I'm a big fan of both the novel and the film. I thought Annette Bening and John Cusack were chosen perfectly for their roles, and I can't imagine anyone doing them better. But Angelica Huston should NOT have been cast as Roy's mother, Lilly. She just didn't seem right for the character, and not to be shallow, isn't really pretty enough to be the hidden apple of Roy's eye - because in the novel, she's described as a tragically beautiful woman.
I totally, ultimately disagree with the poster of this thread!
Anjelica IS the perfect "tragically beautiful woman". Bravo to the one who cast her as lily! Like most will agree, she had, by far, the strongest performance in this film!! I love this film so much
Kudos, miu fiddlemiu. The casting was brilliant. I've seen these awsome actors in a hundred great roles since "The Grifters", but Roy, Moira and Lily will always stand out.
what...a dumb ass! Anjelica was PERFECT!!! Are u insane?? She was nominated for an oscar for her performance in the movie! And it got robbed by Kathy Bates.
She's a good actress, and she did a terrific job. But she didn't fit the character. She actually was miscast. I'm not saying that she did a bad job - the two points aren't necessarily the same.
We're being told throughout the movie that she's beautiful, and people are confusing her with Myra. WTF. She looked nothing like Myra, and looked old. And no young guy like Roy is going to be confused enough by her to be seduced by her.
Right On Illiterate!! But her best performance IMO will always be the one in "The Witches" Its worth watching just to see her performe the Grand High Witch
But, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong here. Paul Giamatti is probably a better actor than Brad Pitt - but he's not going to get some of the roles that go to Pitt.
Huston is a good actress and her performance was excellent. But, obviously just my opinion - the part was meant for a younger looking actress.
Yes, Huston nailed her performance, but maybe Whoopie Goldberg could've too. So do you think that she would've been ok as Lilly?
Just because you think she's ugly, doesn't mean that most people do to. I for one think she's absolutely gorgeous. She has this stone cold kind of beauty, that fits just right for the part. They could have kept her black hair though, it would made her look even better or a darker shade of blond, or straight hair... the hair is not great, but she is far from ugly...
I'll stand by what I said. She didn't fit the part. She acted the hell out of it, but she was not young looking enough for the role. Roy was early 20's - he wasn't going to be sexually charged and confused by this old hag.
Nikon,I respect your point but you are WAY wrong. I can't think of any other actress with great acting chops at that time 1989-90 who could've done that role better. You needed the contrast between the two different types of sexual women in that film for Cusack to have been drawn to both. Bening represents the Monroe-ditsy-girly-feigning innocence pretty sexual woman and Huston represents a manipulative, experienced, predatory albeit vulnerable sexual woman in her prime. I watched this film again last night after 10 years or so and it still stands as one of the greatest film noirs in 40 years, definitely one of the best of the 1990s but I find it should have been Cusack who was miscast. I like John Cusack- he has been in some good films and can actually act and has a certain style that suits. He SUITS the role in a way but he doesn't suit the interplay/dynamic with Huston. He looks too young and although he is supposed to be young he looks to prep-school//Harvard-ish whereas an actor like Jason Patric say -who was making film-noir-ish films in the very early 90s- is Cusack's age but has a rugged-been around the block and on the street vibe to him/. Either Jason Patric or say Gary Oldman would've been more suited to Cusack's role- fresh enough faced at the time but with a darker, street-wise grubbiness to them. Cusack's good and he did work well with Huston but I don't buy him as a street-wise devious thinking son to Huston. Also I don't think HE is good looking enough to be believable as an object of desire to Bening. Anjelica Huston isn't beautiful in the conventional sense but she has a real enigma, and dark desire and sexual pulse that fits that whole world.
Trade- phenodihydrochloride benzelex Street- the embalmer
I've avoided this thread mostly because I have no qualms whatsoever with Huston as Lilly Dillon, and that how she looks in the film... well, that's a matter of opinion that I can see from all sides. Personally, I think the problem is with the blond wig they put her in. The style suits the character, but it worked against Anjelica's natural looks. Huston is a smokey beauty best suited for darker, longer hair. It seems trivial, but Huston has one of those faces where the hair makes a big difference. At the The Grifters' premiere in Hollywood, the real life Huston was photographed looking much more beautiful and "Lillyesque" than she did in the film. Benning was also a long haired brunette before being remade as Moira. If the film had worked more with what they already had - Lilly and Moira may have blended better and looked more like they were described in the book.
On the other hand - for me, the blonded-up Huston had a singular, artificial sexuality that suited the film's version of Lilly perfectly. So, who's to say.
Ok, I'm in the minority here, then. As I said before, my problem is that Lilly is being talked about as being hot, and is also being confused with Myra. That's it.
Don't try to tell me that you looked at Huston and in any way thought her similar to the cute and spunky Bening. So, with part of the plot being their similarities, and also Roy being sexually manipulated by both of them (also part of them supposedly being similar), it just doesn't work completely.
Sure, I love this film, and I accept it, even with the out-of-place casting (my opinion only, I guess). After watching it a bunch of times, yeah, I realise what's going on - but I know that on the first viewing, that I didn't get why everyone's confusing the two of them - right up to the twist, with Myra's body in place of Lilly's.
I don't think you're necessarily in the minority, Nikon. A few on this thread have been a bit harsh on Huston - so some are going to be on her defensive, that's all. Twenty years ago when it premiered, "The Grifters" was well reviewed and considered an acting coupe for each of it's leading stars. However, the physical dissimilarity between Huston and Bening was not lost either. In fact many reviewers pointed out that it was a distraction.
"Don't try to tell me that you looked at Huston and in any way thought her similar to the cute and spunky Bening?" No I didn't. Bening's playful sexuality had a vigor that could barely be contained. She was a true sex kitten. A sharp contrast to Huston's icy, highfalutin broad. Does it make a difference? They're still very much alike in their views and motives. As I said, I see the "issue" from all sides.
Here's the telling quote from Jim Thompson's book, I just googled it - it's Lilly from Roy's point of view. From this we can see that maybe the movie got some of it right, and maybe some of it wrong. Each be their own judge:
"She didn't seem to have aged a year in the seven since he'd last seen her. He was twenty-five, now, which meant that she was crowding thirty-nine. But she appeared to be in her very early thirties, say about thirty-one or -two. She looked like ...like... Why, of course! Moira Langtry! That was who she reminded him of. You couldn't say that they actually looked like each other; they were both brunettes and about the same size, but there was absolutely no facial resemblance. It was more a type similarity than a personal one. They were both members of the same flock; women who knew just what it took to preserve and enhance their natural attractiveness. Women who were either endowed with what it took, or spared no effort in getting it."
Of course the movie wanted to put it's own spin on how these two women looked, but both versions of the story still come down to this one paragraph. They were largely the same woman... regardless of the differences.
All 3 actors were phenomenal in their parts, but yeah, if you go by the book, Lilly's character gives off a different vibe from the one created by Huston.
It's true. An interesting comparison is that Thompson's Lilly, at times, comes off as being warmer and more down-to-earth than Huston's Lilly in the film. And yet - in the end (no spoilers here), it's Huston's Lilly that is most shattered by what happens. And we suspect that the final outcome was more of an accident. Whereas in the book... Well... Lilly is badly shaken, but she recovers quickly. The colder, harder Lilly we see in the film will likely never recover.