Recent advances in multimodal models show remarkable performance in real-world benchmarks for chart and figure understanding like ChartQA that involve interpreting trends, comparing data points, and extracting insights from visuals.In this paper, we investigate the extent to which these models truly comprehend the underlying information in charts by posing direct, elementary questions about simple features such as axes ranges and values to examine their fundamental visual understanding abilities in the context of charts.Our questions are applied to two sets of figures: synthetic and real-world.The empirical evaluation of 5 popular multimodal models on our dataset reveals shortfalls in understanding charts and figures, contrary to what their performance on complex benchmarks might suggest.For instance, Gemini Pro Vision only achieves 57.9% accuracy on our elementary set of questions on real-world plots, while other popular multimodal models showed similar or less performance.This work highlights an important limitation of current multimodal models, and cautions against overly optimistic interpretations of their abilities based on results of canonical evaluations.