yesthattom: (Default)
[personal profile] yesthattom
Thursday night I saw The Farnsworth Invention on broadway. Written by Aaron Sorkin (of West Wing fame), this play is about the inventor of television and his battle with the president of RCA to (1) invent TV, (2) claim the patent rights to it.

The play hasn’t gotten great reviews and is due to close in a few days (March 2nd) but a few months ago I dashed out (to the internet) to get the best seats I could. It turns out, $102 will get you 2nd row seats on a week-day. I’ve never seen a broadway show so close up. I tell ya... it was worth it. To see the faces of the actors close up was amazing. (I wouldn’t recommend being so close up for a musical since they are staged to be best viewed from the average seat.)

While the play may be historically inaccurate, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Sorkin highlights many themes that are very relevant to current technology issues around privacy, control of information, and the corrupting influence of advertising.

My favorite part? That RCA’s collaboration with AT&T always involved executives from AT&T that were idiots that didn’t understand the future (something I found true when I worked for AT&T Bell Labs and dealt with anyone in higher management.) Ok, the term “idiots” is too general so I’ll be specific: they’re making $25 a pop for something and someone says they could make millions but they have to stop the $25/pop product first... and they reject it. Yes, that was my experience constantly at AT&T.

Watch the trailer.

Hank Azaria was great, even though he used his “Chief Wiggums” voice for the entire show. (I would have put that under a “cut” but I doubt you’ll get tickets to see the show so I haven’t ruined anything for ya). Jimmi Simpson as Farnsworth was excellent.

Date: 2008-02-23 03:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] la-directora.livejournal.com
Oh, crap! That's a play I'd been hoping to see. I didn't realize it was about to close. Damn damn damn. I'm going to have to see if I can find tickets.

"The Color Purple" is closing this weekend, and I never managed to see it, in spite of being friends with one of the crew chiefs. (A good hint as to why they are closing - in spite of having half full houses, the management would never let the crew get good deals or free seats for their friends to fill the houses. Having half full houses all of the time is a fast way to lose momentum and buzz. Filling empty seats with free audience members is usually a GOOD business choice.)

*sigh* I always miss so much theater I want to see. Mostly because Broadway is just too damned expensive.

Date: 2008-02-23 03:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] la-directora.livejournal.com
I just watched the trailer. For the record, the voice he uses in the trailer isn't his Chief Wiggums voice. Far less nasally. Maybe on Thursday he was off and went that direction. But the voice in the trailer is pretty close to the voice he spoke with when I saw him in person. Just a bit crisper, a bit more, "I'm trying to fill a large Broadway house," quality to it. (Though an entire evening of listening to him be Chief Wiggums could be pretty funny.)

I <3 Hank Azaria. Seriously. He's very talented, and very pretty. :)

Date: 2008-02-23 09:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] knell.livejournal.com
Farnsworth is only one of, hmm, three people, maybe more, who could possibly claim the title of "inventor of television". Americans usually ignore Baird (I guess because he wasn't American) and claim Farnsworth as the true inventor of television, in Britain Baird is the man, and Russians usually then chime in with Zworykin (and a number of more obscure guys who were working in the Soviet Union at the time).

In reality it was a series of leapfrogging and interdependent inventions. Baird had proper halftone images by late 1925 and was doing experimental things like transatlantic transmissions and fiddling with colour and (yes) video recording in 1926-27, followed by a regular service of crappy 30-line pictures on the BBC by 1929, the world's first regular television broadcasting service with actual programming.

Baird's mechanical system was heading in entirely the wrong direction, though, and it was ultimately doomed. The development of electronic television was where things were going, and despite Baird pushing his drum-mirror scanners up to a not bad 240 lines the unwieldiness of the technology (intermediate film, anyone?) the Marconi-EMI 405-line system introduced for the BBC's high-def TV service in 1936 (again, the world's first) knocked it out of the park in every aspect.

So Baird had practical television, moving pictures and an actual marketed broadcast service first. Farnsworth did the pioneering work with electronic television, Zworykin had an idea before Farnsworth but no pictures... I'd say television has at least three fathers with an equal claim to the title, and claims of a single inventor always just come down to parochial considerations.

I guess you could argue that this is just a demonstration of the differing priorities and interests of the early broadcasting models - the public-service BBC was enthusiastic to support inventors and democratise access to new technology ("People should see this!"), while over in the US the broadcasting industry was developing in a different direction, and was most concerned with patents and royalties and advertising ("How can we make money out of this?").

Date: 2008-02-23 09:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] baerana.livejournal.com
it's more a demonstration of Sorkin always having an odd obsession w/ Farnsworth

Date: 2008-02-23 02:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] la-directora.livejournal.com
You could also argue that it's a demonstration of Sorkin being a good writer, and knowing that if you try to write a story with three protagonists, you confuse the audience as to whom they are supposed to follow. He was being clear about whose story he was telling - Farnsworth's.

Date: 2008-02-23 03:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] baerana.livejournal.com
yeah, but he's always had a jones for farnsworth - did you ever see sports night?

Date: 2008-02-23 03:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] la-directora.livejournal.com
No, I didn't. Keep meaning to. It's on my Netflix list. :) But even if that's true, that just makes this a happy case where the obsession coincides with good writing. As is often the case with Sorkin.

Date: 2008-02-23 03:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] baerana.livejournal.com
well, what I was commenting on was "I guess you could argue that this is just a demonstration of the differing priorities and interests of the early broadcasting models - the public-service BBC was enthusiastic to support inventors and democratise access to new technology ("People should see this!"), while over in the US the broadcasting industry was developing in a different direction, and was most concerned with patents and royalties and advertising ("How can we make money out of this?")."

I took this to mean - Sorkin was demonstrating how 'over in the US the broadcasting industry was developing in a different direction, and was most concerned with patents and royalties and advertising ("How can we make money out of this?")."

and my point was - Sorkin would have been focused on farnsworth no matter what

Date: 2008-02-23 03:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yesthattom.livejournal.com
I have the Sports Night box set :-)

yes, the farnsworth connection is all over the place.

Date: 2008-02-23 03:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] baerana.livejournal.com
did you spell "aaroon" that way in the tag on purpose and it's some joke I don't get? (i usually don't get jokes, so that would be common )

Date: 2008-02-23 04:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yesthattom.livejournal.com
Just a typo.

December 2015

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789 101112
13141516171819
202122 23242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 9th, 2025 09:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios