Jonathan Abarbanel And The Goodman’s New Works Legacy

For Jonathan Abarbanel, the Goodman Theatre’s new-works programme matters because it treats play development as part of a theatre’s public responsibility. A premiere is never simply a finished script placed before an audience; it is the visible result of workshops, readings, dramaturgical arguments and repeated encounters with performers.

That approach has helped shape Chicago’s theatrical identity. The Goodman’s support for playwrights has connected large-institution resources with the uncertainty of new writing, creating a bridge between experimental beginnings and fully produced productions. Its legacy can be considered alongside the development systems familiar to Australian audiences.

Feature	Goodman Theatre, Chicago	Australian Parallel
Main purpose	Develop and present new plays	Support new Australian writing and adaptations
Institutional setting	A major not-for-profit theatre with substantial production resources	State companies, independent venues and festivals
Audience relationship	New work enters a broad civic and subscription culture	Audiences often encounter premieres through seasons, festivals and touring
Development tension	Balancing artistic risk with a major theatre’s visibility	Balancing local stories with limited runs and market pressures

A Larger Theatre Taking A Risk

The significance of the Goodman’s new works activity lies in scale. A small company can make an adventurous premiere because its structure is comparatively flexible; a major theatre has more to lose in reputation, ticket income and audience confidence. When a large institution commits to a developing play, it gives that work time, skilled collaborators and a serious public platform.

Abarbanel’s critical perspective is useful here because it resists treating institutional prestige as proof of artistic success. New writing still has to earn attention in the theatre itself. The Goodman’s contribution is the creation of conditions in which a play can be tested before its weaknesses become permanent features of the production.

For audiences in Sydney or Melbourne, the comparison is familiar. Companies such as the Sydney Theatre Company, Melbourne Theatre Company and Belvoir have each faced the question of how much room a main-stage season can give to a work without an established track record. The Goodman’s example shows that commissioning and development are strongest when they are part of the institution’s identity, rather than occasional gestures.

From Workshop To Public Event

A new-works programme changes the meaning of rehearsal. The room becomes a place for discovery rather than the final stage of executing a predetermined design. Actors can reveal a character’s potential, directors can expose structural problems, and playwrights can hear whether a scene operates beyond the page.

This process is especially important for plays that challenge conventional form. A workshop can clarify whether an experimental structure genuinely communicates or merely announces its cleverness. It can also protect a production from mistaking theatrical novelty for dramatic depth.

The Australian market offers a useful point of contrast. A development reading in Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide may lead to a festival presentation, a regional tour or a short independent season rather than a large metropolitan production. The Goodman model demonstrates the value of continuity: artists benefit when development, rehearsal and production are linked by an organisation prepared to stay involved.

The Critic’s Place In The Conversation

Abarbanel’s role is not to celebrate new writing simply because it is new. Criticism tests the claims made for a programme. Does the play enlarge the audience’s understanding? Does its theatrical language serve the story? Has development produced a more searching work, or merely a smoother one?

That scrutiny matters because institutions can become attached to the narrative of discovery. A playwright supported by a respected theatre may receive attention before the work has been fully assessed. Critics help separate institutional investment from artistic achievement, while still recognising how difficult it is to bring an original play into being.

The same balance applies to Chicago’s smaller venues. A storefront theatre ecology often provides the rawest testing ground for new ideas, with modest budgets and close audience contact. The Goodman’s legacy is strongest when it does not replace that ecosystem but contributes another scale of opportunity.

A Chicago Model With Wider Reach

The Goodman’s new-works legacy also reflects Chicago’s civic character. The city has a dense theatre culture, demanding audiences and a tradition of artists moving between storefront spaces, universities and major companies. A significant institution can draw from that network while offering resources that smaller venues cannot reliably provide.

This makes the programme more than a pipeline for commercially attractive titles. It can function as a record of changing artistic concerns: whose stories receive production, which theatrical forms are considered viable and how a city imagines itself through drama. The best new-work programmes leave a mark on the repertoire as well as on individual careers.

Australian theatre professionals will recognise the pressure to demonstrate cultural value while operating within a relatively small market. Touring economics, public funding cycles and the concentration of audiences in Sydney and Melbourne all influence what gets produced. Chicago’s experience suggests that a theatre earns long-term relevance by making space for uncertainty, not by eliminating it.

What The Legacy Asks Of Audiences

The enduring lesson is that new plays need patient audiences. A premiere may be uneven, unfinished in places or more ambitious than its execution. That does not excuse weak craft, but it does make room for criticism that considers process, context and possibility rather than issuing a verdict detached from the work’s circumstances.

For Abarbanel, the Goodman’s programme can therefore be understood as an argument about theatre culture. Institutions should commission boldly, critics should examine rigorously and audiences should remain open to work that has not yet acquired a settled reputation. The relationship among those three groups determines whether a premiere becomes a one-off event or enters the living repertoire.

That principle travels well across the Pacific. Whether attending a new play at Carriageworks, Malthouse Theatre, the Adelaide Festival or a small independent venue, Australian audiences participate in the same exchange between risk and attention. The Goodman’s history offers a compelling case for treating that exchange as central to theatrical life.

Explore Dueling Critics for further commentary on Chicago theatre, new writing and the artists who keep the stage in motion.