farnovision

Isn't That Special

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.

Baird Again

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:

NPRs "Science Friday" Discusses "Farnsworth"

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?

Just behind Copernicus

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).

A "Second Life" for Farnsworth?

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.

Do We See The Problem Yet?

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...

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.