I saw the film when they screened it at the Museum of Fine Arts last spring here in Boston. There were aspects of her parents that I found a little troubling, but on the whole, I think they saw her for the very good artist that she was, and that they loved her, but weren't able to recognize that she might have issues with depression.
Her work feels mature for her age, but it still feels like student work to me. I think she was a bit more intense and prolific than many art students, and I suspect that had she lived, she might have become a great fashion photographer. It's a shame that all we have is her student work, but I think it shows more potential than what most student work reveals, and it's rare, I think, to find someone this young making work as interesting as she was. Photography doesn't seem to lend itself to prodigies, but she's about as close to it as possible.
I agree that her work was mature for her age, though I'm still on the fence about it. Of course, her life was art for better or worse and it's not surprising that her work and ideas excelled that of her fellow students - who probably came from mostly normal middle class families. What is surprising is that growing up in a family concerned with traditional art, she levitated towards photography. I can't think of another photographer who received such a disciplined art life from such a young age.
Her work presents such great loneliness and sadness, and the photos of her merging with her surroundings make me think she was severely neglected as a child. The quote from her mother about how she (the mother) would hate anyone she lived with who did not invest the same time into art as her was so sad and revealing. Poor child never had a chance and obviously had great talent.
I see she is featured today on http://www.artdaily.com/