a review of

ok. i kinda really love harris dickinson. i think he's one of the more interesting actors we are presently graced with. (also, harris, if you're reading this, i think you're so pretty, will you please carry me around like a baby.) i think it's cool when artists are multi talented. urchin is a *vibe*. the score seldom let's us off the hook. the imagery (sets, framing, lighting) is sometimes quite nice to look at. yet, at least as often, the shots are just dark. sometimes hard to see. so much detail lost due to the under exposure. i do think it's intentional, and i'm not sure it's a decision i love. like, yes, it does go along with the bleak mood of the film, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of intentionality around when the shots are dark as heck and when they are giving us more interesting levels of lighting and contrast. speaking of sound. is it just me, or did the volume of this film start at one level and then continue rising steadily the entire time? i was turning the volume on the tv down every few minutes. if that choice was intentional, i think it's something i haven't seen applied in this way, and it worked. the volume, the score, certain other elements of the direction served nicely to usher us through the different phases of the film (different phases of mike's story). kinda reminiscent of what the safdie's did with uncut gems from a score perspective. the sound design of urchin is not comparable to uncut gems, just reminiscent in the way intensity was used to indicate how much anxiety the audience is meant to feel for the characters. i know that's not a completely unique approach, but something felt fresh about it in urchin. what didn't feel fresh, sadly is the portrayal of addiction and homelessness. harris says in interviews that a main theme of urchin is circular behavior. well, dude...for starters, basically every single portrayal of addiction we have been shown in art harps on this idea that addicts are doomed to a cycle of relapse, misery, failure. yeah, that is how things often play out, but why is that story interesting? you better have something else to say about it other than "hey look this is how things go sometimes", and i'm not sure urchin has a lot more to say. i do find a lot of the imagery to be really bizarre and impactful in a way that i wish harris had leaned into more. the shower drain scene, the repeated cuts to the giant rock, mike being dragged along the floor by some invisible force towards the end. if urchin spent more time in that surreal space, i think the somewhat reductive narrative could have worked for me. i don't know what the imagery meant, and i think that's kinda part of the "vibe" as well. we have the admittedly quite interesting score, the utterly bleak lighting and (often) bleak color palette, the utterly bizarre (at times) imagery. i think a lot more could have been done with that, but most of the film dwells in "reality" (whatever that means). yeah, there are times when mike's world and those around him interact in interesting or impactful ways, but honestly this very much felt like a rich person made a movie about a homeless addict. i don't know anything about harris' past, he could have lived experience with those things...i just didn't feel it come through if so (and i haven't seen him talk about it in interviews). as such, the plot feels a bit reductive, cliche, and voyeuristic. i'm definitely excited to see what comes next for harris from an acting perspective and also as a writer slash director. urchin was ultimately just a little too clunky to get immersed in, but there are hints of some pretty cool ideas under the surface.