decroissance Plenty is one of my top ten favorite movies. It juxtaposes the main character's years as a resistance fighter in WWII with her later life in the frivolous, self-indulgent world of upper-class postwar Britain. She despises this world, and tries to convey her need for meaning to those around her, but they don't understand her emptiness. Everyone around her seems fulfilled with parties, social climbing, amassing wealth, and consuming as much as they can. Streep's character desperately wants society to care about things that actually matter. She falls into despair when it becomes clear that she's alone in her need for meaning.The scene where she throws open the doors and cries, "There's plenty!" sums up the disillusionment, futility and isolation she feels in the midst of people who live for nothing.The movie flashes back to her resistance days in France to illustrate the difference between a world where people risked their lives to stop the Nazis, and a world that has lost any substantive reason for its existence. I related to the character's despair completely.

James Hitchcock Meryl Streep is undoubtedly one of the greatest screen actresses of all time, but I sometimes wish that her talent for acting were matched by a talent for picking the right film. Although she never gives a bad performance, and rarely a mediocre one, she has found herself appearing in some mediocre films. Even in the eighties, probably the best decade of her career, she tended to alternate between the excellent ("The French Lieutenant's Woman", "Sophie's Choice", "Silkwood", "Out of Africa", "A Cry in the Dark") and the not-so-good. A romance between Streep and Robert de Niro, for example, might have seemed like an excellent premise for a film, but "Falling in Love" turned out a great disappointment."Plenty" is another of Streep's less successful ventures from this decade, although this British art-house movie did at least show more ambition than the typically bland Hollywood fare of "Falling in Love". The film is based on a stage play by the left-wing playwright David Hare. Streep plays the main character, Susan Traherne, an upper-class young Englishwoman who during World War II works as an underground courier in Nazi-occupied France. The work is dangerous, but the idealistic Susan, who is firmly convinced that she is fighting for a better world, finds it exhilarating. She has a passionate affair with Lazar, a British agent. There is a key scene, set at the end of the war, where Susan stands on a hilltop in beautiful French countryside, bathed in golden sunlight, and says, "There will be days and days and days like this." That scene on the hill is a flashback- in fact it is the last shot in the film. By this time we have already learnt that the post-war years have turned out to be far less rosy than Susan imagined. Nothing in her peacetime life can ever be as thrilling, or as fulfilling, as her wartime experiences. Her jobs as a shipping clerk and in advertising provide her with no satisfaction. She has an unsatisfactory affair with the working-class Mick and a disastrous marriage to Raymond Brock, a career diplomat. She tries to rekindle her affair with Lazar, but cannot recapture their wartime passion. She always lives under the shadow of depression and mental instability.David Hare wrote about the film that it was called "Plenty" because it depicts the way in which "the years of austerity in the late forties are followed by the years of plenty in the mid-fifties, and it's a recurring feeling in the film that it is money that rots people". This could have been an interesting theme- the contrast between the idealism of the forties and the complacent materialism of the fifties- but it never really comes through in the film. Indeed, some commentators have seen quite the opposite message in the film, which they interpret as showing how wartime hopes of greater material prosperity for the working class were to be disappointed in the fifties. This message, however, does not really come through either. There is not much in the film about either middle-class wealth or working-class poverty; much of the film's most overtly political content concerns the Suez crisis of 1956.There are attempts to draw analogies between the personal lives of the characters and the wider society of which they are a part, but the film is really about Susan and her fragile personality. She comes across as an incredibly selfish and self-centred individual; what worries her is not the state of British society or the lot of the working class but rather the fact that her own life is not as exciting as it once was. The collapse of her marriage to Raymond results from the fact that it is her increasingly eccentric behaviour which has damaged his career and her refusal to live abroad which has prevented him from being offered foreign postings.There are some good acting performances in the film, but they mostly come in cameo roles, such as John Gielgud as Sir Leonard Darwin, the Foreign Office mandarin who resigns over Suez, or Ian McKellen as Sir Andrew Charleson, the urbane and supercilious diplomat who succeeds Darwin as Raymond's superior, or Tracey Ullman as Susan's friend Alice. Streep's own performance is technically good- her English accent is flawless, even better than in "The French Lieutenant's Woman"- but she never succeeds in arousing our sympathy for her self-obsessed character. "Plenty" could have been an interesting study of British society during and after World War II, but ends up as a cold, uninvolving character study of a neurotic woman. 5/10

