farnovision

And Now... the Podcast!

Lying On The Beach Talks Fact Vs. Fiction Behind Aaron Sorkin’s Broadway Play “The Farnsworth Invention”.

Did Emmy-Award winning scribe Aaron Sorkin stick to the truth or play fast with the facts in his Broadway play, “The Farnsworth Invention” about the invention of TV and the patent war that ensured?

Lying on The Beach gets the real scoop from Paul Schatzkin the expert and author of “The Boy Who Invented Television” about the life of Philo T. Farnsworth. ...  It is a fascinating tale about creating entertainment, rewriting history, and setting the record straight

I guess "Lying on the Beach" is a far preferable to lying from the stage....

The Lessons of "Farnsworth"

Silicon Valley columnist Vindu Goel recently saw The Farnsworth Invention, and offers some intriguing suggestions why the play is pertinent for today's tech-revved audiences:

Although Sorkin's fictionalized account distorts some important historical facts - shame on him - it's great fun to watch. (Imagine the witty dialogue of "West Wing" coming out of the mouths of geeks.)

And the tale offers some enduring lessons about business and technology:

This is probably a far more constructive discussion than the whole "fact -v- fiction" thing (although, I guess, if you're going to discuss the contemporary implications of an historical allegory, it's useful to have your history straight...)

Better Than Poke In The Eye

One writer puts The Farnsworth Invention on his "best" side of his best/worst 2007 theater ledger:

8. The Farnsworth Invention

Okay. Historical liberties aside, Aaron Sorkin’s play about the patent race on television is both inspiring and compelling.

Of course, I can't help but comment:  if he thought the play was "both inspiring and compelling," what would he make of the storty without thouse "historical liberties"???

Oh, Those Pesk Details Again

Link: The Farnsworth Invention, by James E. O'Neal. 

Granted, it's all very "technical," but this might be one of the most comprehensive blog entries I've read yet that explains all this teeth-gnashing over a Broadway play:

In taking issue with a particular chamber of commerce’s version of the landing of the Mayflower, Will Rogers once exclaimed, “Don’t be misled by history, or any other unreliable source.” Sorkin seems to have followed this recipe in putting together his latest drama.

While it is admirable that the playwright has rescued the names of Philo Farnsworth, David Sarnoff and Vladimir Zworykin from the legion of the obscure—names that are virtually unknown to many of the present generation—it is lamentable that he has taken so many, many liberties with the facts surrounding their lives.

Blogger James O'Neal then offers what may well be the most concise explanation I have read yet of the differences between Farnsworth's Image Dissector and Zworykin's Iconoscope, and why Farnsworth's victory in the litigation (that is portrayed in the play as a defeat) is such a critical point of history. 

For example, what drama there is in The Farnsworth Invention revolves around Farnsworth's inability to come to grips with his "light problem," but Mr. O'Neal addresses the reality much more effectively:

While both approaches worked, by today’s standards they were relatively insensitive to light. Early television studio base lighting for an iconoscope was around 1,000 foot-candles. The image dissector required even more.

Mr. O'Neal then does an exemplary job of explaining how Farnsworth's fundamental concept of the "electrical image" was the indispensable ingredient in making television work.  That was the concept that RCA tried -- and, dear God, failed -- to appropriate for Zworykin in the litigation with Farnsworth.

Mr. O'Neal then goes on to outline some of the play's lesser (but no less egregious) historical transgressions.  Given his mastery of the the technical issues involved, he is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Oh? Really?

Like me, this blogger came to the show as an avid fan of Aaron Sorkin's previous work. I, too, always felt a twinge of sadness at the final fade-out of a West Wing episode.  "That's it?" I'd wonder.  "It's over?  Now what am I gonna do?"  Turning of the TeeVee was usually the best solution (at least until we started watching The Daily Show).

But when I read:

So I stepped into The Music Box this afternoon fully prepared to enjoy the story of how David Sarnoff basically stole television from inventor Philo Farnsworth. And did.

...then I realize how much The Farnsworth Invention misses the point. The truth is: Sarnoff and RCA tried to steal television from Farnsworth and failed.  The play lands on the note that Farnsworth lost his ligitation against RCA, but that's not what happened.

There are three reasons why the name of Farnsworth was lost to history.  At the top of the list is the fact that he was not survived by a company that could promote his legacy.  The Farnsworth Television and Radio Company -- which based much of its commercial appeal on the slogan "First in Television" -- faltered in the marketplace in 1949, just as television was becoming an industry.  (Oh, and, for the record: the Farnsworth portfolio still had many patents that were valuable well into the 1950s.) It was only then that RCA could begin to make its false claims that Zworykin invented the Iconoscope for RCA in 1923, etc etc.  The field was clear once there was no Farnsworth Company left to challenge such ludicrous claims.

