'The Witness' Netflix Review: Another Retelling Of Nickell Murder Case That Misses Its Own Point

The Witness is the third Netflix retelling of the Rachel Nickell murder case, and although it sets out to tell the story from a unique perspective, it ends up missing its own point. First things first, I have become a hater of true-crime documentaries and fictionalized retellings of crimes that have happened in real life. I know that starting a review on this note is considered to be blasphemous, because why is the hater of a genre reviewing a piece of media in that genre? Well, it’s my job, and I was assigned to do it. Like Spider-Noir once said, I don’t pick the ballroom, I just dance. That’s not to say that I never liked this particular ballroom. I have watched stuff like In Cold Blood, Mindhunters, Zodiac, and Memories of Murder and greatly enjoyed it. However, ever since I realized that these retellings of real-life cases were doing more harm than good to the victims, who only wanted to be left alone, my hatred for this genre began. And once the production quality began dropping and everything from podcasts to TV shows started treating these tragedies as soap operas, my disgust for the people who make ’em and the people who enjoy ’em hit the stratosphere. So, yeah, after seeing that Nickell’s gut-wrenching tale had already been milked to death by Netflix via Deceit and The Murder of Rachel Nickell, I didn’t have high hopes from The Witness; and yet, I ended up disappointed.

Created by Rob Williams, with Alex Winckler serving as the director, The Witness is divided into two timelines: the ’90s and the 2000s. In the ’90s, we follow Andre and Alex as they find themselves in the middle of a media frenzy and an intense police investigation into Rachel’s daylight murder. Given how little Alex is the only eye-witness of the brutal crime, it’s important to get the details of that fateful day out of him. The issue is that, since he is a kid, his memory of that murder is patchy, and he hasn’t quite developed the ability to communicate whatever he remembers. They zero-in on a guy called Stagg, whose presence at the crime scene is corroborated by some other people. But the evidence is not strong enough to put him in jail. The situation is further complicated by another heinous murder committed by a dude called Napper, which causes the media trial to spiral out of control. So, Andre decides to take Alex and leave for France so they both don’t lose their minds. The 2000s section of the narrative focuses on an aged Andre and a teenage Alex. They are in Spain and, on the surface, although it seems like both of them have moved on, their actions make it clear that they haven’t. Their internal turmoil is further exacerbated by the reopening of the murder case by a new team of investigators. And while these investigators are sure they’ll be able to prove that Napper is the perpetrator, neither Andre nor Alex is sure if their relationship will survive this rollercoaster ride.

As mentioned earlier, the decision to tell the story from the POV of Andre and Alex is interesting because it sets The Witness apart from every other true crime drama (they usually unfold from the investigators’ perspective) and educates “fans” of this genre about the toll that such investigations take on the family of the victims. I think that the conclusion that it arrives at, where Andre and Alex have a conversation about nature versus nurture, is thought-provoking as well. It’s everything in between that ends up sullying the whole miniseries, because everything that happens in between the first episode and the closing moments of the last episode is like every other movie and show based on a real-life criminal case. And, no, saying that the use of cyclical storytelling is meant to underscore the grueling nature of these kinds of criminal investigations doesn’t really cut it anymore; especially because we’ve seen that done a million times now. Also, as established by the miniseries itself, that’s not the point it’s trying to make. It wants to talk about how this case affected the father and son’s whole dynamic. So, did the crew just forget to shoot any scenes featuring Andre and Alex where they are doing something that isn’t related to the investigation? It’s like promising you are gonna get a burger and then you have 2 slices of bread with no meat, veg, or mayo in the middle; the bread is passable, but it’s not a burger.

From a visual storytelling standpoint, The Witness is competent. The juxtaposition of fictionalized footage with real-life footage is exploitative, but that’s the keyword of the genre at this point, so I can’t complain about it. The production design, costume design, art direction, hair-and-make-up design, set design, and well, everything that you are seeing on screen seem period-accurate. The sound design is solid, but the music compositions are kinda derivative. There aren’t a lot of scenes that stand out though, because when you are making a serious miniseries on a serious topic, I suppose you can’t shoot, edit, and score scenes with an ounce of flair or juice; or else they’re gonna take you out into the backlot and decommission you. The performances from the entire cast are great. Jordan Bolger, Max Fincham, and Jahsaiah Willaims are truly the heart and soul of the miniseries. Neil Maskell, Kevin Eldon, and Paul Chahidi casually give some acting masterclasses. James Bradshaw, James Dryden, Eleanor Williams, and the rest of the supporting cast are absolutely excellent. I just wish everything around them matched up to their acting skills. I understand that true crime dramas aren’t going anywhere; it has become the bread and butter of streaming platforms. But I do believe that if The Witness really focused on that father-son dynamic, it might’ve changed the landscape of this genre. Since it didn’t, I guess we are gonna be stuck recycling the same criminal cases and subjecting the real-life people associated with those cases with new kinds of hell.