« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
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??
Warren Beatty' likes the play:
WARREN Beatty was so impressed with Hank Azaria's turn as TV pioneer David Sarnoff in Broadway's "The Farnsworth Invention," he rushed backstage to greet him after a performance last week at the Music Box.
Azaria was shocked to see Beatty and his wife, Annette Bening, standing there, our spy reports: "He [Beatty] kept saying how wonderful it was." The play by Aaron Sorkin is about the race to claim the patent on the first television.
You suppose Warren knows they got the ending wrong? Or cares?
I didn't think so either.
After all, it's just a play.
I don't know why we (?) are even having this debate about Farnsworth -v- Sarnoff, RCA, Zworykin, etal, when anybody who is even remotely familiar with the subject knows that Scotsman John Logie Baird really invented television, as this clip clearly demonstrates:
Link: Science Friday Archives: The Farnsworth Invention.
In this segment, Ira talks with Des McAnuff, director of the play 'The Farnsworth Invention,' with Jimmi Simpson, the actor who plays the role of Farnsworth in the play, and with Hank Azaria, who plays the role of David Sarnoff.
And here's a link to the audio archives of the broadcast. About halfway through the discussion, the actors and director address the historical details, calling the play "100% truthful and 80% factual."
I suppose it's nice to finally hear somebody closely associated with they play try to justify it's mishandling of an important historical story. But it also seems to me that the play is more like 50% truthful ,because the 20% they got wrong was, like, the whole story (Farnsworth the victor, not the vanquished).
It's interesting, though, to hear these principals dismiss the distortions with the idea that their characters admit that they are "unreliable."
Portraying a point of history dramatically, and then declaring "maybe it didn't happen that way..." Wouldn't it be better to just portray the way it DID happen?
Link: Top 100 most influential people in History
# 28 Nicolas Copernicus
# 29 Socrates (just because of his reputation)
# 30 Philo T. Farnsworth (invented electronic television that most closely resembles contemporary ones)
And BEFORE Moses, no less (#32).
Link: 'Farnsworth Invention' Hits Best Week Yet at Music Box
Broadway's The Farnsworth Invention celebrated its best week yet at the Music Box Theatre. The new play by Aaron Sorkin grossed $346,739.00 for the week ending December 30, 2007.
For those in the cast and crew, this is certainly good news. But, then, in light of the previous post... you do have to wonder.
Yeah, I know, it's "just a play." But like I keep saying, too many people -- like this one -- leave the theater thinking what they've just seen is an accurate portrayal of history, and then arrive at all kinds of wrong conclusions based on what they've just seen:
What brings Philo T. Farnsworth down, what causes him to lose out to the wily David Sarnoff, is that he believes that science should be done in the open. He’s stuck with a problem in implementing television, and he’s delighted to see a fellow engineer show up in San Francisco who wants to talk to him. But the engineer turns out to be an RCA employee who then returns to the East Coast and succeeds in transmitting a clear picture- something that Farnsworth had been unable to do.
Next person who tells me "it's just a play" is going to get hit over the head with the heaviest history book I can get off my bookshelf. Remember what George Santayana said. You do know who he was, right? No, not the guy John Wayne defeated at the Alamo...
Recent Comments