This is almost one of those movies I could almost have reviewed perfectly well without even seeing it. As expected, it raises questions both about the exploitation of the young and of the questionable judgment of the modern art world.

It’s about a little girl, Marla, whose paintings somehow got to the level of success that most professional artists would be envious of. We meet the dealer who discovered her, looking scarily like a drunken fratboy who’s faced a lot of rejection in life simply stoked by the little girl’s popularity, who speaks of her within minutes of our meeting him in undeniably creepy terms: “Marla, when you see her, is a doll ... both [her brother] and Marla could be Gap ads …”

We’re told that four-year-old Marla is “blissfully unaware” of the bally-hoo around her, but even as we hear those words, they’re juxtaposed with the image of her looking around one of her exhibitions confused at why so many people are calling her name.

A journalist involved at the start of the phenomenon says of the guy who ‘discovered’ her, “He framed it to me as a family human interest story.” Another guy talks about Pollock and other works selling for millions not perhaps because of the art itself but because of the story behind the art – which would completely explain the Marla thing, being as it is an interesting story, which explains the movie. It’s one of those issues that just triggers a chain reaction of questions when you ponder it, “the thin line between prodigy and freak,” “it must be art, look what people are paying for it!” “But why do they want it, hmm?” To the evil looking dealer guy’s credit, even he acknowledges this “value of marketing” in the process.

It doesn’t swing me anymore towards the whole outsider/modern art thing … and like, if anything could, you know what I’m gonna say, then it’s a beautiful 4 year old girl. There’s a montage of the paintings towards the end and to me, they just look like the same scribbles you hurry past in the Tate Modern – like, it amazes me how many people in the movie are seen to be demanding proof that little Marla painted them, like, seriously, is it that hard to believe when you look at them? Worst of all, in this montage, and later when we see the dad selling them, the things bear titles. Which is fine when the title is something like “Blue Sun”, but when you get to “Ode to Pollock” and “the triptych”, surely even the most open-minded pseudo-intellectual is gonna go, “Yah-huh? A four-year-old?” How the power of words can sometimes make me sick.

What can I say … it’s interesting, it’s 80 minutes, and a lot of it is a cute four-year-old girl scribbling in her underwear lol. You kind of know whether you’re gonna like/be interested in this kind of movie from the summary, a review is pretty pointless. Like I said, I could’ve pretty much written this without even watching it.

Well, finally, I loved this one so much it went over A Clockwork Orange in my 1971 list and thus shot straight to the top of my favourite movies of all time … kinda knew that’d happen sooner or later. Again, there’s little to say that I haven’t said below or that others haven’t said before, but I noticed a couple of cute things this time around worth mentioning, both of them costume related; the way Harold is dressed exactly the same as the psychiatrist in their first meeting, and the way Maude is dressed almost exactly the same as a little girl walking in the same way as her behind her at one of the early funerals … Maude, though, carrying that bright yellow umbrella that makes her look more like the little girl, lol. It’s just an absolutely beautiful movie I could quote or talk about scenes from for hours. “For me, they will always be glorious birds …” – “Most of life’s sorrow comes from people who are this – but allow themselves to be treated like that …” I probably should’ve saved it for Valentine’s Day … though that’s reserved for Hannibal still this year One day I’ll write a much longer review … for now, just consider it an even higher recommendation, if you’ve not seen it yet, than I gave for Beautiful Girls a few weeks ago.

January 5th, 2006:

I’m surprised by how much I said in my first review of this (below). I really can’t think of much to say about it right now, I need to watch it so many more times. I want to know ths movie by heart. Everything about it is perfect. Its offbeat take on life, death, and love is beyond compare. Maude is one of the greatest movie characters ever.

18th October 2004:

Someone recommended this movie to me a while ago and I already knew about it and knew it was a movie I wanted to see, and after that recommendation, I wanted to see it even more. I don’t know why it took me till now to finally see it.

I was barely even in the right frame of mind to watch it, nevertheless it belongs forever in my top 100 movies of all time. It’s only just at 100 after a first viewing but I just know it’s going to rise and rise. These two characters are people I want to hang with forever. Harold and Maude belongs in that group of movies that just tell you to grab life by the balls. It’s almost terrifying in that aspect, Maude is so free-spirited she would make almost anyone on earth feel somewhat lifeless.

And the soundtrack by Cat Stevens … well, it’s awesome, but more than anything makes me want to hear more Cat Stevens. Why is this soundtrack never uttered in the same breath as Simon and Garfunkel’s The Graduate and Aimee Mann’s Magnolia? I see something of Cameron Crowe’s influence coming from this movie too, I wonder if he’s ever mentioned it on a commentary anywhere – I’m going to have to watch Almost Famous again.

Definitely one of the most romantic movies of all time.