The Big Picture

Collider’s Perri Nemiroff sits down with writer-director Mike Flanagan and cast members Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Karen Gillan at TIFF 2024 for
The Life of Chuck
.
Flanagan’s adaptation of the Stephen King short story marks a departure from horror, focusing on human connection.
The crew discusses staying true to King’s story structure, how the feature film format adds to that story, how they approached their characters, and what brings them true joy in life.

During a time when the world felt like it was closing in on us, filmmaker Mike Flanagan opened a Stephen King novella. Four years later, his feature adaptation of The Life of Chuck celebrated its world premiere at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, presenting the audience with an emotional story that marks a joyful deviation from both King and Flanagan’s horror wheelhouses.

In the film, Tom Hiddleston plays Chuck, the mysteriously normal accountant who suddenly appears everywhere. Among a cast of stellar talent — a signature Flanagan flare — Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Marty, a man perplexed by this sudden presence as the world around him begins to crumble. As the mystery unfolds, he reconnects with his ex-wife, Felicia, played by Karen Gillan, as the two play a part in The Life of Chuck’s three-part tale of what it means to be human and to really, truly live. In addition to this trio, the movie also features Mark Hamill, Kate Siegel, Jacob Tremblay, Matthew Lillard, and many more.

Before the film premiered, Hiddleston, Ejiofor, Gillan, and Flanagan stopped by the Collider studio at the Cinema Center at MARBL to talk with Perri Nemiroff about their experience bringing this material to life on-screen. The writer-director discusses why this had to be made and why he believes it’s his best film yet, as well as the importance of maintaining King’s original story structure and what the movie format could bring to that narrative. The trio of stars also shares their approach to their characters, what brings them true joy in life, and how important their co-stars were to their performances.

You can watch the full interview from TIFF in the video above or read the conversation in transcript form below.

Mike Flanagan Knew He Had to Make ‘The Life of Chuck’
“This one’s a very special one to me.”
Image via TIFF

PERRI NEMIROFF: Mike, with The Life of Chuck , why now for this particular Stephen King adaptation? Is there anything about the point in your career that you’re at, the state of the world, anything at all, that made you say, “We need a Life of Chuck movie now?”

MIKE FLANAGAN: When I first read the short story, it was in early 2020. It was just after the lockdown. It was just as COVID took over the world. When you experience the story at the very beginning, there’s a sense that all of the wheels are coming off, that society itself is falling apart, and as I was reading the story, it resonated with me so powerfully that I questioned whether or not I’d be able to finish it because it felt so bleakly timely. But by the time I got to the end of the story, I was crying, and it was out of joy and hope. People say this, but this is actually true: it felt like a movie that I felt like I had to make and a movie that I wanted to exist in the world for my children. So, yeah, this one’s a very special one to me.

I adore the short story so much, so I very much understand all of that.

Of course, you know a thing or two about directing Stephen King’s work. Can you tell me something about your process of adapting his material that has stayed the same from film to film, but then also something about The Life of Chuck that called for something different?

FLANAGAN: I always do it the same way to begin with, which is I get a copy of the book that is just for me to use as a tool to adapt. I respect the material too much to write inside of the book, so what happens is I write on Post-Its and stick them inside, and that makes the book ridiculous. It turns it into this insane prop. But as a King fan, I always see so many adaptations. I’ve lived and died with them, and shaken my fist at the screen, and then had those Shawshank [Redemption] or Stand by Me moments where it’s like, “Oh my god.” So I always try to imagine what would upset me the most as a fan and try very hard not to do that.

I have to follow up. What would upset you most with an adaptation of The Life of Chuck that you knew you couldn’t do yourself?

FLANAGAN: Changing the structure.

I like that. That’s really not an option.

FLANAGAN: Not an option, but I can see why people might decide to do that.

Chiwetel, I’m gonna come your way with a big question about a very specific detail. Marty is the first who sees Chuck, from the audience perspective, so it’s a very important establishing point for the story. What was it like figuring out what that needed to feel like for him and look like for the audience?

CHIWETEL EJIOFOR: I think the handy thing is when you’re reading the material, you’re going through that kind of process anyway. You’re like, “Well, what is this? What is happening?” You’re kind of like, “Where is this taking me, and why?” It’s all quite mysterious. There’s a kind of thrilling element to it. So I think that I kind of wanted to think about that, that it’s kind of out of the blue. As it becomes more repeated in Marty’s experience, it becomes stranger and stranger. We end up having a conversation about it and realizing that there’s something that is ubiquitous about this man, and I think I just sat in that, really. I found it so intriguing as a kind of way into this story. It’s sort of brilliant.

