>the "modernised" version
Isn't all Shakespeare seen today "modernised"?
At the time his actors wore the dress of the day, rather than authentic versions of the clothes that would have been worn at the time the play was set. His plays were for everyone, not just the ones with the expensive jewellery.
I think it is more of an issue to look at how Shakespeare, like Opera, translates to film. The very worst kind of film is a "filmed" play or opera. A camera cannot capture the same experience the audience has whilst watching a live play, making their own choices whether to zoom in on an actor or to look at the whole scene as a picture. The director has to choose to go wholeheartedly with the medium on offer and make a film, rather than a filmed play or opera.
Some of the best Romeo & Juliets that I have seen have been on film. I love the Baz Luhrmann "Romeo + Juliet" with Leonardo di Caprio as much as I loved Zefferelli's. Maybe it is because film is a medium which suits youth, arguably more than theatre. Similarly the Rosi Carmen with Julia Migenes-Johnson and Placido Domingo is as good as any Carmen that I have seen on stage. It just isn't possible to fit a whole cigar factory on a stage, the film makes the best use of the media whereas in the theatre, Peter Brook's pared down chamber version of Carmen makes the most of the intensity of a theatre space.
So don't stop until you've seen at least four or five Richard IIIs, film or stage, Elizabethan or modern dress.
