REVIEW: Peaky Blinders: The Redemption of Thomas Shelby

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Striking visuals, beautifully choreographed, and interestingly staged

Rambert Dance’s Peaky Blinders: The Redemption of Thomas Shelby aims to reimagine the gritty world of the Shelby brothers through dance. It has its premiere in Liverpool, the place where most of season 1 was filmed. You would say that this is a match made in heaven. However, despite its bold ambition, the adaptation leaves more questions than answers as it struggles with pacing, characterisation, and creative direction. It also might commit the biggest cardinal sin from a character’s point of view: it uses a well-known IP without understanding the lore, the appeal, and the motivation of the characters.

The story starts with the Shelby brothers returning from the First World War, attempting to cope with the trauma they faced on the battlefield. This “story before the story” serves as an intriguing entry point, but does it truly reflect what makes “Peaky Blinders” compelling? The myth and the legend of Shelby (“he’s a god, he’s a man, he’s a ghost, he’s a guru”) should NOT be explained. The original TV series established itself as a cultural brand built on sharp storytelling, brutal characters, and impeccable style. However, the dance version seems to focus more on the brand of “Peaky Blinders” rather than its essence. The creation team asks themselves if the soundscape sounds “peaky” enough – I am quizzical at what that even means. More importantly, is relying on the brand the best way to start the show’s development?

As the performance transitions into its second act, things take an abstract turn. While abstraction can add a layer of complexity, here it only muddies the waters further. This shift doesn’t seem to deepen the narrative but instead creates dissonance, leaving the audience questioning the intention behind these choices. It also makes a playground for the creatives to generate anything they want and blame it on the “dream” sequence. The show’s tension lies in its understated intensity and suspenseful calm before the storm. But in this performance, that tension is buried under a soundscape that feels more like an action thriller than the brooding, atmospheric drama fans know and love.

And then there are the curious choices—why modern clothes in the opium den scene? This seems like an unnecessary creative liberty that detracts from the authenticity of the setting. It’s as if the production doesn’t quite know its era, blending contemporary elements without clear justification. The fact that the music resonates with modern sensibilities is already one way that affects my suspension of disbelief, now I need to look at white coats for almost half an act as well. How very 1919!

Characterisation is one of the most jarring issues. Thomas Shelby’s portrayal, with a superhero-style landing and a too-poised attitude, gives him the aura of a god-like figure—cocky and larger-than-life, but without the gravitas that we already know. But this portrayal of Tommy feels wrong. The real Shelby is observant and calculating, not the flamboyant character we see here. It’s a misstep in translating his nuanced personality to the stage. Polly, too, suffers from poor characterization—she comes across as far too young. My biggest confusion was about Grace; her role feels out of place in this “prequel” story. If the narrative is a prequel, why are we recontextualizing her character (with a different profession) and re-enacting her death from the series but due to different circumstances? This inconsistency throws the audience off, raising doubts about the show’s internal logic – surely there are more female characters, and we do not expect Thomas Shelby to only have one love interest in his life. 

The pacing is another key issue. Within a span of 15 minutes, we see double-crossing, reconciliation, marriage, and death. This frantic rush through key emotional beats leaves no room for tension to build. The moments that define these characters are condensed into a hurried sequence that sacrifices any real emotional depth.

That is not to say that the piece has no merit – it is beautifully choreographed and interestingly staged, with long-lasting visuals and amazing live musical performances. But the moment you label the characters as the well-known ones and expect to follow their journey, I start to question the true reasons for which this piece was created. It could have been set in the same universe, following different characters or even acting as a prequel, but not contradicting different aspects of the original series. I might be pedantic, but the internal logic of IPs that span across multiple mediums is important for me – the difference between a property that is nurtured and one that is used as a cash cow is that, in the case of the first type, creatives use their knowledge and love to make sure that the totality of narratives a spectator witnesses is consistent. After so many words, I will let you guess in which category I will leave this show.

Ultimately, this feels less like an artistic homage to Peaky Blinders and more like the fantasy of a marketing executive who has focused on selling the “idea” of the show rather than exploring its core. (cue to the flat caps that were sold in the foyer of the theatre). This could have been an exciting reinterpretation of the “Peaky Blinders” story falls flat. Despite rich source material, the dance adaptation fails to respect its characters or deliver the narrative punch that fans expect. While dance should bring the story to life in fresh ways, here it feels like the only thing carried over is the surface-level brand appeal. A missed opportunity, in a production that doesn’t quite know how to embody the very world it’s trying to showcase – was it that hard to not use Tommy? And what was the redemption to begin with? What a shame, as the Rambert cast creates magic out of a questionable premise.