‘The Life of Chuck’ Review: A Charming Cosmic Study of the Human Spirit [TIFF 2024]
novelist Stephen King and director Mike Flanagan are both maestros of horror, but ‘The Life of Chuck’ shows the tremendous sensitivity both men have towards life, love and humanity.
When describing the premise of ‘The Life of Chuck’, it isn’t difficult to gravitate towards the first act of the film. The story opens in what is essentially the final days of, well, us. The earth is burning, California has fallen into the Pacific, Germany has inexplicable volcanoes erupting everywhere, the bees are extinct, suicides are at an all time high, and most frightening… the internet is down. So far, it certainly sounds like a Stephen King project, in fact, fans of King might think they’ve read or seen it before in The Stand.
But while The Stand focussed on the supernatural aspect of a global pandemic, becoming a biblical allegory for good vs evil, King decided that ‘The Life of Chuck’, based on a short story of the same name, should predominantly focus on just the good. The film, written and directed by Mike Flanagan, is the same life affirming fable, a movie that dips into darkness, but never forgets the beams of optimism that shine down on us throughout our lives. Flanagan addressed the crowd before the TIFF screening, mentioning that hope was difficult to find during the pandemic, which is when he first read King’s novella, and how the scary situation we were all facing helped the auteur resonate with ‘Chuck’ deeply.
Felicia (Karen Gillan) sits beneath a projection of the mysterious ‘Chuck’ (Hiddleston)
In the first act, where this apocalyptic scenario is slowly unraveled, Flanagan proves once again just how strong a writer he is. Granted, he’s adapting the work of King, who many consider to be fairly good at the art in his own right, but Flanagan has proven this time and time again. He has an almost supernatural ability to make the audiences feel exactly what he wants them to feel. Oftentimes that might be dread, despair or danger in his previous series Midnight Mass or The Fall of the House of Usher, or his severely underrated Doctor Sleep, also adapted from a King work. These works are not simply scary, they are at times tragic, funny, sad, hopeful, and often emotionally devastating. His work resonates with you on a deep level, not only getting you to think about the hidden thematic threads, but it stays burrowed into your heart for one reason or another.
Flanagan does this with the help of the characters that he creates. Yes, they might be fictional, yes, they might live in a world where supernatural occurrences happen and logic has no place, but you almost always connect with them. You care about them. The characters in Chuck are no exception.
The central figure of Chuck, for much of the film, is like a hug from a stranger, a welcome enigma that at times might be disconcerting, but comes from a place of warmth. Chuck is portrayed by several actors in the film at different ages, but most notably in his mature years by Tom Hiddleston. Hiddleston, much like the story itself, is equal parts mystery and Mr. Rogers, and the actor, who has walked that line before in some of his past roles, deftly walks it again. Hiddleston gives the audience an anchor, which is at times welcome in a film that doesn’t confine itself to genre or chronological narrative.
Like all of Flanagan’s work, one of Chuck’s greatest strengths is its ensemble. Hiddleston is the bedrock in a cast that includes massive stars such as Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Mark Hamil, young phenom Jacob Trembley and Ferris Bueller’s Mia Sara. Some of the other notable performers are not necessarily household names, but are part of that same recognizable troupe Flanagan trusts. Carl Lumbly, Samantha Sloyan, Rahul Kohli, and Flanagan’s partner in life and creativity, Katie Siegel all return to round out a tremendous cast (and that’s not even mentioning some of the recognizable names and faces that make mere cameos in this film).
Flanagan always seems to get tremendous performances out of his actors, but it is perhaps a larger testament to his writing than his directing. No character, regardless of the amount of lines they may have, can ever be considered a simple one-dimensional caricature, or throw away plot device. These all seem like real people, even if they’re on the screening for a fleeting moment. Sometimes you hate them, sometimes you love them, but in a film that is trying to remind you of the strange little peccadillos in life, the people we bump into often affect us in ways we don’t realize. That’s what this film conveys so well.
Sam (Carl Lumbly) left, shakes hands with Marty (Ejiofor)
One has to look no further than Flanagan gravitating towards the great Carl Lumbly of late. Lumbly has been a part of the Flan-clan since Doctor Sleep in 2019 where he invoked the spirit of Scatman Crothers’ Dick Halloran. This writer has been a fan of Lumbly’s work since childhood when he voiced The Martian Manhunter in the animated Justice League series, and in Chuck, now his third project with Flanagan, he brings that same veteran experience to the screen. Flanagan often requires Lumbly to ground the fantastical fictional worlds the director creates, and Lumbly can do that like no other.
Almost every other name mentioned has also worked with Flanagan before, and it not only shows the trust Flanagan has in these actors, but just how strong the understanding is. Flanagan once again commands his troops with precision, as no role overpowers another, and everyone knows exactly what they need to do. They all have a chance to shine, giving the audience something profound to ponder, spouting that Flanagan brand of anecdotal philosophy that seems both universally erudite and yet entirely natural. A true ensemble, where everyone is on the same page, where no one feels shoehorned or forced is a feat that few people can accomplish, and yet Flanagan is an absolute virtuoso in that respect.
Yet Flanagan is proving to be more and more a well-rounded artist, and one of the truly enjoyable aspects of Chuck is that it focuses on a character who loves to lose himself in the arts. This was undoubtedly a specific tidbit that both King and Flanagan wanted to touch on, and every time Chuck dances, it is a ray of pure movie-going sunshine. Fans will enjoy the first time they see Chuck dance, as it’s impromptu and effervescent, and great jolt of joy. Hiddleston taps and swings his way into the audience’s collective hearts, easily making the collective grins of the crowd smile at the same time. The young Chucks, Cody Flanagan, Benjamin Pajak and ‘seasoned vet’ Jacob Trembley all share in that ability to make you smile, and Pajak specifically had the lion’s share of dance sequences as Chuck was growing up, and his sense of joy is just as palpable.
If you haven’t read the short story, it is best to go into this film not truly knowing what the ‘big reveal’ is. All that you truly need to know is that Chuck, this quirky yet enigmatic Everyman who you might walk right past without a second look is, as mentioned, the anchor being. Getting to see him evolve and see him at different stages in his life is perhaps the purist plum of charm within the film. The character, over the span of his life goes from God-like tempest to nervous middle-school pubescent, and yet put it all together, along with the supporting performances of the characters in Chuck’s life, and you have a strange but charming cosmic study of the human spirit.