I'm not much of a movie goer. I've got friends who go to movies on every weekend, while I sometimes don't see even an Oscar winner until I find it on the "pre-viewed movies" shelf at my local movie rental store. It's not that I don't like going to the movies; it's mostly because I'm very stingy with my entertainment dollars.
I had heard that David Brin's book The Postman was being made into a movie. Brin had written three short stories that had been published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, and had combined them into the book. I read the stories, and loved them. The movie should not be confused with the 1994 Academy award winner "Il Postino". "The Postman" tells the story of a drifter who reestablishes the US Postal Service in a post-apocalyptic USA. As communities get pulled back together by communication made possible by the Postman's mailcarriers, they are finally able to deal with bands of marauding white supremacists.
How would such a story translate into film?
Then I heard that Kevin Costner would direct the movie, as well as star in it.
Kevin Costner had already managed to slaughter two stories. "Robin Hood" became remarkable mostly for Costner's butt, and was masterfully parodied by Mel Brooks. (I suppose a movie has to be at least ok for anyone to want to parody it, though Brooks actually took aim at an entire genre of Robin Hood movies.) "Waterworld" was a cinematic disaster: "Mad Max" with boats. How would "The Postman" fare under Costner's egotistical attentions? It didn't look good for Brin's story.
All the same, I had high hopes. So when the movie was finally released, and the critics almost without exception panned it, I was very disappointed. Brin was quoted as saying that the movie was 95% great. (He explained later that he said that mostly to be a good team player.) It all boiled down to me not seeing the movie.
Well, I should know better than to listen to the critics.
I've finally seen the movie. I have to say that for the most part it is a nice piece of work. Brin's story is in there, or about two thirds of it, more or less. Brin's message is in there, convincing and vivid. We are spared Costner's butt, though there are a couple of close calls.
Much of the cast and plot is mired in the kind of clishés that maybe were original almost twenty years ago when Mel Gibson starred in "Mad Max". For example, everyone wears leather gloves with the fingers cut off. And cigarettes are unimaginable wealth. Costner stole these clichés for "Waterworld", and made liberal use of them again in "The Postman".
Where clichés hampered a believable story, Costner's inability to create a sense of time and a sense of place often makes a horrible hash of it. For example, the Postman gets branded by Bethlehem. He seems to escape from Bethlehem on the next day, but in fact the brand seems to have healed, already. The towns that the Postman visits seem to be separated more by the canvas of the movie than by the real distances between the places in the USA that they are supposed to represent.
Costner also loves to indulge himself in setting scenes. For a movie that runs about 160 minutes, a great deal of time is spent on allowing Costner to pose and preen, time that might be better spent on developing the complicated plot, or on overcoming the weaknesses I've described. Why is there that scene of Costner missing that little boy's letter? Why does that scene go on for such a long time, cutting back and forth between Costner, peering back to see what is going on, and the little boy, looking to see if the Postman might come back? What is the point of Costner's cable car ride at the dam, except that it gives him a chance to spend precious seconds showing off his profile, with the wind blowing his hair? The movie is full of scenes like that, and might have been twice as good if they had ended up on the cutting room floor.
Finally, why were so many changes made to Brin's story? Most of the changes served no recognizable purpose at all. The scene during the Postman's escape from Bethlehem is pointless. It derives from nothing, it explains nothing, and it leads to nothing. Even the soldier gets eaten by the lion. Later, the Postman somehow manages to be in the right place to work an ambush on Bethlehem, and again manages to be on the scene when Bethlehem works his executions; how is never explained and encumbers the movie with needless complications. The story that Brin wrote is spare and to the point. Costner would have had his hands full just trying to tell that story, without adding in needless nonsense, and the result would have made a lot more sense if so much of Brin's story hadn't been mutilated. Brin's comment regarding the final script was, "Well, at least it wasn't evil."
However, Costner does know how to act. When Costner acts, the movie does well. The other actors on the set are fully on, all the time. Well, they have to be. In particular, Costner's costar Olivia Williams creates some on-screen moments that are absolutely marvelous. Larenz Tate lends conviction to his role where Costner doesn't have any, and Will Patton is exceptionally evil.
Brin's story is in there, as well. Brin writes of community, of hope, and of the human spirit. Even Costner's ego cannot block out the essence of the story. As "The Postman" was released on the heels of "Starship Troopers" the juxtaposition is particularly appropriate. Heinlein's blaring machismo looks antedeluvian opposite Brin's exposition of human virtues and the real meaning of moral worth. If you manage to overlook the infelicities introduced by Costner, "The Postman" is a very nice movie.