The Life of Chuck is not the type of Stephen King adaptation you would expect, especially coming from horror aficionado Mike Flanagan. It’s an unusual film all-around, shot in reverse chronological order and with fantastical elements to it as well. And yet it somehow mostly works; despite some unevenness, it is filled to the brim with emotional resonance, some inspired dancing sequences, and some fine acting from its talented cast. It’s a worthy adaptation for this now famous writing/directing duo.
The Past is the Future
The first act of The Life of Chuck, which is actually act 3, is set in a strange apocalyptic world. Earthquakes are eating away at California, internet and electricity has been lost, and there is overall a feeling of doom. It mainly focuses on Marty Anderson (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and his ex-wife Felicia Gordon (Karen Gillan), who attempt to reconcile before the end of the world. Oddly, a recurring poster and advertisement also appears in this segment, which simply says: “Charles Krantz: 39 Great Years! Thanks, Chuck” along with a picture of Chuck (played by Tom Hiddleston).
The next two acts concern Chuck himself. First, we see him in an extended dance sequence, in which an older Chuck passes by a drummer on the street and gets caught up in the rhythm of the beat. Finally, we see Chuck’s life growing up with his grandparents, and we see where he gained his love of dance and eventual career as an acountant.
Uneven Series of Vignettes
Altogether, The Life of Chuck is admittedly confusing if you don’t know the actual background of what is happening, which for spoiler reasons I won’t get into. Having read the novella this is based on, I knew the background, but even then it is still confusing. The line that is often repeated in the film is a quote from Song of Myself by Walt Whitman, which contains the line “I contain multitudes.” This is a major clue as to what is happening, but it doesn’t fully explain it.
What really feels off about this adaptation, though, is that even if it is faithful to the story, it is often at odds with itself. The film has profound messages about the power of memory, the importance of the people in our lives, and the oft-repeated question of just what the point of all of this is. Yet, the entire first sequence doesn’t even focus on our main character, instead being more fantastical in nature. Once you learn what’s happening, it is hard to make sense of it. And even the second part doesn’t develop Chuck as a character (although it does show some very fancy dance moves). As a result, by the film’s conclusion, it isn’t quite as emotionally resonant as it had the potential to be. Too much time is spent on the fantasy sequences, and not enough on allowing us to become attached to our title character and where his life eventually leads to.
The Power of Dance
In individual moments, though, The Life of Chuck can be a joy. A highlight is the aforementioned dance sequence, in which Tom Hiddleston‘s character, fully dressed up in a business suit, just starts dancing to the beats of a street drummer. Soon, he is surrounded by a crowd, and he then asks a girl on the side to join him. The result is an ecstatic sequence of dancing, edited and shot in such a fluid way that it feels as if we are there in the audience with them. It’s hard not to get caught up in the sheer energy of it.
When Chuck is younger (played by Cody Flanagan, Benjamin Pajak, and Jacob Tremblay at various ages), we see where he caught the fever of dancing, from his grandmother (played by the delightful Mia Sara). And even though his grandfather (played by Mark Hamill) tries to disuade him from it, he can’t help but love the art of dance all the same. A highlight in this section is a dance sequence at a prom, which almost equals the previous one in its kinetic vigor.
Flanagan Features
Besides dance, The Life of Chuck also has some typical Mike Flanagan elements. It has some of his favorite actors in varying supprting roles, including Samantha Sloyan as a dance teacher, Rahul Kohli as a hospital worker, and Kate Siegel as a teacher. It also, in fitting fashion, has some slight horror elements, such as a locked haunted room in the attic of the house where Chuck grew up. Occasionally, Flanagan will also embellish the film with some of his trademark monologues, such as that spoken by Mark Hamill‘s character discussing math or Siegel‘s teacher discussing the meaning of the phrase “I contain multitudes.” It’s occasionally a bit heavy-handed, but these types of aspects firmly place the film in the Mike Flanagan ouvre.
The performances in The Life of Chuck are easily a highlight as well. Though Hiddleston is not in the film for nearly long enough, he still strikes quite an impact. I mean, who knew that he could move like that? Benjamin Pajak is also a standout as the younger Chuck. Fittingly, the young actor is a professional Broadway actor, which fits in well with the advanced types of dancing that the character does. Hamill also has some good moments here, and is almost unrecognizable in the role of Chuck’s grandfather, exuding charisma as well as some clear aching sadness due to circumstances in the character’s life.
Conclusion:
To conclude, The Life of Chuck is a fine example of how to subert expectations with a Stephen King adaptation. From Mike Flanagan, who to me can do no wrong, he has shown that he has the chops for drama/fantasy in addition to the horror genre that he is more known for. The overall takeaway of the film is maybe not as profound as it could be given the film’s haphazardly constructed narrative, yet it still has enough in here to recommend. It’s a movie that contains multitudes.
What are your thoughts on The Life of Chuck? Are you a fan of Mike Flanagan’s Stephen King adaptations?
The Life of Chuck is now playing in theaters.
Does content like this matter to you?
Become a Member and support film journalism. Unlock access to all of Film Inquiry`s great articles. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about cinema - get access to our private members Network, give back to independent filmmakers, and more.