Mike Flanagan on How a Studio Would’ve Ruined ‘Life Of Chuck,’ Stephen King’s Notes and Why He First Said No to the ‘Carrie’ Series

SPOILER ALERT: This article contains light spoilers about “The Life of Chuck,” now playing in select theaters via Neon, before a nationwide expansion on June 13.

Mike Flanagan’s latest film has the trappings of some of his past projects — a Stephen King adaptation, spooky and unknowable moments, appearances from his close collaborators — but is undoubtedly the director’s riskiest work. Flanagan has drawn a diehard following thanks to his macabre television series (“The Haunting of Hill House,” “The Fall of the House of Usher”) and film work (“Oculus,” King adaptation “Doctor Sleep”). In a somewhat different vein, “The Life of Chuck” has some mysteries but is also a life-affirming movie with big dance sequences and an open heart. Tom Hiddleston stars as the titular Chuck, who first appears as a shared vision of a world on the brink of apocalypse, and to say any more would spoil the film’s twists and turns. Flanagan spoke with Variety about the challenges of shooting and editing the film’s ambitious dance sequences, his working relationship with King and why he chose to work outside of the horror genre.

Related Stories

Paramount Could Violate Anti-Bribery Law if it Pays to Settle Trump's ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit, Senators Claim

This film is a bit of a turn for you compared to your previous work. What about this story spoke to you?

This story came into my life at a very interesting time, because I read it in April 2020. The pandemic lockdown is a month old, and starting a story that seemed to be about the world inexplicably ending with nothing in the way of answers, just endless anxiety and despair … it hit close to home, to the point that I was initially reluctant to finish reading it. I didn’t know if I could take it. It just felt like, “The world’s ending right outside the window — I don’t need to read something that makes me feel the same level of anxiety.” But I’m so glad I stuck with the story because, by the end of it, I was shocked that I’d been taken from that place into a whole different headspace of optimism, gratitude and joy. It was a real reassessment of a lot of elements of my life. I was crying, and not tears of sadness. I was so moved by it that I put it down and thought, “If this story could pull me through such a journey from where I was when I began reading it … If I could make it into a film that could do that for one other person at a time when they might feel that way, then what an incredible opportunity.” What a beautiful piece of work.

I wrote to Steve right after I finished reading it and said, “I know we’ve got a bunch of other stuff going on, and who knows what the state of the world is. However, I loved this story so much, if you would trust it to me and I can make something that’s a fraction of what I’m seeing in my imagination as I read it, it might be the best movie I ever get to make.” It took years to get to that place, but I wanted this movie to exist in the world for my kids, knowing that they would feel that way. What amazes me is the first act hits harder now for me than it did in 2020, which I didn’t think was possible. I just feel like there’s never not going to be a time, if we wait long enough, that these cycles of despair and anxiety are only going to remain. A story like this is a rare thing to me. I wasn’t thinking about genre. I wasn’t thinking about anything else. It just moved me so much that I felt that I had to make it.

One of the elements that makes the story unique is the unconventional structure, with three acts told in reverse, and the opening act initially feels unconnected to the rest of the film. Were there ever any discussions about changing the structure from the original story to make it more straightforward for the audience?

I thought the structure was wonderful on the page. It is very unusual, and yes, when I first was explaining to my producing partners that this is what I want to do next, there certainly was a, “Well, is there a new structure that can be applied to this that’ll make it more familiar and less challenging for a viewer?” But my feeling was always, “That’s the wrong way to go,” and to trust the viewer to go on the journey. Plus, I think the way King structured it is because life only makes sense when you look back. If you played this out in a different order, if you started with his childhood and worked it all the way up, it doesn’t seem to hold that same wisdom, that same experience, the catharsis of looking back at something and seeing the connections in retrospect. So it was never a question for me. My mission was to protect the structure that Steve had created for it because it felt so perfect. I’m so glad we got to make this independently, because I’m certain that if we had tried to do this through the traditional studio system, I don’t think anyone would have supported this structure. I think it would have been mandated to make it far more ordinary.

Dancing is a main focus of the film, including Tom’s centerpiece scene, which is not a gear we’ve seen you in before. What was the most daunting part of directing the dancing scenes?

