You’re probably familiar with Walt Whitman’s famous line that says:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
And if that’s something you’ve thought about often, but that you’ve never had much interest in thinking about deeply, then The Life of Chuck is a movie for you.
The most interesting section of the film is the first, which is also the third act, as the movie is structured backwards. In this part, a town of people are facing the end of the world, with stranger and stranger things happening, as we start to realize something even more bizarre than the apocalypse is going on, but we’re not sure what. Throughout, messages and billboards keep popping up referring to a seemingly normal man named Chuck, although no one has any idea who he is. As we move back in time, we learn about Chuck and we realize what the whole deal is, and we start to wonder if this is really all the movie had on its mind the whole time. Regrettably, it is.
The Life of Chuck is based on a short story by Stephen King, who obviously has the ability to spin a good tale, and it’s directed by Mike Flanagan, whose work I’ve often enjoyed to one degree or another. But the movie starts out seeming like it might go in any number of directions before it decides on the least interesting option. Nick Offerman provides a voiceover throughout the film, and while the actor is nearly always welcome, this has to be one of the most counterproductive voiceovers I can ever remember. Every time we feel like we’re about to approach some kind of real feeling, some sincere emotional truth, Offerman’s delivery immediately destroys that connection. In fact, the film is constantly undermining itself with its inability to decide on a tone—it’s whimsical even when it’s tragic, and it contemplates our place in the universe without us being sure if we’re supposed to take it seriously, even if the ethereal music insists that this means something. And never are we transcending anything but the most basic version of this story. I could hardly believe my ears when a teacher explains that Whitman line to a young Chuck, as if we needed this all explained to us, too. Not to mention the movie brings up those lines again and again without ever showing us any true contradiction in Chuck, other than the metaphorical multitudes that don’t seem to have much influence on Chuck as a real person.
It will be hard to watch The Life of Chuck and not feel anything at all, but this is entirely because of what we bring to the movie, not because of what the movie is pulling out of us. And that’s because it’s true—we do contain multitudes. Sadly, The Life of Chuck does not.
The Life of Chuck is in theaters.
