MovieChat Forums > The Grifters (1991) Discussion > DNA testing? SPOILERS

DNA testing? SPOILERS

posted 14 years ago by AsaNisiMasa_63
11 replies | jump to latest

I'm not sure how this works, but if the next-of-kin identifies the body, is the case closed for the identity of that person?

Also, the woman who worked in the lobby has seen both women, so knowing this, wouldn't they [including the mob] try to question "Myra" (who's really dead) for the murder. But when they figure out that when there's no trace of her, they'd probably realize that it was actually Myra in the coroner's office, and that Lily's alive.

You would think they'd do some DNA testing, at least, or maybe I've seen too much CSI, lol. And I guess this is pretty trivial because IF all this happened, by that time, Lily would probably be out of the country.

Great movie, btw. Very unexpected plot and characters.

[–] RugGuy 13 years ago

DNA testing was not common in 1990. I'm not even sure the movie is set then or in any real time. The cars are from the 80's. the movie gives the ambiance of the time the book was written, which was in the 1950's

[–] AsaNisiMasa_63 13 years ago

That makes sense. Yeah, I think it is 1950s "version" of a 1980s Los Angeles, since the film is heavily influenced by the classic noir films.

[–] EliKahn 13 years ago

Yes, you HAVE watched too much CSI. The world isn't really like how CSI displays it.
In 1990, DNA tests really weren't that common, or advanced. Also, there was really no reason to do a DNA test on the body found in the motel room.
It looked like a suicide and there wasn't any reason to think otherwise. I'm sure Lily 'staged' it right.
Nor was there any reason to question the other motel guests.

Even today, DNA tests aren't done to determine identity if a person is found dead with I.D. on them and a next of kin identifies the body.
For one, you have to already have the DNA of the person in question. It isn't like you can take someone's DNA and it magically tells you the person's name.
The only things really learned from a DNA test is the person's sex, race, approximate age - all of which Myra and Lilly shared anyway.

Usually, the only test that is performed if someone dies alone is an autopsy.

Lay off CSI, and read more non-fiction. :)

[–] AsaNisiMasa_63 13 years ago

>Lay off CSI, and read more non-fiction. :)

Err...I know that. I only mentioned CSI in my original post because I felt like was I nit-picking. I wasn't taking that claim entirely seriously, but I was offering food for thought for what I thought applied to a film with an arguably recent setting.

Maybe you ought to brush up on how to read sarcasm. Here's a start:

http://tinyurl.com/67xj4n3

[–] EliKahn 13 years ago

arguably recent setting

20 years is recent?

Anyhow, no, your post did read like you were taking your info from shows such as CSI, so for anyone to reply by telling you to not take those shows seriously would be right in doing so.

[–] AsaNisiMasa_63 13 years ago

>20 years is recent?

yes, relative to the age of movies, this definitely isn't what many would call an "old" film, even though it does have some classical noir touches. it takes place in a los angeles that is both modern and recognizable, yet quaint (at least in the cinematic sense; re: noir)

>your post did read like you were taking your info from shows such as CSI

maybe to you, it did. read the line again: when "lol" [laugh-out-loud] is added to a statement, that's internet for speak for: "i'm making a joke" or "don't take this completely seriously." not to mention, you are in no position to patronize someone by telling them to "read more non-fiction."

[–] EliKahn 13 years ago

you are in no position to patronize someone by telling them to "read more non-fiction.

Yes I am, because I had to correct your logic.

maybe to you, it did. read the line again: when "lol" [laugh-out-loud] is added to a statement.

Your entire post implies that you take your information from fictional shows like CSI, even if you had not referenced it - which you did.

"LOL" is nothing but an easy out for people to try to cover themselves by not wanting to appear ignorant to the topic they're discussing.

Meanwhile, my first post to this thread was not criticizing, it was to give you the information you asked for. At this point, you've taken offense to it, so if you don't want to be corrected, don't ask to be corrected.

[–] AsaNisiMasa_63 13 years ago

>Yes I am, because I had to correct your logic.

...you mean the "logic" you assumed I had through your inability to detect sarcasm/self-deprecating humor in text? That one?

>...even if you had not referenced it - which you did.

This follows from^ since I was clearly making a joke; apparently, it went over your head.

>At this point, you've taken offense to it, so if you don't want to be corrected, don't ask to be corrected.

Err...but I wasn't "corrected," since I didn't make an error. You just "assumed" I did (re: how you thought my post "implied"...), and that there was a correction to be made (when there wasn't). If anything, I'm making a "correction" on your part, one of clarification and possibly enlightenment, in that I am "correcting" you regarding what my initial post entailed. Now that we've cleared that up...

Think first before you write.

[–] EliKahn 13 years ago

Err...but I wasn't "corrected," since I didn't make an error. You just "assumed" I did (re: how you thought my post "implied"...), and that there was a correction to be made (when there wasn't). If anything, I'm making a "correction" on your part, one of clarification and possibly enlightenment, in that I am "correcting" you regarding what my initial post entailed. Now that we've cleared that up...

What are you talking about??
You ASKED these questions in your original posts.
Now you're trying to say you were joking and giving sarcasm in your original post questions?

How else can this be implied:

"You would think they'd do some DNA testing, at least, or maybe I've seen too much CSI, lol."

Your entire post leads up to this question. Your thread title is "DNA testing?" for the love of God.

Don't try to double talk me, you only put "lol" to 'cover yourself' from looking ignorant, which you have managed to do anyway. It was never meant to be sarcasm or a joke and you know it. I explained the answer to you after YOU ASKED these question in your first post. If you don't want to appear foolish, don't post foolish questions and then try to pick a fight with a poster who is simply answering your questions. Please, go back to watching CSI and being blissfully ignorant.

[–] briangbrady 13 years ago

A problem with the scene is that when they show the naked body to identify there is obviously a big age difference in the two women. They cant tell by looking at the body that its not an older womans body?

[–] EliKahn 13 years ago

They cant tell by looking at the body that its not an older womans body?

Actually, there wasn't that big of an age difference between Myra and Lilly. Lilly was 38/39 and Myra was in her mid-thirties.