Harris Dickinson’s directorial debut born of gut feeling

Harris Dickinson is sitting on a rooftop terrace in Cannes, trying to find all the movie tattoos on his body. There’s a little one for 2001’s “Donnie Darko,” but there’s a much larger one on his arm for “Kes,” Ken Loach’s seminal British social realism drama from 1969. “I’m sure there’s a few more on my legs,” Dickinson says, smiling.

“I can’t remember.” But the spirit of Loach runs strong in Dickinson’s directorial debut, “Urchin.” The film, which premiered the Un Certain Regard section of the Cannes Film Festival, stars Frank Dillane as a homeless London addict.

A sensitive and preceptive character study, “Urchin” has been widely hailed as a standout at Cannes. Just as the 28-year-old Dickson, who starred in last year’s “Babygirl,” is emerging as a major movie star, he’s revealed himself to be a filmmaker to watch, too.

“Before we screened, I was debilitated by nerves,” Dickinson said the day after the premiere. “I felt so vulnerable - which I do normally with acting, but not as much. I suddenly realized what an exposing thing this is. Like you said, it’s showing a different side of myself and putting that out there to be obliterated.” But Dickinson, who first emerged in Eliza Hitman’s 2017 film “Beach Rats,” only expanded audience’s notions of him with “Urchin.” As he explained in an interview, making it was important enough to him, even if it meant sacrificing parts at the very moment Hollywood won’t stop calling. Next, Dickinson will star as John Lennon in Sam Mendes’ four-film Beatles project.

How did your artistic journey start? Was acting or directing first?

I wanted to direct from a very young age. I wanted to make films. I was making these skateboard videos and I was doing a lot of short films on YouTube. I had a web series where I would release episodes weekly. It was like a sketch show. That was first love, just making things. Acting kind of kicked off a little bit once “Beach Rats” came out at Sundance. It was weird. I had to earn my stripes, of course, as an actor. But I couldn’t go to film school because I was acting. So I just carried on my own interest in it and thought: Hopefully someday I can do it. Then the short film happened and the BBC took a chance on me, commissioning “Urchin.”

Was it hard to juggle your priorities?

Hard to figure out, yeah. And particularly when we’re in a world where people don’t always love someone trying to doing multiple things. And rightly so. There are times when you shouldn’t be trying to be a basketball player, or whatever. A lot of people do go, “Oh, I fancy doing that now,’ particularly when they get to a more successful position. But this has always been a love of mine and I’ve just been waiting for the moment to do it.

That must of required a lot of effort, especially after all the attention of “Babygirl.” Did it mean saying no a lot?

Yeah, for sure. But it’s easy to say no to things. “Urchin” was all I could think about it. It was pouring out of me. It was all that was on my mind. It’s easy to say no when you’ve got something to take you away from that, you know? Nothing that came in would make me question my own film, which is a sign that I had to make it at this time. I don’t know, maybe that sounds self-important.

What was it about this character that compelled you?

The discovery of Mike happened over a long time. I really started with the intention to create a very focused character study of someone who was ultimately battling against themselves. I wanted to show a full person in all of their ugliness and all of their humanity and their charm. And that was a hard process to get right.

Associated Press