Why no reviews for Gloria?

It opened last night yet the only review online is from AMNY and it won't even open!

I ultimately liked Gloria after sitting through most of act one with an insufferable bunch of 20-something obnoxious characters. I saw the play as an indictment of that generation. In fact the entire play is a devastating look at a self obsessed generation. For that reason the play held me. Therefore, in spite of its ( mostly) despicable characters, it takes some interesting twists and makes some valid points about a generation that has been given trophies for showing up on a ball field or pooping in a toilet.

While watching Gloria, I wondered why so many of today's 20-30 year playwrights can only write about their generation and their boring problems. (The Spoils is another example.) I'm really tired of hearing whiny young people on stage. Miller wrote Willy Loman in his 30s. Williams wrote Amanda Wingfield in his 30s. O'Neill always wrote about adults because kids are just not that interesting. (One character in GLORIA is 26 and writing his memoirs. That had be be a joke, but no one took it that way. )Why can't today's young playwrights get past their generation's own self importance and create people whose problems deal with something other than some 20-something's wounded sense of entitlement.

^wow, just wow.

Setting aside the whole "write what you know" thing, how could you possibly pass judgment on an entire generation if you were not exposed to their doings by a play?

There is obviously a boatload of reverse-ageist pathology in your comments, not to mention contradiction (you ultimately liked it), but I would suggest that there is no aspect of the human condition that is inherently uninteresting. Uninteresting plays, sure; uninteresting generations, sorry, no. And if you found this people uninteresting, look within. (That's not to suggest you need to change, just that a bit of self-awareness might be in order.)

I think there has been a noticeable (not necessarily linear) paradigm shift in the treatment of adolescents and young 20-somethings in popular entertainment from the 50s to today, shifting from the simplicity of Andy Hardy, Dobie Gillis, and Gidget to the angst of Rebel Without a Cause and Easy Rider (although those guys didn't seem particularly young...) to the unearned faux sophistication and jadedness of Sixteen Candles, Buffy, Juno and their ilk.

And the age of the midlife crisis seems to have lowered as well, from the 40s or 50s (as it was usually portrayed mid-20th-century) to the mid-20s/early 30s often now.

Perhaps it was once thought that you had to have more life experience under your belt before you were dramatically interesting? Imagine a version of FOLLIES with a group of 25-year-olds revisiting the high school where they had performed and had dreams that didn't come true. Some would love that, others would roll their eyes. Both would be valid responses.

Jay G2, I think your comments are ridiculous, what one might call "reverse agism." Even more, it is inaccurate. Was Brandon-Jacob's An Octoroon or Appropriate solely about 20-30 year olds? No, and if they were, it wouldn't matter.

Go see revivals or plays by older playwrights if you don't have interest in millennials.

My review: This play is f**king amazing and you should grab a ticket while you can.

I have no problem with young people writing about their own age group, but I would like a moratorium on people under thirty winning awards and crying, "I've been waiting for this MY WHOLE LIFE!"

Literally true, perhaps, but have a little perspective.

Off topic but I enjoy how McCraney and Jenkins portrayed unhappy young people in Moonlight. The actors who played Chiron as a child and teen were mostly silent and the actors suggested a well of fear and rage boiling under the surface. It made it easy for the audience to sympathize with them in a way you aren't supposed to with Gloria's whiny corporate drones.