But within the time frame depicted in this play, Farnsworth was totally victorious, and that is the legacy that many of us had hoped to see portrayed in what is the first "popular entertainment" to approach this story.  It is just unimaginable how such a heroic victory can be turned into such an ignominious defeat.

Ah, So That's What He Meant

It never dawned on me that when the David Sarnoff character says in his opening speech that "the ends do justify the means," that he was talking about the play itself...
Link: Show Showdown: The Farnsworth Invention.

The Farnsworth Invention is a clever, well-written, exciting piece of semi-fiction. Those expecting it to be more are clearly watching the wrong play: I mean, this is a show about how television -- the thing that brings you the latest dose of Kitchen Nightmares, but only after reruns of Cops -- was essentially stolen. It bends truth on purpose ("The ends justify the means; that's what the means are there for")...

Now, I just have to check my Funk & Wagnalls for the definition of "semi-fiction."

Patent Deform, Anyone?

Now for something completely different.

At the heart of this whole "Farnsworth -v- Sarnoff" story is the American patent system, which has changed considerably in the 200+ years since the Constitution first authorized Congress to protect the rights of "authors and inventors."  Now there is legislation brewing that would make the already crippled patent system even more agreeable to the Corporate Monoliths that Rule the World.

I have an occasional e-mail correspondence going with a fellow in Newport Beach CA name of George Margolin, who is an inventor and a fan of my Philo biography.   George is also a crusader against pending legislation that sounds like it will hopelessly screw up and already hopelessly screwed up patent system in the United States. The subject is apparently one of the first on the docket for when the Congress reconvenes after the holiday recess.

George just sent me this article from the OC Register that seems to offer a pretty good summary of the situation. 

The gist of George's argument is that patent (and copyright) law has been steadily "reformed" in such a way as to curry the favor of those giant corporations which now own most of the patents in the world, to the disadvantage of the actual "inventors" the Constitution was written to protect.

If you're interested in the subject, then you should also look up Thom Hartmann's book, "Unequal Protection," which describes how the corporate domination of America's economy stems from an obscure 19th Century Supreme Court decision that extends the "equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment to "unnatural persons," i.e. corporations.

It would all make Mussolini very proud..   

Blank New World: Fact & Fiction

Another blogger in the peanut gallery chimes in on  Fact & Fiction.

Although I mostly enjoyed Aaron Sorkin's sweeping saga The Farnsworth Invention, I felt cheated by the denouement, in which small-time inventor Philo Farnsworth squares off against RCA honcho David Sarnoff in a patent lawsuit that would lead to the creation of television. It's a pivotal plot point, and in the play Goliath defeats David. But in real life, just the opposite happened.

"small time inventor"?? Sweetheart, this guy just invented TELEVISION for christsfuckingsake.  What's "small time" about THAT??

Pouring It On: The New Yorker

After devoting a full page-and-half to the other big play that opened the same week -- Tracy Letts' "August: Osage County" -- The New Yorker  offers a whole two paragraph's for Aaron Sorkin's The Farnsworth Invention.  Here's one of them: 

To enjoy the play’s historical elements, one must push past Sorkin’s shiny competence and search for his characters’ passions and demons. Sadly for Sorkin, he has been paired with the director Des McAnuff (of “Jersey Boys” and “Dracula: The Musical”). McAnuff is interested in slick projects, not in challenging writers. Together, he and Sorkin have built a toy train set for boys—prefabricated, no inspiration required. Of the two protagonists—who step out of the action from time to time, to speak to the audience—Simpson brings something to the role that Azaria doesn’t allow himself: complication and subtext. Whenever Simpson leaves the stage, Sorkin’s train leaves, too—and so does our attention.

Clearly, this reviewer thinks the production has problems that are far greater than the lack of "history" in this "historical drama."  The real problem, as many other reviewers have suggested, is the lack of drama. 

The End Already Near?

From last Friday, another item from our friends at the New York Post:

Trailing the pack is Aaron Sorkin's "The Farnsworth Invention," about the battle between Philo Farnsworth, who invented television, and David Sarnoff, who stole the idea. The reviews for the show were mixed, and the box office is taking in less than $50,000 a day, sources say.

Cast members have been told that unless business picks up, the patent will soon expire on "The Farnsworth Invention."

If that's true, then it's a real shame. Most of the performers associated with this production have been with this thing for the better part of a year. They, at least, deserved better.