Karen, looping your character in now, too. How much are you two thinking about your characters being a product of Chuck?

KAREN GILLAN: Interesting question. I didn’t think of it that way at all, because I think we just sort of needed to play the truth of the situation. I also don’t want to give away any spoilers. But no, I wasn’t thinking about that. I was thinking about the reality of this situation, which is so crazy and outlandish dealing with the end of the world — or maybe it’s not so crazy and outlandish. Oh, that’s quite sad. [Laughs] Sorry, I’m having an ADHD moment where my thoughts are shooting all over the place! No, I just tried to play the truth of the situation. I didn’t try to sit outside of it and be like, “Is this a figment of anybody’s imagination?”

EJIOFOR: I think maybe the context of it played a little more for me in the sense that there’s something that’s so interesting about knowing that there’s maybe something more going on, just as a character. So, sort of trying to play absolutely the truth of it, but with that sense maybe behind the eyes that, “This can’t be the limit of this experience. There’s something else happening within the context of this,” which actually follows the story a little bit, as well. It’s an investigation that’s happening at the same time.

Image courtesy of Photagonist at TIFF

To dig into the relationship between your characters, can you each tell me something about the other as a scene partner that you appreciated and helped you tap into something in your own character that you might not have been able to reach without them?

GILLAN: I’ll go first. He is an incredible actor. I just sort of find myself not needing to do anything in terms of my own acting because all I had to do was just listen to him and be observant. I was like, “I’m getting everything that I need here and more.” You reduce me to tears. I really didn’t have to try. So, thank you for making everything very easy for me. [Laughs]

EJIOFOR: Thank you! I can only say exactly the same thing. You’re a phenomenal actress. The first thing that we had to do was quite complex. It was quite a tricky scene. There was a lot of dialogue, and just having a scene partner who’s able to kind of walk you through it and connect. I think it was our first day. I feel like it was the first day that we did anything with the phone call. All of that history, all of the dynamics, all of the hopes, the crushed dreams, the problems, all of that stuff, and having somebody who’s just on the other end of the phone — you were upstairs, I think when we were shooting — and just all communicated through the voice, all of the history and story, I just thought it was absolutely wonderful. So, I really thank you for that.

Image courtesy of Photagonist at TIFF

I love that. I can’t wait to see this all leap to life on screen.

TOM HIDDLESTON: By the way, they are amazing together.

Oh, I’d believe it!

Tom Hiddleston Rediscovers Joy in ‘The Life of Chuck’ Dance
“The three of us are a triangular constellation of music and dance and joy.”
Image courtesy of Photagonist at TIFF

Tom, I’m going to throw a somewhat similar question your way because The Life of Chuck has a bit of an anthology feel, so you essentially get to work with a whole new set of actors. Can you highlight someone who gave you just what you needed and maybe helped you exceed your own expectations for your work in the film?

HIDDLESTON: I’ll probably just immediately pick two people, if I may, which is Annalise Basso and Taylor Gordon, and I feel like we come as a three. Whatever I contribute to this film comes in tandem with them. We are a trio, in a way. It’s just because, obviously, it’s called The Life of Chuck, and I’m playing Chuck, and there’s a specific moment in the middle of the film which is very spontaneous and very surprising for himself and for everyone else, and it expresses a part of him that perhaps doesn’t get expressed very often. That moment is really crystallized by the three of us. So Taylor Gordon is playing the drums on the street, and Chuck Krantz is on his way to a conference, and he stops and puts his briefcase down and starts moving to the beat of those drums. And then, as he starts moving, he spots a face in the crowd who seems to be enjoying it as much as he is, and that’s Janice, played by Annalise, and the three of us are a triangular constellation of music and dance and joy. So, I couldn’t have done it without them.

It’s a beautiful beat in the story, and I have a feeling it’s gonna be the same on screen here.

Tom and Mike, I’ll toss this question to both of you about that. It’s one of the most iconic scenes in the short story, so what was it like adapting it? Stephen King is very specific with his movements when writing how that dance operates, so is it about sticking as close to the text as possible, or is there any additional choreography?

