Courtesy of FilmRise
New York City has long held a reputation as a town whose residents are apathetic toward crime. Those perceived attitudes have been depicted in countless films and television programs over the years. The true crime doc, The Witness, traces the origins of the city’s reputation for turning a blind eye to crime back to the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese. After her death, The New York Times reported that 38 witnesses observed her attack and did nothing. As it turns out, the press may not have been entirely accurate or forthright in their reporting. With that in mind, filmmakers James D. Solomon and Jessica Robinson set out to chronicle Kitty’s brother, Bill Genovese’s quest to learn what actually happened on that fateful day versus what was reported by the media.
Sensationalist reporting on Kitty’s murder overshadowed her actual death. The presumption of an apathetic response became the defining detail of her case, and it’s not even an accurate assessment. Fortunately, The Witness gives a more accurate accounting of what happened to Kitty and reclaims her story.
The driving force behind the film is Kitty’s brother, Bill (who gets a writing credit for his voiceover work and serves as an executive producer). Bill functions very much like an unofficial third director. He is central throughout and conducts interviews with key players in the story. He has the calming presence of a seasoned journalist and doesn’t shy away from asking tough questions. In all fairness, he probably should have been credited as a director. From an outsider’s perspective, he appears to be the one pushing the story forward. But even though he didn’t receive credit, he nonetheless left his mark on the film. And it’s better because of his involvement.
Throughout the course of the doc, we hear from those that witnessed the crime. They give firsthand accounts of what really happened, and it’s a lot to take in. One witness (who came to Kitty’s aid) told a reporter that she’d gladly do it all over again. But when the article was published, she was quoted as saying she’d have never gotten involved if she were to repeat the ordeal. Based on accounts like that, it seems as though the news media had an agenda and a story they wanted to tell. In their attempt to tell that story, they were seemingly willing to twist people’s words and flat-out lie. It’s strange to think about. As journalists, we have one primary objective: To tell the truth (especially in reporting the news). So, to think that reporters in 1964 failed so miserably at that one key objective and dealt in sensationalism over facts is rather discouraging.
One witness recalls calling the police, only to be told that they had already received calls about the attack. That stands as a stark contrast to what the media reported. While there’s always the possibility that multiple people profiled in the doc are lying to save face, it seems far more likely that the media came in with a preset agenda and adapted what they were told to fit the narrative they had created.
The New York Times article suggested there were as many as 38 eye witnesses, when in fact, there were as many as 38 ear witnesses. Many of the people aware of the attack heard screaming. But that distinction makes a world of difference. New York is well known to be a noisy city. So, there’s an important distinction between hearing screams and actually watching while someone is attacked. Most city dwellers become at least partially immune to noise. I live a stone’s throw from the MAX train in Portland, and I haven’t consciously noticed it in years. I’ve just grown accustomed to it. I know that’s different from screams. But I have to wonder if maybe some of Kitty’s neighbors unintentionally tuned out her cries as noise pollution. And that actually seems rather likely. Some people profiled in the doc thought they were hearing a drunken lover’s quarrel. And tuning that out is a lot different than deliberately turning a blind eye to murder.
See Also: These Disturbing True Crime Documentaries Are Streaming Now on Netflix
There’s also the important distinction that Kitty disappeared from sight a couple minutes after her attack. So, it wouldn’t have been a stretch for her neighbors to assume she had made her way to safety after disappearing from sight. Should they have checked? Certainly. But her absence may have been enough to convince onlookers she was out of harm’s way.
It’s clear that the general public was deceived by the media, but the deception went deeper than that. Kitty’s own family was too traumatized to go to the trial. So, the majority of the information they got was from the media. On that basis, they had no idea that Kitty died in the arms of a woman that came to her aid. While that doesn’t bring her back, it would have been of great comfort to the Genovese family to know that when she was killed.
This doc is heartbreaking for so many reasons. It’s tragic that Kitty didn’t get the help she needed. And it’s unthinkable that the media may have used her death to sell a narrative that wasn’t entirely accurate. In spite of being hard to watch, however, The Witness is a fascinating profile of an appalling crime and the tragic dissemination of misinformation that followed. If you’re curious to check the film out, you can scope it for free (with ads) on YouTube Movies or via FreeVee.
The Witness won Best Documentary at the Boulder International Film Festival in 2015.
Tags: Dark Documentaries The Witness True Crime
Categorized: Editorials News