MusicalMagpie The kid was at a sleepover. Ahhh....for once we could watch a grownup movie. What about that Meryl Streep film I picked up the other day, the one with the glowing accolades on the cover: "one of the greatest performances of her career"... "brilliant"..."fiercely intelligent"... sounds like another "Sophie's Choice"..... but no. It turned out to be a waste of a good evening. After reading many 10-star reviews of this film, I can't help wondering why my husband and I got absolutely nothing out of watching it. It did not engage us in the least. The movie is obviously adapted from a stage play, as the scenes are static and episodic. The transition from one scene to the next is often unclear, as the story jumps ahead in time and moves all over the map. One minute Susan is sharing a cramped flat with her girlfriend; the next minute she is in a comfortable apartment. Now she is dating diplomat Charles Dance. Now she is trying to make a baby with a man she despises - but who bears a marked resemblance to her long-lost airman. But wait - now she is married to Charles Dance. When and why did this happen? (this is not explained until much later in the film).The dinner party scene is awkward and Susan's outbursts (and language) seem out of character. While John Gielgud's performance is delightful (and he has some of the best lines), his relationship with Susan is never really developed - so why is she so upset when he dies? We are great fans of Meryl Streep, but we were puzzled and disappointed by her performance in this film. It was difficult to understand what she was trying to do with her character. Madwoman? Selfish bitch? Disillusioned idealist? Her extreme swings of mood - from passivity to scenery-chewing - were not believable (I do not buy the "bipolar" theory for a minute); nor was her friendship with Tracy Ullman (whose role vacillated between free spirit and wise woman).I found myself longing for "Postcards from the Edge" or "Sophie's Choice" or "Death Becomes Her" or even (God help me) the mess she made of Miranda in "The Devil Wears Prada". At least with these roles you knew where she was going.It has been suggested by several reviewers that the key to liking this film is repeated viewings. Frankly, I am not willing to sacrifice another evening for the experiment.

ptb-8 There is now and has been since 1985 a lot of conjecture as to what this film is about. The reaction I had after I first saw this film was one of the first times I was genuinely depressed after I had seen a film. Depressed by an outside force not from within myself. Women in my family were of the similar age Meryl Streep's character of Susan Traherne...so I asked them how they felt during the war and after. Their candid replies (not prompted by any film discussion either) led me to believe PLENTY was a state of mind, a post war feeling of "winner's feast after survival"...I came quickly to realize Susan Traherne, her men, her lovers, her descent into disillusionment, unhappiness, into madness, irrationality. the realization she had to live with herself and her gauche cruelty, snobbery, foolishness and self deceit... was about Great Britain herself, Susan is the Nation, Brittania. PLENTY is possibly the saddest film I have ever seen, on par with MILLION DOLLAR BABY but for different reasons. I also think Susan represents the women baby boomers in every country had as their Mother, who after taking a deep sunny breath of freedom after struggle found that their family and suburbia was a prison and that post war servitude and struggle was the hell they never reckoned with. PLENTY is a great title for this film of 'the promised land" that turned into a supermarket car park. I never want to see it again. Such is the heartbreaking success of this production. PLENTY is a major achievement in film making and it's emotional reality is absolutely crushing.... like Susan's soul and promise was crushed by post war plainness. THE HOURS goes into the same territory in the 1950s sequences with Julieanne Moore wanting to suicide. Susan's sex scene during the Queen's coronation is the cruelest, most superb observation of the relationship between the Royal family and Britain. PLENTY is a character study and not a popcorn movie. Not all films are 'flicks' as some people demand they be. THE FIGHT CLUB and the effect on 30 year old men of today of the pressures commercial modern living as personified by Ed Norton in his famous "ikea" speech is a good equivalent for today's crushed male soul.