FLANAGAN: Oh, no. In this particular case, it was about finding what created the most joy. What was fascinating to watch from my perspective was that Tom, Annalise, Taylor, and our incredible choreographer, Mandy Moore, went off together to not only create the dance but to create the music. It was a collaboration, from the drums to the choreography, and so I got to step back and just watch what you guys built. And when they finally came to set with this worked out, having let it evolve and grow and react to their instincts and what brought joy out for them, I remember how much my face hurt from smiling the first time I watched them perform it, and I knew that it was going to work because of them.

I love that. You probably just saw me recognize the fact that you worked with Mandy on that.

HIDDLESTON: She was amazing.

What a perfect pairing. She’s the best!

HIDDLESTON: And Taylor, also. In the story, certainly in the short story and in your screenplay, there’s this sense of the drummer being incredibly expert and classically trained, but as someone who has dispatched that classical training to find the soul of her own rhythm. So, inside her skill is this capacity to play, and what she does and what we worked out together with Mandy is she’s playing the beat of entirely different steps. She starts off with jazz and a cha-cha, and then it goes into swing and something closer to Fred [Astaire] and Ginger [Rogers], and then into Bossa Nova and then into polka. These are radically different rhythms, but she’s just playing with the form, and Chuck and Janice are responding in kind, but she is conducting us from behind the set.

What we learned — and I don’t want to give too many spoilers — is that something in the soul of the film is that we all contain multitudes and that our internal worlds contain greater depth and range than the external world would like to give us. Chuck looks like an accountant, but he was a dancer as a boy, and he was taught by his grandparents, his grandmother particularly, and then at high school. Then he rediscovers that dancer in himself. So, we were trying to understand what the influences might be that he would have gone through all of this training. He would have done polka and Bossa Nova and swing. Stephen King is very specific about moonwalking, so we had a whole moonwalk day.

I was thinking about asking you if you can moonwalk, but I feel like you can.

HIDDLESTON: Wait until you see the movie.

I’ve seen videos of you dancing. You can definitely moonwalk.

HIDDLESTON: I am enthusiastic in my expression.

That’s all that’s necessary.

HIDDLESTON: I will leave the judgment to others.

The dance has to come from a place of joy, and that’s all you need.

HIDDLESTON: I do love it, and, as Mike said, it was about what creates the most joy, but also what expresses the most joy. And it’s really interesting, I’ve never met a single person on this planet who doesn’t love dancing. Maybe they need a little encouragement, maybe they need to lose self-consciousness or an inhibition, but ultimately everyone wants to dance. It’s like the freest expression.

GILLAN: It’s interesting because even babies dance, so it’s almost like it’s a totally primal instinct. I’m always like, “Why do babies dance?” I think about that a lot.

It is true, though. It’s baked into all of us to a degree.

Mike Flanagan Says ‘The Life of Chuck’ Is His Best Movie
Image courtesy of Photagonist at TIFF

Mike, I’m coming back your way for some story structure questions. In our press notes you mention there were opportunities within that structure to play even more and to make visual and thematic connections between these three chapters that you can’t in a book. Can you give me some specific examples of things you did in the movie that you can’t in book-form?

FLANAGAN: It’s one of the great privileges of visual storytelling, calling back cues that will create. Sometimes the most fleeting glance at something can sear itself into our memory and into our imagination, and it can plant something in us that we will revisit when the tumblers connect in just the right way decades later, and it can transport us. It can take us back. There was a chance to do more of that than King was already doing in the story, in this, and it turned into an incredible opportunity for myself and Eben Bolter, our director of photography, to really create more of a tapestry. I can’t really talk about it more than that without getting into the danger zone.

HIDDLESTON: Maybe I can say, I think, I’m not the only actor who plays Chuck in the film. But our piece, the piece with me and Annalise, was the first week of shooting, and there were things that happened, the magic of the accident, when we were shooting, that then Mike and Mandy took on with some of the other Chucks, which I found really joyful to have that. Even physical things that happened, and Mandy could go, “I’m gonna tell another Chuck that that might be a signature move.”

Mike, from an outsider’s perspective, I look at you as a filmmaker and think, “If he wants to make a Life of Chuck with a studio, someone’s gonna come running and give him a budget and let him make it with all the tools and resources in the world.” However, you decided to produce this film independently, and you’re here at the film festival selling it. Why did that feel like it would best serve the version of the story you wanted to tell?

