farnovision

"Farnsworth" Gets Nominated

In what some will no doubt regard as a precursor to the Tony Awards, The Farnsworth Invention has garnered a number of nominations for the Drama League Awards:

Among new plays, “Eurydice” is the sole Off Broadway offering on a slate of nominees that includes new Pulitzer Prize winner “August: Osage County,” “The Farnsworth Invention,” “November,” “Rock ‘n’ Roll,” “The Seafarer,” “The 39 Steps” and “Thurgood.”

Included among the nods is "Distinguished Performance of a Play," and "Distingquished Peformance of An Actor" for Jimmi Simpson (Farsworth) and Hank Azaria (Sarnoff).

Nothing against Azaria, but we're rather pulling for Jimmi Simpson, who was positively riveting in the title role.

It's All In The Genes....

Or so one Farnsworth descendent would like to think:

Philo is my great grandfather's brother. Yeah! This is the statue of Philo T. Farnsworth at the Capital Building.

Perhaps it's possible that this claim to fame will have some effect on my children. For one, Philo was a very tall man (as you can see from the statue). Perhaps I've got some tiny bit of his genes, hidden somewhere in my body, that may be passed on to my son in hopes that he will gain some height genes from me (and not the genes that have kept me at 5'2").

Rigby, Idaho tops WIRED list of "Eureka" Places

The latest issue of WIRED magazine includes Philo Farnsworth's potato field among the short list of notable locations that have inspired great leaps in technology:

While plowing a field at age 14, Farnsworth — who had been studying electrons and vacuum tubes — looked out across the even furrows and was struck with an idea. He could project moving images line by line, and the eye would stitch them together: "I have abandoned the old idea of a whirling television disk with its motors and other contraptions. A simple beam of light now does the trick," he would later say. "The moment I discovered tools... which would enable television to be done without moving parts, the invention seemed almost simultaneous; as a matter of fact, simultaneously with the discovery that there was an electron and a photoelectric effect."

Who Invented Television?

Here's a blog post that seems to ask all the right questions:

Who Invented the Television?

Ask that question to anyone today and there is a good chance that you will be met with blank stares. Yet, ask people who invented the light bulb or the radio and the answers will come far more easily. This is an interesting phenomenon, considering that the television is probably the single biggest invention of this century. It is an invention that is so powerful, it changed the very way people live and view the world. It has also become one of the most powerful tools in the world.

So why it is that, hardly anyone knows who invented it? This is precisely what The Farnsworth Invention investigates. The play deals with the life of Philo T Farnsworth, a genius and Mormon farmer, who made the very first successful electronic television. His story isn't just about the invention of the television; it is also about the growth of corporate America and the ultimate demise of the independent inventor. The play follows the legal battle that Farnsworth had over the patent with David Sarnoff, the head of RCA. Even though Farnsworth would win the lawsuit, in many ways, he was among the last of America's great inventors.

However, that last sentence begs one more question: why was it necessary for the playwright to portray Farnsworth as LOSING that litigation, when the real story here is that he WON it?

Sounds like...

...somebody didn't exactly enjoy their night at the theater:

The Farnsworth Invention commits more than the mere mortal sin of being exposition heavy.  It is almost emotionally fraudulent.  When Sorkin wants you to feel a little something for one of the people in the piece, he throws in Cossack soldiers and dying children like he’s tossing Snickers bars into a little kids pillow cast on Halloween.  “Here you go, son, no big deal.”  We’re told about things like alcoholism and depression and shown none of it, with the painful exception of two drastically unintelligible bar scenes where all kinds of espionage is taking place.

So let's recap: historically inaccurate AND "emotionally fraudulent." Just who exactly stole Aaron Sorkin's soul to write this play, anyway? Well, it's not going to matter in another couple of weeks, and that, sadly, will be the last we hear of Philo Farnsworth for another generation.

Philo, We Hardly Knew Ye

I guess that's that:

The new Aaron Sorkin play The Farnsworth Invention, which explores the battle for the patent for the invention of television, will play its final performance at Broadway's Music Box Theatre March 2.

Murky History of Television Gets Murkier | LiveScience

Every now and then somebody else comes along who sees it pretty much the way I do:

Quickly the story moves on to debates regarding the legal issues of patents and intellectual property rights, both important topics, but science is relegated to a secondary consideration. Bizarrely, though Farnsworth won his first courtroom patent battle with RCA (though later losses drained his assets), the play depicts him as losing, obviously for dramatic effect. But the fact that such an artistic work, which seeks to bring Farnsworth to a wider audience, would engage in such blatant revision of history, casts doubts on the legitimacy of the entire venture.

Me, I just don't get how "dramatic license" can ever go so far as to permit the reversal of fundamental facts of history. And like the man says, the willingness to do so casts doubt on the rest of the enterprise.

"Slipping" Into Oblivion?

According to Variety, Broadway box-office grosses slip this time every year, but apparently "The Farnsworth Invention's" box-office drop could be construed as more than just "seasonal."

The seasonal slowdown on Broadway continued last week, with B.O. slipping by around $1.2 million to an estimated $14.3 million for 31 shows on the boards.

Receipts dropped for nearly every production on the Rialto. In terms of percentages, the biggest dip was seen by "The Farnsworth Invention," down by 31% to $186,342, with "Chicago" ($245,076), "Avenue Q" ($233,723) and "The Phantom of the Opera" (dropping $120,000 to $475,303) all off about 20% each.

Of course, over here at "fact -v- fiction" HQ, we might like to think that the loss of interest in Aaron Sorkin's play is directly attributable to it's factual failings, but I suspect there is probably more to it than that. Audiences no doubt forgive all kinds of historical transgressions so long as the play itself is adequately engaging. So there must be something missing besides historical accuracy.

Wasn't It H.L. Mencken...

...who said "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" ?  Case in point:

Here's an excerpt from an otherwise reasonably balanced appraisal of The Farnsworth Invention by By Walter S. Ciciora, Ph.D., a self-professed "Recognized Industry Expert on Cable and Consumer Electronics Issues" from the Feb 1, 2008 editio of CedMagazine.com

The play’s author, Aaron Sorkin of such TV wonders as “The West Wing,” states in his “Author’s Note” that there is a lot of ambiguity and controversy swirling around the story of the Sarnoff/Farnsworth struggle. Each has several biographical books published by various authors, but there is little agreement among the stories. The play presents two versions of the story, one from Sarnoff’s perspective and the other from Farnsworth’s viewpoint.

 

I have not seen this "Authors Note" of which Dr. Ciciora speaks, though I have little doubt that the addition of this comment to the Playbill stems in no small part from the criticism of the play's climax coming from this and other sources. So I guess the playwright gets the last word.

And, I see the logic in making a statement like "there is little agreement among the stories."  Aaron is saying that since there is a multitude of perspectives on the story, there's no harm in adding one more.

That may be true.  Except that, when there is "little agreement among the stories," it is even more important to respect those FACTS about which there can be NO disagreement.  Like the fact that Farnsworth won the litigation with RCA, and that RCA's long-standing policy of collecting royalties, rather than paying them, was finally defeated. 

Rather than clarifying the issues, reversing the one reliable fact that is pivotal to the story only muddles the truth that much further.

Fern Siegel: Stage Door

From The Huffington Post, here's an account that gets the big points right:

Farnsworth is a nuanced, albeit largely fictional account of its controversial genesis. Still, it raises the ultimate question: Who owns the means of production? If you guessed the big, bad corporation, you win.

The question remains, of course, why was it necessary to tell a "largely fictional account" when the real story is so good??