I’m on an art documentary kick, I suppose. I had been waiting some time to see My Kid Could Paint That and finally saw it last week. Then, I took my friend Neville’s advice and watched Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? as an appropriate follow-up. I’m so fascinated and excited that I placed the Oscar-winning biopic Pollock as next on my queue, and am looking to see when we can schedule a visit to the MET or Museum of Modern Art in NYC in the near future.
My Kid Could Paint That is the intriguing and mysterious story of a sweet little four-year-old named Marla who is supposedly a prodigy in abstract painting, making millions for her parents. After an infamous 60-minutes report, though, her “career” takes a turn for the worse. It raises all sorts of really intriguing questions on art, modern art, abstract art, and the art world, not to mention parenting, the power and nature of media, and the human psyche. I found the bonus features just as good as the film itself, with a follow-up documentary capturing reactions and additional commentary, and a really good interview with NY Times art critic Michael Kimmelman. Kimmelman makes excellent points and handles difficult discussions surrounding art very articulately and succinctly. Marla’s still making art (or is she?) and selling it.
Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? is the bizarre mystery of a five dollar painting found at a thrift store by a female truck-driver who didn’t know any better. She bought it as a joke for a friend who needed to be cheered up, but when it didn’t fit through the friend’s door, it found it’s way to a garage sale where a local art teacher planted a thought about it being a Pollock. The most amazing juxtaposition of cultures occurs when this feisty trailer-park trucker barges in on the snobbery of the art world, insisting for ten years straight that this painting was indeed a masterpiece worth fifty million dollars. They, of course, wouldn’t give her the time of day. Is she chasing after a wild dream that simply isn’t true? Do the critics ignore her because of who she is or what the painting is? Is she creating evidence or are they ignoring evidence? It’s full of character who are simply too good to be true. It’s a wild and fun ride, but sadly, leaves you more cynical towards the art world than anything else.
The first is a bit better than the second as far as filmmaking goes, but both are full of intriguing characters and raise their fair share of interesting questions and ideas. They are conversation starters for sure. Watching them back-to-back makes for an interesting experience.
Recent Comments