This review in Variety may well be a preview of what we can expect from the major, mainstream theatrical press. A few excerpts:
Chronicling the birth of television and the ensuing patent war through the clash between an enterprising scientific genius from Utah and a Russian immigrant turned hard-nosed corporate honcho, "The Farnsworth Invention" tells a fascinating story. But despite Des McAnuff’s stylish production, tells is the key word here, not dramatizes. Aaron Sorkin’s first new play since "A Few Good Men" in 1989 was originally conceived as a screenplay. The plot-heavy drama is light on fully fleshed-out characters or subtext, making it likely to play more satisfyingly when it inevitably reverts to being a film or cable project.
t’s interesting that McAnuff, set designer Klara Zieglerova
and lighting chief Howell Binkley last teamed on "Jersey Boys." There
are distinct similarities here in the foot-on-the-accelerator direction
as well as in the physical production and extensive use of
direct-address narration to trudge through acres of exposition. The
chief difference, though, is that "Jersey Boys" has emotional texture
and clearly defined conflicts while "Farnsworth" never fully moves
beyond its stream of overexplained factoids.Post-Enron, do we really need Aaron Sorkin putting a human face on corporate greed and bullying?
The standout performance of the solid ensemble comes from Simpson, who
creates the most fully rounded figure onstage. His struggle with
depression, alcoholism and frustration over his failure to steer his
discovery through the crucial final step make Farnsworth a sad, soulful
figure, played by the Broadway newcomer with intelligence and
increasingly troubled sensitivity.The subject matter here is engrossing enough to yield a multi-episode
docudrama, and its content ensures that "The Farnsworth Invention" is
never uninteresting. But when the playwright enlists his two
protagonists to talk the audience through both the human drama and the
scientific back story — pointedly indicating what’s important and what
will be later on — the dramaturgical laziness undermines even the most
robust narrative.
"Dramaturgical laziness" ? Sorry, but I’m with the playwright on this one. That’s a tad below the belt…