Frequently dubbed a ‘cultural desert’, Hong Kong is not typically associated with high art or theatrical experimentalism. Better known for its shopping malls and skyscrapers, the former British colony – and one of the ‘four Asian dragons’ (see p. 86, note 14) – is primarily a world financial centre, and finding cultural opportunities there can be challenging. In regards to Shakespeare, who constituted an important component in the colonial education system, the territory equally has not been known for its avant-garde proclivities. Approaches to Shakespeare, first performed in 1867 for the purpose of entertaining the expatriate community, have tended to be highly conservative/canonical, and theatre companies have usually shied away from political or theatrical radicalism and, indeed, from adapting the plays for local appreciation. And even though more recently (that is, post-1997), thanks largely to the efforts of directors like Daniel S. P. Yang and Law Ka-ying, there have been growing attempts to localize Shakespeare and to adapt his works in a more bold and progressive manner, Hong Kong, in cultural matters, continues to ‘manifest itself officially in the most hidebound and reactionary terms’. It is not surprising, then, that Shakespeare in Hong Kong – which is positioned on the fringes of two Asian giants (China and Japan) – is on the sidelines of Shakespeare in Asia studies. It is not surprising, either, that the announcement that a Cantonese theatre troupe would be performing Titus Andronicus, one of the less critically acclaimed Shakespeare plays (Edward Ravenscroft notoriously described it as ‘a heap of rubbish’), at the Globe to Globe Festival did not inspire high expectations.