By Zoe Williams

Published: Wednesday, 02 March 2022 at 12:00 am


BBC drama Peaky Blinders took British television by storm when it first aired in 2010.

Over a decade later, the series’ fan base continues to grow, with the recent season 6 premiere turning out to be the show’s biggest ever launch.

The show revolves around Birmingham gang leader Tommy Shelby (Cillian Murphy) and his turbulent rise to power.

But were the Peaky Blinders real-life people once upon a time? Read on to find out how historically accurate the figures are that we see on screen…

Who were the real Peaky Blinders?

"Programme
Cillian Murphy in Peaky Blinders

The BBC’s Peaky Blinders opens on a slum street of Birmingham. The year is 1919. There are horses and Chinese fortune tellers, barely dressed urchins and men in suits so sharp they could take your eye out.

The atmosphere is febrile, smoky and crackling with nerves. It’s the most distinctive-looking British drama you could conceive of, peering into an era that, until now, had slipped off history’s radar, considered neither as muddy and tragic as the First World War nor as heroic and epic as the Second. Or perhaps history forgot these years on purpose.

The writer is Steven Knight – best known for Stephen Frears’s 2002 film Dirty Pretty Things. “From about 1918 until 1928 in England, it was just madness. Pure hedonism,” he says. “There was a lot of cocaine, a lot of opium, a lot of dancing, a lot of nightlife.” All of which sounds like a laugh riot, but of course it had its dark side; indeed, there was hardly any silver lining.

And that’s where the Peaky Blinders come in, so called for the razor blades they kept in the brims of their sinister-looking caps and hats. They were the Shelby family, the Sopranos of the post-First World War era, with a few key differences – the society the Shelbys lived in had been racked by the war, leaving profoundly damaged men strewn across every class and community; revolution was in the air, and the Government was terrified of it; and the Peaky Blinders aren’t remotely fictional.

Knight explains: “The reason it came to me was that my parents grew up in Birmingham in the 20s. My mum, when she was nine years old, was a bookie’s runner; they used to use kids to take bets because it was all illegal. My dad’s uncle was part of the Peaky Blinders. It was reluctantly delivered, but my family did give me little snapshots, of gypsies and horses and gang fights and guns, and immaculate suits.

One of the first stories that inspired me was of my dad when he was a little kid, sent to deliver a message. There was a table, covered in money and guns, surrounded by blokes, beautifully dressed, drinking beer from jam jars. You didn’t buy glasses. You only spent money on clothes.”

This atmosphere is captured wonderfully in Peaky Blinders. The gang’s control in Birmingham has a Wild West quality, where the violence is instrumental and strategic, never savage or incidental, and the rules of society are being broken and remade in front of you.

But their lives are burdened by far more than the pressures of self-interest. The casualties of the First World War are everywhere: men who had survived the bullets, but would go to their graves before post-traumatic stress was recognised. The authorities were no good to these shell-shocked men: if anyone was going to watch over them, it would have been men like the Peaky Blinders.

The war and its aftermath are dealt with in an original and oblique way, as a hangover that nobody would acknowledge, but everybody had. Knight says that a load of clichés dominate how this interwar period is played out in drama: “We tiptoe towards things because we’re afraid of being seen to be glamorising or mythologising anything. If it’s post-First World War, it’s all officers shooting themselves. Or it’s flappers, being done in the way flappers have always been done. But why would they behave like that? It was only a couple of years before then that you couldn’t show an ankle, and suddenly they were in really short skirts. Why? Because they didn’t give a damn.”

As grim as the period must have been, from the distance of decades this is a transfixing time, decadent and bacchanalian, traumatised and anti-authoritarian, deeply political, desperate for things to be different, but petrified of change. “I think there was a loss of faith in technology: before the war, there was this belief that every new discovery meant more progress.

Then nations just took all they’d learnt and used it to destroy each other,” says Knight. “The idea of the King’s authority became a joke, for a while, because people in power had been sending 60,000 men to their deaths every morning and the blokes knew it was pointless. They’d get the order [to go over the top], and think, ‘No, you’ve made a mistake, there are machine guns, and we’re going to get killed.’”