FLANAGAN: One of the things that I recognized very early was that this story is very unusual, and sometimes it can be more of a challenge to lead people to water on a story that isn’t as easily comparable to something that is immediately in their past. It’s a reality of our business. Fortunately, my producer, Trevor Macy, recognized the same thing and said, “We can try to take this around town and sell it, and we can try to talk to people about what it will be, knowing it will likely have to change, or we could make it and show them what it is and hope that that connects with people in a way that lets the movie remain what it wants to be.”

That makes it more challenging because you have less resources, you have less support. Though, in our case, we were able to make the movie at a time when otherwise we would not have specifically because of that because we were completely independent. It’s my first time doing an independent movie in many years, and I forgot how much I love the intense camaraderie, invention, and the forced creativity that kind of comes from that, walking on the set and looking around and realizing everybody’s there for the same reason.

It’s time for the biggest question of the bunch, but it’s inspired by something you said in the press notes, so you teed me up for it. You said that after you read the novella, you emailed Stephen King that day and you said, “If I could have a crack at this story, it might be the best movie I’ll ever make.” Now having finished it, do you feel that way?

FLANAGAN: Yeah, I do. And I felt that way while we were shooting it, too. I felt that way at the end of the first week. The dance was first, which is a confident way to start an independent film, but for all the reasons you don’t control, that’s how it lands. And we watched this happen for four straight days, and I’ve watched a lot of things happen for many days on a movie — it takes forever to make a movie — but it’s the first time in my life that I loved what was on the monitor just as much, in fact, more, on the last take that we did four days in. I knew that there was something magical happening. When that little movie ended, we got to make two more that made me feel exactly the same way.

When Chiwetel and Karen came on set and we were suddenly making a story that on the surface might not feel connected to the experience we had that first week, I had the same feeling. And it stayed with me all the way to the end, watching Benjamin Pajak, Mark Hamill, and Mia Sara. So, yeah, I really like to hope they’re gonna let me keep making movies after this, but if this was it, that would be okay with me.

I appreciate how beautiful that sentiment is, but never stop. Never stop in the film format or with the series structure either. I need more of your stories in my life.

‘The Life of Chuck’ Encourages You to Try Out Your Own Dance
From piano to running, the cast of The Life of Chuck share what makes their hearts happy.
Image courtesy of Photagonist at TIFF

You brought up the idea of expressing joy through dancing here, and in our press notes you say, “I hope the movie helps viewers look at our world today and encourages them to sometimes put down the briefcase and let yourself dance. Whatever that means to you, whatever kind of expression joy dancing represents — painting, being with family, writing, being athletic, all these different ways that we can let our hearts out.” It feels important to emphasize that so can you each tell me a way that you let your heart out beyond making movies?

HIDDLESTON: Dancing is definitely one of them. Who doesn’t love dancing? So whenever I get the chance. But I think probably the first thing I thought of when you said it was, and it’s a kind of nerdy thing to say, I love running. I love to run. For me, I find the release of running incredibly cathartic and therapeutic. Running outside, running in the world. It’s just my own body and my own head because we’re so tethered to technology. We’re so attached to information and our phones and our computers and stuff. It’s just my own feet and my own heart and my own imagination just running in space. Again, I think it’s a thing. Babies love running.

GILLAN: And why? Another big question I have!

HIDDLESTON: And I hope I haven’t lost that. That’s how I let my heart out.

Image courtesy of Photagonist at TIFF

That’ll make me appreciate my next run even more.

EJIOFOR: I think that thing that you’re saying about that disconnect from technology is so important, and it’s a great moment, actually, in this story, because the technology, it’s like the machine stops in a way. The technology kind of starts to stop working, and people have to disconnect from that side of their lives, and I feel like that’s where the magic can happen. I think for us in the modern world, when you disconnect from technology and obviously the joy that you have of being with those you love and family, that’s where you can really sort of sing.

GILLAN: I always hesitate to answer these questions because I don’t have any hobbies other than making films and stuff. [Laughs]

It does still count. Part of the reason why I really wanted to ask this question is because my whole life is watching and talking about movies, and sometimes I have to force myself to do other things, which isn’t very much, admittedly.

GILLAN: I have this natural tendency to zone out a lot in my life, and I quite like doing that. I let my imagination just sort of go wherever it wants to go, but where it goes is like trying to think of ideas for films. So, I come back to it. But I think it’s my version of meditation or something, and it feels like energy preservation at the same time as maybe being creative.

I get it. Anytime someone tells me, “Do you watch movies just for fun?” I’m like, “Yes I do,” but then, if I like it enough, I’ll turn it into work, so then, in a sense, I don’t.