I think my favorite movie of all time is Bob Fosse’s “All That Jazz.” The cinematic expression of dance and music has always been something I loved. I’ve never gotten to play in that world at all. I wasn’t at all going to presume to try to tell Mandy Moore how to choreograph the number, or talk to Taylor Gordon about how to play the drums, or to Tom or Annalise [Basso] about how they were expressing that kind of unforced joy that they had in dancing. My job was watching it at every turn and I don’t think I ever gave feedback that wasn’t, “I love this — keep going.” My job was to capture them creating this spontaneous, joyful experience, to not let them down in the cinematic coverage. So what I did was go back to the silent era, with my DP Eben Bolter, and we watched dance sequences going back to the ‘20s and ‘30s. We watched the evolution of how Hollywood has approached dance with the camera and tried very, very hard to incorporate all of the lessons from that review that we were doing into a sequence that would ideally dance with them.

It wasn’t even so much in the filming of it, but in the editing: Finding a way for me, as the editor, to try to become the Invisible Dancer whose decisions are adding as much emphasis and harmony to their movement as I could. It’s one of the most complicated sequences I’ve ever been involved in from a technical perspective. It’s one of the biggest and most intimidating edits I’ve ever had. I could cut 50 different versions of that dance with what we captured and each would be different — some would be radically different.

Stephen King has spoken in the past about wanting to keep a church and state separation with filmmakers adapting his work, but you have a relationship with him after adapting so much of his material, and he’s raved about this project and others you’ve done. What does your interaction look like for a project like “Chuck”?

He’s been like that with me as well. He is very serious that the book is the book, and the movie is the movie, and he doesn’t want to influence your creative expression of that. I think that it’s a double-edged sword. If he doesn’t like what you did, you’re gonna know, and the world will know. Ask Stanley Kubrick. But he’s always he’s always kept quite a distance from the creative process. He gets approval on all casting. He’s reading the scripts and sending his thoughts. If he has an idea or suggestion, it’s only happened two or three times, but he puts it right out there. But mostly he backs off and then we talk extensively about it after the fact.

I think the most involved conversations were around “Doctor Sleep.” I think that one had landmines in it for him, so that was one where you could tell from the very beginning he trusted me enough. I’d done “Gerald’s Game,” which he liked. But at the same time, I was stepping into a lot of very fraught history with him. So there were more involved conversations about the specifics of that. By the time we got to “Life of Chuck,” I think he was very much like, “You do you,” and he loved the movie.

But we’re doing the “Carrie” series right now, and that was one where the conversation started when Amazon proposed the show. I initially thought, “Why? it’s been done.” And then I found an answer to that question, and it made me very excited. But when I went to Steve, his answer was “Why?” His first response was, “Leave her alone. She’s been through enough.” But it’s that thing where the more information I could share, and sending him the bible and the plan for the show, he could see the thing we were trying to do that was new. Then he said, “Ohh, now I’m interested, just as a fan. I’m excited to see where this goes.” Once he said yes, then we were off, because if Steve had said no, I wouldn’t do it. So the relationship has evolved, but he’s always remained incredibly respectful of separating the book and the movie.

Can you talk a bit more about your vision for “Carrie”?

The thing I would say is the original story is half a century old and it’s wonderful. Its themes were about youth and bullying and the consequences of that. I believe that in today’s modern world, the power of what it means to be a bully, the breadth of that and the impact of bullying, have changed a lot. The central tenets are still the same, but it’s about much more than Carrie White. I can’t really talk about what we’re doing, I can only really talk about what we’re not doing. We’re not retelling the story as it’s been told, and we’re not making a show about telekinesis. It’s in there, but that’s not what it’s about. There’s a version of it where Carrie White carries a tragic superhero origin story that goes horribly wrong. I feel like they’ve done that, too. So we’re focused way more on the destruction of a community through these very modern tools. What happens in a world where the internet has created an environment of perceived anonymity? Carrie White in the locker room in every iteration is a horrifying scene. Carrie White in the locker room when people have phones in their hands is a whole different thing.