User reviews

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

David Hare's brilliant stage play has been translated beautifully to the screen. The peculiar English trait of natural melancholy radiates throughout this sad exercise of seeing all through the lens of British class consciousness, repression and despair. The color photography, the performances, the stifling framing of the widescreen shots all add to the oppressive beauty of a story about the self-destruction of a preternaturally beautiful woman. Mery Streep has never been better before or since. Hare makes her intellectual acuity a weapon against herself as she sees through all the ghastly pretenses of a corroding Empire. No insight, no beauty of body, no letting go of formality and pretense can save her from herself. Feminism itself is taken to the burning stake as Streep's character thrashes, Hedda Gabbler like, against walls and prohibitions beyond her understanding. Rarely has such condemnation looked so ravishing.

"Plenty" was adapted for the big screen by David Hare from his stage play of the same name. I haven't seen the play. The film is complex. It is also strangely beguiling (primarily due to the riveting performances of its leading stars) but ultimately less than wholly satisfying.

The plot covers a period of twenty years or so after the end of the Second World War. It centres on the life of Susan Traherne (played with subtle brilliance by Meryl Streep), who works in Special Operations in occupied France during the War. While doing so, she has a very brief romantic dalliance with a fellow agent, Lazar (Sam Neill), who parachutes in to assist the resistance against the Nazi occupiers. Their passionate one-night stand (which is all it was) has a deep and lasting impact on Susan, one which essentially haunts her for the rest of her life. A few years after that liaison, Susan meets Raymond Brock (Charles Dance), who works as a junior diplomat in Brussels. He visits her at weekends in post-war London, where she works in a dull administrative job and shares her accommodation with a bohemian girlfriend, Alice (Tracey Ullmann). Desperate to have a child, Susan asks Mick (Sting) to father one with her. Still childless, Susan eventually marries Raymond but her increasingly selfish and neurotic behaviour casts a shadow over his diplomatic career and their marriage.

It's a long time since I have seen a film in which all the performances seem to be so good. Streep, Dance and Ullmann are excellent. And there is a first-rate cameo from John Gielgud, who plays a diplomat who resigns his position because of what he considers to be the betrayal and the immoral behaviour of the British government in response to the Suez crisis of the late 1950s. I say the performances "seem" to be top notch for one very good reason. To be able to judge them accurately, the viewer needs to understand everything that is going on. And I have to confess that I am far from sure that I completely follow exactly what the central message of "Plenty" is. Indeed, the remoteness of the film (in terms of its comprehensibility) is a major weakness. I am not at all sure either that I understand why the film has the title it does. I think what Hare is trying to tell us is that the moral values for which people like Susan fought in the Second World War were eventually corrupted by the materialism (the "plenty"?) and the selfishness that were prevalent in the post-war years. But I am by no means sure that that is the message of the film. I suspect that "Plenty" is one of those movies that yields its meaning gradually and therefore necessitates more than one viewing. (I have seen it only the once.)

There is one other problem with the film, albeit a minor one. Some of the external scenes, particularly those set in London, seem oddly unconvincing. I think this is because they give the impression of being shot inside a studio rather than outdoors. This tends to give them a somewhat theatrical, as opposed to cinematic, air. But, all in all, a good film. 7/10.

Kate Nelligan was brilliant on stage in the leading role of Susan Traherne. She originated the part in the British stage production and then repeated it on Broadway several years later. Nelligan projected great strength early on, so that when her character began falling apart, it was all the more devastating. So it's a shame she didn't get to play the part on screen.

Then again, maybe it's just as well. The movie has fabulous production design and an excellent supporting cast, but it fills in too much for the audience, making things obvious where more ambiguity would have made audiences think more.

Meryl Streep wasn't *bad* in the movie version, but she doesn't "fit," in my mind. That said, she was excellent when she worked again with PLENTY director Fred Schepisi in A CRY IN THE DARK.

Following hot on the heels of her success in "Sophie's Choice" (1982), "Plenty" (1985) would be yet another WW2 picture featuring the notable acting/dialect talents of Meryl Streep.

Striving to hopefully cash in on yet another potential Oscar-caliber performance from Streep, "Plenty" basically came down to being nothing more (or less) than an extended character study by Streep in her role as Susan Traherne.

If you're not much of a Streep fan, then her portrayal of Susan can certainly come across as being quite annoying and, yes, downright exasperating at times.

But, of course, that isn't to say that Streep's "Susan" didn't deliver her fair share of magic moments, 'cause, believe me, she most certainly did. I mean, at least Streep had the guts and gumption to explore, in great depth, her character's less-than-attractive side, without too much reservation.

