The dramatic focus of Aaron Sorkin’s play The Farnsworth Invention revolves around the idea that Farnsworth had a "light problem." His television camera requires too much light, he anguishes over the solution that must be "right under our noses," and then pretty much gives up when Zworykin comes up with the solution.
This woefully simplistic interpretation of the technical issues that confronted television researchers in the 1920s and 30s is the fundamental, crippling flaw in a drama that claims to be based on history.
Unfortunately, that revisionist interpretation is now being taken as fact, as demonstrated in this blog post by Arthur S. Leonard a professor at New York Law School:
The story is ultimately tragic: the brilliant Farnsworth, who had the basic scientific insight making television possible as a teenager, managed to bring the concept to the point of realization — almost, lacking one last technical fix, which was managed by Vladimir Zworykin, a scientist employed by Sarnoff at NBC.
Mr. Leonard is essentially correct that solving the "light problem" inherent in early television camera tubes was a "technical fix." Unfortunately, RCA built its entire "we invented television" PR campaign on Zworykin’s having come up with that "technical fix."
Now, this play completely overlooks the fact that Farnsworth made many contributions to to improving camera sensitivity, portraying him instead as inept and incapable. And, as we can see from posts like Mr. Leonard’s, the play will only perpetuate those myths, rather than correcting them.
It’s sad to think that Pem Farnsworth devoted the last 35 years of her life to setting the record straight, and wound up selling the rights to her book to somebody who has made such a hash of it.
I had the pleasure of seeing The Farnsworth Invention last Friday at The Music Box and have to say, it was wonderful!
Being a huge fan of Hank Azaria, I expected to be entertained by him, but found myself amazed with much of the other cast as well.
Touching, humorous, intelligent, and brilliantly performed-I highly recommend it and will most likely see it again!
I was relating what I concluded from the play. Having subsequently read quite a bit on-line about Farnsworth, my interest being sparked by the play, I now know that the play simplifies things considerably.
And, of course, here is the problem. Many people will form their conclusions based on the play without doing further research, no matter how much warning is given that the play is a dramatic imagining of the story. One has only to attend any biographical play “based on the life” of a significant figure to come away with an oversimplified impression of the character’s life.
I was impressed, reading further on-line about Farnsworth, to learn that he ultimately triumphed in the patent litigation… I wish Sorkin’s play had managed to include that point, and not to paint the rest of his life as a virtual loss, when the biographical material on-line indicates that he went on to make other significant inventions, to hold a huge number of patents, and to have a largely successful career after the television invention dispute.
This only shows how far large companies will go in cheating Americans. The so called Patient Office is just a front for big business. There is no protection for people with good ideas. It’s the only GOVN. Law which has no TEETH. This is by design, so if someone tries to protect there idea, they will loose by reason of no money to fight big business.
We are supposed to be a country of laws for the people. INSTEAD, of “…by the people and for the people”, it’s by the rich and for the rich, or big business, maybe the same thing.