response to "my kid could paint that"

Choice C.

I think his reasons behind deciding to make the documentary were because he himself wanted to know if the Marla was a prodigy, or if her parents were doing the work for her. I think that he was sick of not knowing for himself, and not knowing who is telling the truth and who is lying, he wanted to figure out the story himself. But in the end i think it also created more questions for him to sift through. When hes driving in the car and says: "i'd rather be stupid and not know about this kind of stuff" i think he means that he rather be ingnorant and not know about the fraud (if there is one), instead of having the idea that the whole thing is an art scheme. He tells us that in the beginning he believed that Marla was doing it herself so he was blissfully unaware (but also content) that there could be another side to the story where her father was helping her create her artwork.

My kid could paint that seems to me unlike other documentaries that I've seen because it doesn't really answer the question is poses, which is did Marla paint the paintings all by herself or did her father have influence over her art work. In most documentaries that I've seen it is answering something. For example: it maybe answers a question on how a certain animal lives and survives. I found that the fact that it didn't leave us with an answer was a way to let us decide, even if the journalist didn't do it on purpose.