Harris Dickinson’s Homelessness Drama Urchin Is Powerfully Honest British Social Realism

There are images of Britain in the cinema which may make for more popular exports – the boarding school fantasyland of Harry Potter, or the green and rarefied world of Austen – but it’s in its social realist films that Britain has always shown its truest self. Urchin, actor Harris Dickinson’s quietly assured feature debut as writer and director, has been made in the unvarnished and at times confrontationally honest tradition of the British kitchen sink drama. Its contemporary London, then, is not the comfortably middle-class city of Richard Curtis pictures, nor the landmark-centric postcard image of The Smoke that’s occasionally seen in the background of Hollywood blockbusters, but something close to the authentically divided and, for some, chronically unstable center of the UK circa 2025.
Urchin opens with homeless addict Mike (Frank Dillane) begging for change on the streets of London, invisible seemingly to all around him except for a passing stranger who, one day, offers to buy him something to eat. Seeing more value in his wristwatch than the offer of lunch, Mike assaults the man and robs him, for which Mike is arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. Dickinson, most interested in how conditions in a modern free society can make a person like Mike, skips over the jail sentence to find Mike back in London, now living in temporary accommodation, working in the kitchen of a budget hotel and sober – at least for the moment.
Urchin more than occasionally looks like and has the immediate feel of a Ken Loach film, with its long lens scenes of Dillane interacting in real locations with figures who, as in the best of Loach, could be either non-actors or performers convincingly masquerading as them. There’s a touch here particularly of I, Daniel Blake, Loach’s 2016 picture about the precarious, threadbare state of modern Britain, a country which in Dickinson’s film is, almost a decade on, evidently still feeling the effects of austerity. (Mike’s dealings with tired or simply unavailable social workers suggests a welfare state that remains overstretched.)
Where Urchin diverges from the work of the old master of British social realism is in its refusal to ever be didactic or present its desperate characters as noble poor. Dickinson clearly has enormous sympathy for Mike, and the filmmaker nods, often implicitly, to the environmental conditions that limit opportunities for people like him. In one scene, Mike and a pair of new friends end a night of revelry on the roof of a multistory car park, behind which in the distance glows Canary Wharf, these minimum-wage stragglers and London’s gleaming financial mecca somehow occupying the same city. Urchin‘s London most resembles that of Mike Leigh’s Naked: a city in which vagrants and working poor can exist at the center of the metropolis while remaining curiously disconnected from it.