By Drew Dietsch
| Published
It’s a basic whiteboy dork sentiment but I have to own it: Stephen King is my favorite author. No other writer of fiction captures my imagination and my emotions like that doofus from Maine. When he hits the right notes, there is a cosmic truth and power unmatched by any other storyteller of my lifetime.
Since I’m also a deviant movie nerd, I’m always anticipating the next major Stephen King adaptation, but I also have not kept up with his bibliography. Case in point: when it was announced that Mike Flanagan was adapting “The Life of Chuck”, I wasn’t familiar with that short story. Instead of tracking it down, I decided I wanted to stay ignorant of the plot and see the movie as blind as I possibly could. I didn’t watch any trailers and only absorbed a tiny bit of marketing images.
By the time I was finished with The Life of Chuck, I was a weeping mess and ready to once again avow my love for Stephen King.
The Life of Chuck Is a Story You Should Discover
I don’t know how much of the plot for The Life of Chuck was revealed in the marketing, so I’m hesitant to reveal too much in this regard. Not knowing about the movie made its first act a complete curveball. I don’t think it’s too revealing that the story does get into the life of Charles Krantz, played by a few different actors over the course of the character’s life.
Outside of that, I think I’m gonna shut up about the story. You can find that information either in the original Stephen King short story or summarized elsewhere. I’m less interested in picking apart the story and digging into the spirit of The Life of Chuck.
Mike Flanagan and Stephen King
Mike Flanagan directs The Life of Chuck as well as adapting King’s story for the screen. There’s no doubt Flanagan and King have found a cosmic philosophy through-line in their shared writings. Much of The Life of Chuck is about the vast, seemingly infinite wonder of the universe and its relationship to the smallness of human existence. There is a profound focus on death and its place in the machination of life. The same conversations are being had in The Haunting of Hill House and Midnight Mass (still Flanagan’s magnum opus).
In a lot of ways, Flanagan is best at hooking King’s best inclinations and aspirations at their core. That’s one reason why his adaptation of Doctor Sleep was seen by a not-insignificant number of fans as better than the actual book. The Life of Chuck allows Flanagan to escape from the expectations of a horror story –– even though The Life of Chuck is still a King horror yarn in its own special way with one of the biggest chills of the year –– to tell something on the grandest scale possible.
Another Excellent Ensemble
One of Mike Flanagan’s strengths he built with his television work was casting. He not only built a repertoire of favorites but became adept at seeing the benefit of a multi-faceted ensemble. The Life of Chuck is no different. Everyone from poster boy Tom Hiddleston on down is doing exactly what they are supposed to and hitting it out of the park.
Special commendation goes to Mia Sara and Mark Hamill as the grandparents of Chuck. When I think back on these two actors and their careers, this pairing will unquestionably pop up in my mind. It’s great to see them get this kind of spotlight with these kinds of roles.
A Heartfelt Tearjerker
Art matters because it is supposed to be able to express ideas and emotions you might not be able to externalize yourself. The Life of Chuck isn’t a tearjerker due to a lot of hackneyed plotting or manipulative schmaltz. Its power is its heartfelt ability to paint a portrait of what makes life an amazing thing, even though we know it’s all going to end sooner than we think.
One of the best movies of the year and an essential watch for Constant Readers.
