And Once again, the false premise justifies the false conclusion:
The play was rather revisionist about the life of David Sarnoff, humanizing him, and making him almost sympathetic, or at least comprehensible. He wasn’t so bad really, it was just that the Cossacks burned down his house in Russia when he was 10 years old and he had to make sure to burn Farnsworth’s house down before Farnsworth torched the Sarnoff mansion. A little bit reductive I say–to explain much of American media history via childhood trauma but Azaria did a great job in trying to show how the most powerful of men often feel as if they are under siege, always about to go completely under if they don’t stay on top.
"A bit reductive"? That’s putting it charitably.
Of course, it could all be moot, for a while at least, until the stagehands settle their strike. But despite whatever objections I may have to the play ‘s version of history, I hope the strike does not interfere with its opening. Whatever the play’s shortcomings, at least people are learning that somebody DID invent television.