In my opinion, had "Plenty's" cast not been as rock solid as it was, featuring the likes of Sam Neill, John Gielgud, and Sting, then, I think that this film would've probably just fallen flat on its face.

This is a film where you can get lost, wonderfully lost. Following Susan, the character created on the page by David Hare and on the screen by Meryl Streep, is a journey of gloriously unexpected ups and downs. It may be because the amazing Meryl Streep goes trough the analytic intellect of David Hare with her heart on her sleeve and I felt shattered and moved by the access she provided me into the heart and soul of her own personal labyrinth. To look back with regret and feel that memories of fleeting moments of extraordinary beauty can keep you going and see you through whatever hell fate seems determined to throw your way. Meryl Streep never looked this beautiful and the transparency of her missteps are a magic sweep of the most enthralling kind. Irrationaly sane. Like most of the great bipolar. They know, they've seen through. There is nothing ahead only behind and now it's too bloody late. The stages of Susan's journey, to the after war lands of plenty are framed by her own geniality - the character's and the actress's - Susan is overwhelmed by her own awareness, lonelier and lonelier, Meryl overwhelm us with her own sublime generosity. Fred Schepsi, the extraordinary man at the helm, keeps the puzzle open and clear. Like most works of art, not everyone will be ready to open up to this experience. Pretty frustrating let me tell you. I would love to share this experience with everyone.

In "Plenty" (***1/2). Meryl Streep gives one of her greatest performances in the complex role of "Susan Traherne", an idealistic young Englishwoman whose compulsive need to stir things up comes in conflict with a crippling lack of courage. We follow her life from her days in the French Resistance at the end of World War II to her professional and emotional decline during the 60's. Her key line: "I want to change the world, but I don't know how." The supporting cast, production and direction are superb, and the score by Bruce Smeaton is hauntingly beautiful. The character functions as both a metaphor for postwar England and a real flesh and blood human being, although it's a flaw that we don't learn more about her family background, apparently an upper class one, which might have contributed more to an understanding of her later, often perverse, behavior. The only two people she seems to have in the world are Charles Dance, playing her long-suffering diplomat husband and Tracy Ullmann, wonderful as her free-spirited best friend, probably the kind of person Susan would like to have been if it were not for her "fatal weakness": she likes "losing control." This film has been newly released in its original Panavision dimension on DVD and looks terrific. Seeing it the way it should be seen only enhances my opinion that it's one of the most underrated movies of the 80's.

This has to be the single worst movie I have ever seen. The story is poorly constructed, the acting is dismal, it's simply a waste of time.

Set in post war Europe the story had potential especially with the main character fighting with the affect of working as an undercover agent in the war.

But it never lifts off. The plot is thin, the characters are not convincing and are poorly played. And Streep never acts well at all. Very very disappointing.

I have been wrecking my head for days trying to find out what went wrong here but am afraid I have to give up.

Don't even think about watching it.

This movie is so up itself, I'm convinced it was a parody of a drama that I hadn't seen. At least Sam Neil had the good sense to get in & out of it quickly. (Well played, Sir!) It's an absolute stinker. Makes "Weekend at Bernies" seem like "Citizen Kane."

"Plenty" is a film I watch as often as other people watch "It's A Wonderful Life" or the first "Terminator", yes, I know, I must be a very strange guy. I was a teenager when I saw "Plenty" on stage at the National Theater in London. I remembered the play vividly, Kate Nelligan's performance was sensational. Fred Schepsi's "Plenty" has a totally unique life of its own. We're allowed into Susan's mind and Susan has Meryl Streep's face. Her performance makes her character's intellect visible, cinematic. Intimidating, fascinating, extraordinarily beautiful performance. I think David Hare has written here one of the best female characters I've ever seen and Meryl Streep strips it of every pretense. She can lie even to herself but not to us. It is mesmerizing at times. A ping pong ball going through the character's brain as she listens. Alone, so alone in the world. She never expresses it with words although she, I think, is totally aware of it. The infuriating sense of being incapable to adapt, to belong. Wanting and not wanting. Mesmerizing! As if this wasn't enough, Tracey Ullman, Charles Dance, Sting, Ian McKellen and John Gielgud giving, perhaps one of the best film performances during the final part of of his life I felt rather lonely in my love for this film until I started reading some of the comments posted here and realized I wasn't all alone in the world. Nice to meet you all.