HIDDLESTON: I would add — do would you agree with this? — watching elite athletes is a deep pleasure. Like watching a great soccer team, football team, or watching tennis players or watching the Olympics, that, for me, I could spend — I do spend [laughs] — a lot of time watching great tennis players play tennis and watching great football players play football. I should specify by “football,” I mean soccer. I don’t mean the NFL.

It’s the start of the NFL season!

HIDDLESTON: I know, but it’s also the start of the premiership. Let’s not go there. But yeah, I find there’s a kind of majesty in elite athletic performance. When you watch a great soccer player or a great tennis player or a great athlete, it’s just like watching poetry in motion.

EJIOFOR: How do you feel watching running? Does it combine all of those things?

HIDDLESTON: It does! The big track races at the Olympics — 100-meter, 200-meter, 400, 800, 1500 — I will cry. I just sit and watch and cry at the magnificence of these people being the best at what they do.

It makes all the sense in the world. You got anything to close us out on this one, Mike?

FLANAGAN: Yeah, it’s unfortunate coming after Tom. The one that I was going to say was walking. So, basically, what he does only much lazier, but for the same reasons. I’m like, “Oh, doing that quickly. That sounds different and better for your body.” But no, I adore walking and it’s become a major part of my life and self. But I think beyond that, I would say piano.

GILLAN: I didn’t know you played the piano!

FLANAGAN: I don’t play wonderfully, but I love it. So when I see people playing piano magnificently, I have that feeling like when you’re watching runners, where I’m just like, “I love what they’re doing, and I love where they are and what they’re finding,” and I feel a pull to that.

GILLAN: I do that, too. I do have one hobby. I just want you to know I had a hobby. [Laughs] I play the piano — not very well — but it’s a hobby, which was the main thing I was trying to get across.

I’ll take that. My new hobby is hummingbirds.

GILLAN: Looking at them?

I got a feeder and then I got a little hand feeder, and I stand outside and it sits on my finger and it sips out of the feeder in my hand.

HIDDLESTON: That’s amazing!

It’s the most magical thing in the world.

Has ‘Loki’ Fulfilled His Glorious Purpose?
“I really feel like the spiritual confrontation was complete.”
Image via Disney+

Tom, our team is very, very excited about Loki. They want more. I know you don’t know if Season 3 is a go — and couldn’t even tell me if you did, so I’ll attempt a two-parter with this. If this is the end, how did Season 2 offer you the closure you need personally? But if we do get a Season 3, what’s a quality of Loki’s that you only got to scratch the surface of in Season 2 that you’d be most eager to play with more in Season 3?

HIDDLESTON: For the first part, when we conceived of Loki as a show, we knew we were going to do something different and something separate from everything else I had done before that, and that was very exciting, but also with great respect for those things that had come before — the three Thor movies and the Avengers movies that I was in. We were creating this world of the TVA, an institution that claims to govern the order of time, and we knew we wanted to confront this antihero with himself. The whole 12 episodes, or two seasons, our theme was going to be identity and self-discovery, and taking that kind of iconic line from Avengers — “I’m Loki of Asgard. I’m burdened with glorious purpose,” — and investigating that. What is purpose, and is it possible to redefine, reinvestigate, rediscover, or reinvent his sense of purpose?

Where we ended at the end of Season 2 of Loki , I really feel like the spiritual confrontation was complete, and he understood through the gift of his connections with Mobius and Sylvie and his friends at the TVA that sometimes purpose is more burden than glory, and he gives himself for his friends. Through that, there’s a kind of closure, and the broken soul that he started with in the very first Thor movie is healed because he’s always been a character who doesn’t belong, and finally, he finds a place to belong and people to belong to. So, I felt very happy with the conclusion of that.

In terms of scratching the surface, I mean, he’s a character who’s been around for almost 3,000 years, and he represents unpredictability, boundary-crossing, disruption, and the question mark. So I feel like if I ever got a chance to play the character again, there are 1,000 things I haven’t done. He’s constantly changing, as are we all.

Special thanks to this year’s partners of the Cinema Center x Collider Studio at TIFF 2024 including presenting Sponsor Range Rover Sport as well as supporting sponsors Peoples Group financial services, poppi soda, Don Julio Tequila, Legend Water and our venue host partner Marbl Toronto. And also Roxstar Entertainment, our event producing partner and Photagonist Canada for the photo and video services.