I've seen a number of Shakespeare adaptation (both stage and screen) that used modern clothes, or more modern than circa 1600. I'm quite confident in saying that the period of the costume is probably less important than the quality of the adaptation and the quality of the acting.
As an example, take a look at Ian McKellen's Richard III, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/ This is one of the best adaptations of the play that I've seen, and I've seen about half-a-dozen different ones, only one of which I haven't got on with. The classic line, A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse works really well in the context. (RIII is a favourite of mine.)
One Shakespeare adaptation where the costume failed miserably was Henry IV (parts one and two) put on by the Chicago Shakespeare Company (I think it was that, it was certainly Chicago). What they got wrong was using modern fabrics for period clothes and imitation Laurence Olivier wigs for all the nobles. But it was also let down by the acting. It was dire.
For the record I also intensely dislike instances of US navy submarines being used in film when Royal Navy submarines should have been used, and similar.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-24 09:36 am (UTC)As an example, take a look at Ian McKellen's Richard III, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/ This is one of the best adaptations of the play that I've seen, and I've seen about half-a-dozen different ones, only one of which I haven't got on with. The classic line, works really well in the context. (RIII is a favourite of mine.)
One Shakespeare adaptation where the costume failed miserably was Henry IV (parts one and two) put on by the Chicago Shakespeare Company (I think it was that, it was certainly Chicago). What they got wrong was using modern fabrics for clothes and imitation Laurence Olivier wigs for all the nobles. But it was also let down by the acting. It was dire.
For the record I also intensely dislike instances of US navy submarines being used in film when Royal Navy submarines should have been used, and similar.