Jim Thompson's novel appeared in '63 but Frears set the story in 1990's reality. I don't have a problem with the dialog that belongs in a '50s movie but at least the monetary values could have been altered.
Myra mentions Roy making 400 a week on the short con, hardly lucrative for such an operation that requires such 'stomach'.
...I am lost, I'm no guide, but I'm by your side...
You're right.
Another goof was Moira's dead body being effectively "identified" as Lilly's.
By the 1990's, this scenario would have involved much more than it did in 1963. From a forensic standpoint, it was too unlikely.
A few additional tweeks to the script could have remedied this without compromising the original twist to the story. IMO.
Good catch. Frears was pretty dogmatic about not changing anything about the original plot I guess. What would you suggest as 'tweeks'?
...I am lost, I'm no guide, but I'm by your side...
The "tweeks" could have been as simple as some additional dialogue between Roy and the agent who escorted him to the morgue.
We already know that this would have remained an open investigation, even after Roy identified the body. The book skirted this by dwelling more on the treasury department's interest in the cash in Lilly's car.
The money seemed beyond Lilly's means and hadn't been claimed in taxes. Roy asks about fingerprints; but Lilly had no police history that would have had her fingerprints on file - and even if she did, the book believibly blows off it's importance. Lilly was a tax-evading suicide, whose suspicious horde of cash made for more of a government matter than a police action. The case is expected to create public interest (this is 1963), and new information when it hits the news; but until then, there are more immediate concerns.
This was all revealed in just two pages of conversation.
The movie's present-day script relied only on the fingerprint mystery (too much so), and offered no other padding to buffer the loose-ends.
A more realistic closure for the film would have had the agent mentioning to Roy that the case was suspicious, was under government investigation, and most importantly - was pending an autopsy report before any conclusions would be made.
Just 30 extra seconds of script for more realism - with no harm done.
This was a new kind of "con" for Lilly and she would have made mistakes.
A subtle reminder of this, IMO, would have made her shaky exit at the end of the movie, even more ominous.
Thnx for the input, sometimes directors feel scenes that run too long should be cut because they dampen the effectiveness of the movie, at this point in the movie we're dying to see the confrontation between Lily and Roy, and a too long scene in between the murder and the confrontation would be bad pacing. The reason it bothers me so much that they did cut it (it was probably filmed, I assume), is because the rest of the movie seems to follow the book very closely, I think most of the dialogue comes right off the page. I haven't read 'the grifters' but, for instance, but the film of 'after dark my sweet' honored it's source in putting huge chunks of dialogue from the book right into the script.
...I am lost, I'm no guide, but I'm by your side...
I'm not sure THE GRIFTERS is set in 1990's reality. At the risk of sounding geekish I thought it was set in a alternate reality because the cars were from the 80's, the 50's dialogue & money values, the job as a matchbook salesman, etc.