farnovision

Variety Sets the Tone?

This review in  Variety may well be a preview of what we can expect from the major, mainstream theatrical press.  A few excerpts: 

Chronicling the birth of television and the ensuing patent war through the clash between an enterprising scientific genius from Utah and a Russian immigrant turned hard-nosed corporate honcho, "The Farnsworth Invention" tells a fascinating story. But despite Des McAnuff's stylish production, tells is the key word here, not dramatizes. Aaron Sorkin's first new play since "A Few Good Men" in 1989 was originally conceived as a screenplay. The plot-heavy drama is light on fully fleshed-out characters or subtext, making it likely to play more satisfyingly when it inevitably reverts to being a film or cable project.

t's interesting that McAnuff, set designer Klara Zieglerova and lighting chief Howell Binkley last teamed on "Jersey Boys." There are distinct similarities here in the foot-on-the-accelerator direction as well as in the physical production and extensive use of direct-address narration to trudge through acres of exposition. The chief difference, though, is that "Jersey Boys" has emotional texture and clearly defined conflicts while "Farnsworth" never fully moves beyond its stream of overexplained factoids.

Post-Enron, do we really need Aaron Sorkin putting a human face on corporate greed and bullying?

The standout performance of the solid ensemble comes from Simpson, who creates the most fully rounded figure onstage. His struggle with depression, alcoholism and frustration over his failure to steer his discovery through the crucial final step make Farnsworth a sad, soulful figure, played by the Broadway newcomer with intelligence and increasingly troubled sensitivity.

The subject matter here is engrossing enough to yield a multi-episode docudrama, and its content ensures that "The Farnsworth Invention" is never uninteresting. But when the playwright enlists his two protagonists to talk the audience through both the human drama and the scientific back story -- pointedly indicating what's important and what will be later on -- the dramaturgical laziness undermines even the most robust narrative.

"Dramaturgical laziness" ?  Sorry, but I'm with the playwright on this one.  That's a tad below the belt...

"A Triumph"

So says amNY.com.

Tackling a plot that revolves around loopholes in the patent system and photoelectron theory must not have been easy. But Sorkin has endowed his characters with crackling dialogue, sympathetic emotions and risky character choices.

Well, amen to that. 

Hank Azaria Defends Sarnoff

Hank Azaria, Broadway.com Buzz:

Q: So, make the case that Sarnoff didn't totally screw over Philo Farnsworth, the young guy who invented television.

A: It's actually an easy case to make. First of all, the truth is that it was the efforts of many, many men that made television happen. It really was! Farnsworth had a piece of it, but unto himself, he wouldn't have gotten there without the efforts of a lot of people—including Sarnoff, who created an environment in which other scientists could do what they did. Even if you made the argument that Farnsworth had [television] completely himself, it was Sarnoff's vision of what to do with it that was unique. Literally, he invented what we know today as television watching and television networks—for better or for worse.

 

It is arguably true that "many, many men" made television happen.  But there was a flex point -- that "breakthrough of epic proportions," when the technology went from "parts to particles" -- that is the pivotal moment in the whole undertaking.  That breakthrough happened in the mind and hand of Philo T. Farnsworth. Farnsworth didn't have just "a piece of it.  He had the piece that made the whole thing possible.  Everything that came after -- NBC-TV, Uncle Milty, Lucy, Neil Armstrong's giant leap -- all stem from that breakthrough.

It is important that such moments are not lost in legend, because these are the moments that transform our culture.

There is a natural conflict here, between the idea that television was so complex that it could only be delivered by a corporation -v- the contribution of individuals.  It's not surprising that Azaria would defend the corporate angle, since that's the character he's playing.

Finally Farnsworth

Apparently a lot of these reviews were published today, in anticipation of the opening this evening.  Here's one from The New York Sun:

Pem Farnsworth, Philo's partner in life and work, died last year at the age of 98. According to Mr. Simpson, she had become friends with Aaron Sorkin. "She was so excited that he was bringing this story to life."

That's true.  Pem met Aaron back in 1995 or there abouts.  He was originally commissioned to write a screenplay based on her book, Distant Vision.  We won't go into what happened to that deal.  But it's hard to imagine her sitting comfortably through a scene where her future husband is portrayed as proposing to her while... drunk. 

And One from the Financial Times

FT.com / Arts & Weekend

The dialogue, meanwhile, gives mostly the appearance of panache: the biggest laugh comes late in the evening from a recycled joke about oral sex. For my taste, Farnsworth relies too heavily on narration; by the time Farnsworth and Sarnoff meet face-to-face I was so grateful for the dramatisation that I didn’t mind finding out that Sorkin had invented their encounter.

In spite of its structural weaknesses, Farnsworth manages to be highly enjoyable. For that, credit the director, Des McAnuff. With only a slight variation on the two-tier set that he used in Jersey Boys, he slides the large company of actors around the stage with characteristic fleetness.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who's heard that "kid walks on the moon/oral sex" joke before... and I agree entirely about the staging.  Hey, I never said it's a BAD play.  Just... wrong.

The First Official Review

Looks like Kurt Loder of  MTV News has done his homework:

Unfortunately, in one instance, Sorkin ventures beyond the realm of taking liberties into factual distortion. In a proceeding at the U.S. Patent Office, we see a judge rejecting Farnsworth's petition and awarding the rights to the contested television technology to Zworykin. This is the opposite of what actually happened. It was Farnsworth who prevailed, and RCA was eventually compelled to pay him $1 million to license his patents. And although the company's ongoing appeals in the case drained the inventor financially, it's not clear that they ground him down into a depressive, alcoholic has-been — Farnsworth went on to do important work in nuclear fusion, radar and electron microscopy, among other things.

The rest of the review is quite favorable -- just an indication of what a conflicting experience this is for anybody who is familiar with the actual story.

Tell Us What You REALLY Think!

The play doesn't open until tonight, but some of the early reviews are starting to trickle in, like this comment and exchange from BroadwayWorld.com:

Aaron Sorkin has glibness down to a science; just take a look at any episode of “The West Wing” or his short lived “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip” if one need proof of his snappy patter. What is so surprising then with his new clinking (ultimately clunker) Broadway play, “The Farnsworth Invention,” is that Sorkin’s signature slickness has been replaced by hesitation on the part of the playwright to make a really good play. Concerning itself with the invention of the television, the process it took to get the product made, and the effects it had on everyone involved may have been an intriguing tale. Instead, Sorkin gives Broadway audiences a banal and at times inaccurate history lesson minus his signature smart-ass attitude dialogue that normally crackles. What is left is a college classroom lecture that gets it wrong, leaving Sorkin and company looking like nothing more than an ass.

There are quite a few interesting comments posted after this post, some addressing the "fact -v- fiction" failures and successes of the play.  There are even a couple of links to my own stuff online, although I'd have to admit that the change of sentiments from March to November are raising even my own eyebrows at this point...