film, "Drawing Restraint 9". While not as balanced or fully satisfying as it should be, "Matthew Barney: No Restraint" will fit naturally as a pairing for future theatrical and DVD exposures of Barney's controversial works.
The main focus of the documentary is Barney's efforts to shoot his outlandish opus, in which he co-stars with Bjork, about a couple who are transformed into whales on a working Japanese whaling vessel. An elaborate production that involved, among many other bizarre aspects, about 45,000 pounds of petroleum jelly, the project necessitated the help of the bemused crew, who, though they have no idea what they're getting involved with, cooperate in good-natured fashion.
While the artist's commitment and passion for his work is clearly evident in these segments, they add up to little more than the routine sort of behind-the-scenes footage now standard in DVD releases.
More informative is the film's tracing of Barney's career as a visual artist and filmmaker, as well as his background in athletics and modeling. Included are film clips from his cinematic efforts and interviews with such subjects as Bjork, his artistic collaborator and real-life partner; New York Times critic Michael Kimmelman, an unabashed fan; and gallery owner Barbara Gladstone, who championed his work early on. Critical comments, needless to say, are few and far between.
- 12/28/2006
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.