Sorry but here it goes

You should be ashamed of yourself for writing this offensive remark.

I have no idea why you watched this film if you thought the incident wasn't worth a documentary.

I thought the reenactment was harrowing and gave the audience a better sense of what happened. The purpose was for Bill and us to see who could have heard the screams.

You are a wacko.

The reenactment was heart wrenching. Bill needed "closure" and he stated that himself. He got it. He also said that Kitty would want him to move on. He has. Anyone with any empathy could see that. Anyone who cannot realize that is the one who is SICK.

I remember learning about this case in high school (some 20 years ago) and have seen it referenced often. It's the prime example used when discussing the bystander effect in most sociology books. So I wouldn't be dismissive of the case because you haven't heard of it.

That being said, I too found the reenactment to be in poor taste. However, this documentary was as much about his obsession and failure to find closure as it was about Kitty's death.

I found the doc interesting. I never had heard of this case before. I don't know why but Bill never really connected with me in a sense that I felt really bad for him. He came across kind of cold. Not a bad person just cold. I don't think his emotions really ever come through like say his brother at the dinner table who is obviously having difficulty understanding why Bill is doing is. In that moment I felt for the brother. But I never had that same feeling for Bill and the fact that his sister's death was eating away at him all these years.

But I also found the reenactment at the end unecessary and a little oft putting. It felt like something producers come up with when they feel they don't have a real knockout for the ending. Didn't feel truthful at all.

My two cents. Doesn't bother me if you don't agree.

"Never heard of this case..." Well, it was an extremely well-publicized case at the time - and people who didn't live anywhere near NYC knew about it. The reason being: The tomes were changing, and it seemed like society and culture were becoming increasingly cold and self-centered. The perceived apathy of the part of Kitty's neighbors to save her seemed to crystallize the mood of the era, and the media played up that angle to maximum effect. Actually, this documentary explains all that. There are lots of things we can say we've "never heard about" but it doesn't mean they aren't worth knowing about.

I don't believe anything I said was bad... That was the reaction I felt. And you have yours. Having a girl doing that in out in public to reenact that for a movie like his family I thought was a bit much. And his 50 year obsession.

"I never heard of this case and frankly it happens every freaking day"

Okay, not for nothing, but if you never heard of the case, you really have no sense of the incident's cultural impact. It's still studied in college sociology courses, several books were written about the incident, New Yorkers still talk about it, and the "Genovese Syndrome" was named after the victim. So no, this doesn't "happen every freaking day." It's amazing that you think that your lack of familiarity with the case automatically qualifies the incident us unimportant and mundane. Self-absorbed much?


Screws fall out all of the time. The world's an imperfect place.

The guy couldn't find closure. He felt that he needed it. He went to great lengths to find it. The reenactment was just gut wrenching to watch. At the same time, I felt for this poor man.
My theory is that 50 years ago, these things were not talked about, never discussed. So the witnesses ignored the crime and Bill never got the chance to heal. He couldn't ask, there were no answers.