Last updated on December 29, 2013
Chuck – I like Chuck.
Netflix almost frightens me in its ability to track my viewing preferences and, somehow, recommend viewing material based on a set of simple Yes/No answers or a simple rating. The more info you put into the system, the more likely Netflix will burst upon you with some sort of binge-watching goodness you never expected.
In a way, I am scared of Big Brother tracking my viewing preferences, but I suppose every company does this nowadays (Hi, Google! I know your suite of services loves to sell my personal likes/dislikes to advertisers relevant to my interests! Also, thanks for making everyone use Google Plus even though we all really hate it!). In the end, that’s the price we pay. And then we find great shows to distract us from all of that like Chuck.
I have, admittedly, heard vague rumblings through the television grapevine regarding this rather difficult-to-categorize smorgasbord of television friendly humor, spy action/adventure, and relationship-based character development. Zachary Levi, after all, did play in Tangled, and that was nothing if not late 80s/1990s Disney musical to the max. As for the rest of it, I plunged in deep when Netflix put the thing before my watchful eyes, and boredom after trying to beat Crysis for what feels like the fourth time (if not the fifth) led me to watch Chuck.
So the premise is simple: guy who works at a Best Buy-equivalent store ends up receiving an email from his former friend which gives him all of the government’s secrets through the flashing of images on a screen. It’s known as the Intersect, mostly as the database exists to connect America’s vast information network to see patterns before bad things happen. Obviously, Chuck isn’t exactly spy material, and so the NSA and CIA alike send an agent to protect him and also (hopefully) extract the information out of his brain before he’s kidnapped by the highest contractor or worse.
High concept? Maybe. Why, exactly, don’t they put such an important asset in a government lab somewhere to ensure he isn’t captured? I’m honestly not sure. Not that the show seems to care about discrepancies like this; when you’ve got McG at the helm (yes, a monoymed executive producer mostly known for the Charlie’s Angels films and The O.C., the most banal of teenage dramas). What’s important is THINGS HAPPENING! The writers happily oblige us with stuff, witty lines all over the place, and unrealistic spy things that you’re not supposed to think too hard about. Really! Sometimes it’s funny-in-your head, but I’ve definitely laughed more often out loud.
I’ve heard it described as “Get Smart for the 24 crowd”, and as a big fan of 24 that’s a bit of a misnomer. This is, first and foremost, a show driven by relationships and characters. I watched six episodes so far, and much more time seems spent developing characters through dialogue than obsessing over the intricate details of spycraft. Some of the characters exist purely for humor’s sake, certainly, but the writers continually develop them in the most unexpected of ways throughout. The action exists to buttress the relationships, and while that stuff doesn’t always work, it works well enough without being pointless melodrama. I like melodrama, just not manufactured melodrama, and the drama here naturally arises from character choice and decisions in a hyperreal environment. I can accept that.
I’m just glad that the titular character displays the most depth. Chuck, honestly, acts as realistically as a character thrust into a crazy situation would act. I think we all imagine that, upon learning that our brain turned into a computer with limitless knowledge, we’d enjoy this experience a lot, but the additional responsibility (you know, for saving other people’s lives) would definitely affect us somehow. In Chuck’s instance, he turns into a bit of a basket case, but he is slowly growing into his own. The vicissitudes of a double life play heavily into this show, as real life (boring work at Best Buy) versus undercover operations (trying to steal a diamond meant for the drug trade from some terrorists – no big deal) overlap and cross in ways that could strain relationships. One party knows more than the other, and the white lies add up.
If there’s one thing I don’t particularly enjoy about the show, you can probably guess (so far) how the central relationship between Chuck and “Sarah” (his CIA handler) will go. Have they not made it obvious enough that they will eventually find themselves in romantic entanglements? I must assume this, or they really want to fake us out.
In any event, the predictability and “aw shucks!” moments, plus the real overuse of cliches, give the show a lot of charm. Like comfort food for the soul, it’s really about good guys versus bad guys most of the time. The few instances where things are questioned tend to be people manipulating Chuck’s natural trust in other human beings in a world where people can’t be trusted. Everybody you meet who works as “good guys” could be considered upstanding citizens who really try not to do bad things; the bad guys just lost it somewhere. And yes, lots of people get shot and maybe die, I’m not sure, but they were bad and all that.
Perhaps they will throw additional depth into the spy storyline later, but for now it takes a bit of a backseat to the show’s heart of relational comedy, like a sitcom that suddenly bursts into forward momentum at a moment’s notice. The long episodes (40 minutes) certainly don’t feel very long.
All that said, I found the show surprisingly clean (except for violence, but that’s expected) on most levels. Chuck just wants to entertain you with its weird genre blend and its basic themes of human friendship, forgiveness, and all that good jazz. A typical guy rises up to become something better, and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Here’s to our corporate entertainment warlords who monitor my preferences (and crazy fans who kept the show on the air for five seasons) for bringing Chuck to my humble abode!
