>>100 You forgot the condoms!

This is one reason I really hope they make this production more widely available (though I doubt they'll bother to). I suspect some of these "update" choices might make more sense when seen in context (whereas some would still just be shitck). For example, my eyes rolled when I saw the mention of face painting. But when a subsequent review said that Hamlet was wrapped in a Danish flag at that point and he was painted like a soccer fan, it worked a little better for me as Hamlet making a political point or mocking his uncle. Still not precisely subtle, but might fit a bit better.

I also wonder if some bits were meant to make the play more accessible to audience members without much exposure to Shakespeare. The first use of the condoms, for example, might make more sense of Laetes' warnings about Hamlet to his Ophelia than musty warnings about her virtue.

It occurred to me that the piano/singing at the start might have been to get any applause for Tom out of the way rather than have it interrupt the flow later.

Genderswitching R & G is not unusual, but changing Hamlet's confidant to a woman looks (from the production photo) as though it could change that dynamic a lot. I hope some subsequent review/"review" talks more about that.

The dancing, though - why? Especially when' KB had to make cuts to get it down to 2:45.