Sorry, following all the rave reviews, but I just found this film confusing and poorly structured. A little more direction as to the time periods would have helped rather than expecting the viewer to have a degree in British history.

Meryl Streep, Tracy Ullman, Charles Dance, Sir John Gielgud and Sting ... now there is a strange mix.

I was moved by this film. I was aware of Kate Nelligan's performance as Susan Traherne in the original stage version, a lusty, glowing former Resistance heroine with a shattered psyche. In the film, Meryl Streep focused on a beautiful, disarming character's inconsistent control of the crazy energy lurking underneath.

Plenty could be re-released today on a double bill with the recently released Brothers. Both show the long-term effects of war, fought overtly and covertly, on combatants and those who love them. It is no secret that the soldier in Brothers wreaks havoc on his family after returning from one tour of duty too many in Iraq. "People with PTSD have persistent frightening thoughts and memories of their ordeal and feel emotionally numb, especially with people they were once close to."

So, one way to view and appreciate Susan Traherne and her effect on her husband, friends and co-workers is from this perspective within the context of their cultures.

This is one film which has grown on me since I saw it on main circuit. It is an intelligent film, which demands a lot of active viewing. Aided with an incisive script by David Hare, it looks at Britain's history from the end of WWII, through to Queen Elizabeth's coronation the Suez Crisis, all counterpointed by the lead character, Susan Treherne (played, in I think one of her best moments, by Meryl Streep.) The film plays on the word "Plenty" and the hope for UK after WWII that there would be plenty - in itself ironic. It is also a study of a woman afflicted by bipolar disorder (manic-depression). This is not the focus of the film; in fact, it is never explicitly stated.... At the time portrayed, psychiatric illness wasn't acknowledged - it tended to be swept under the carpet.

Streep imbues Susan with a dignity, despite her liking to "lose control"; there are excellent performances by Sam Neill (Lazar, her war-time "love"), Tracey Ullman, Sting, Charles Dance (her long-suffering husband) and John Gielgud (as the diplomat who takes the fall for the Suez Crisis.) It's not an easy film, but worth watching and discussing. It must be one of the most underrated films on IMDb.

Do yourself a favour, ACTIVELY engage with this. Don't let this film be overshadowed by Meryl Streep's other films of this time, like the overrated Out of Africa. They don't hold a torch to this film!

Kate Nelligan created the role of Susan Traherne in the original London production and recreated it in New York on Broadway, where I saw her do it. She was a powerhouse in the role and she very much made it her own. It's a great pity that playwright David Hare could not have been loyal to her when it came to making the film.

Meryl Streep can be wonderful when she is well cast, such as in SOPHIE'S CHOICE & OUT OF AFRICA. However, contrary to what some people believe, there is no single actor who can play everything. In spite of Meryl Streep's gifts and impressive range, this is one of her failures. Early in her career she had the unfortunate habit of turning some characters into victims. Her misreading of the titular character in THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN is a case in point. Sarah is not a victim, but a wild spirit acting out against the confines of the Victorian world. Kate Nelligan would have been ideal for Sarah. Unfortunately, that would not be the case.

In PLENTY, Susan Traherne is as much a victim of her own willfulness as she is a victim of circumstances. That was something that Kate Nelligan realized superbly, yet she still retained sympathy. Meryl Streep doesn't quite manage to bring it off. At best, Streep is a pale shadow of Kate Nelligan in the role.

In the 1980's Kate Nelligan was Meryl Streep's only serious competition. It's a great shame there were not ample opportunities for both of them to star in quality material.

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue in intro music**

Tonight's movie review is epic drama Plenty (1985), a film that spans through Britain's history from the end of World War II through to 1960's and follows the life of Susan, played by the queen herself Meryl Streep. Susan is an interesting complex character who has everything in the world yet is never satisfied. It's not confirmed in the film but wouldn't be surprised if the film itself is a narrative of bipolar disorder and depression. It is never explicitly stated and makes you wonder if bipolar and depression was researched during the periods of the 40s till the 60s. The film overall never pulled me and couldn't understand the ups and downs of a person who literally has everything and purposely self-sabotages everything. Great acting my Charles Dance for you Golden Child fans. Streep does well to invite us to her enigmatic heart and soul who seems to be chasing the past which results into her lonely position. But the overall story just didn't grab me. The story of how one person does want to adapt yet is trying to belong and find a role that fulfills their life is cool but the time skips and the filmmakers not clarifying how long each small story arc has passed was annoying. Overall great acting however the story wasn't engaging 5.2/10.